|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Jonathan
Ehling submitted an
application to allow for the construction of a new single family dwelling.
Jonathan
Ehling and Hong Hu, appeared
before members of the Board of Variance at the Hearing.
BURNABY PLANNING AND
BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
This property was the subject of an
appeal before the Board on 2016 March 03 (BV # 6214). Three variances were sought to allow for the construction
of a new
single family dwelling with a detached garage observing: a) a building height of
29.6 ft., measured from the rear average elevation, where a maximum height of
29.5 ft. is permitted for sloped roofs, b) a building height of 31.3 ft.,
measured from the front average elevation, where a maximum height of 29.5 ft.
is permitted for sloped roofs, and c) a front yard setback of 33.75 ft. where a front yard
setback of 41.48 ft. is required. The first a) and second b) appeals concerning building
height were
supported by this Department and the Board of Variance granted both appeals.
The third c) appeal was not supported by this Department, and the Board of
Variance denied the appeal.
Subsequently, in response to the
concerns raised at the hearing, the applicant has revised the proposal. The
revised design locates the principal building 2.5 ft. further from the front
property line, which results in a 2.5 ft. reduction in the distance between
the principal building and detached garage; otherwise, except for a small
reduction in building height, the proposal is essentially the same as in the
previous 2016
March 03 appeal.
The subject site, which
is zoned R4 Residential District, is located in the Marlborough
neighbourhood, in which the age and condition of single and two family
dwellings vary. This interior lot, approximately 60 ft. wide and 112 ft.
deep, fronts onto Oakglen Drive to the northeast. Abutting the subject site
to the northwest, southeast, directly
across Oakglen
Drive to the northeast and across the lane to the southwest are single family dwellings. The
site observes an upward slope of approximately 14.3 ft. in the north-south
(front to rear) direction. Vehicular access to the site is provided from the rear lane.
The applicant proposes
to redevelop the site with a new single family dwelling including an
accessory detached garage,
which is
the subject of four appeals.
The first a) appeal would permit a
distance of 12.22 ft. from the accessory detached garage to the principal
building, with a further roof projection of 1.5
ft., where a minimum distance of 14.8 ft. is required.
The Bylaw
requires a separation between buildings on the same lot in order to prevent
massing impacts on the occupants of the subject property and neighbouring
properties, as well as to provide for sufficient outdoor living space.
This variance relates
directly to the proposed revised siting of the principal building. In order
to achieve the greater front yard setback, the proposed dwelling has been
located 2.5 ft. closer to the accessory detached garage.
The proposed
22.0 ft. wide by 20.5 ft. deep detached garage would be located in the south
corner of the site, in the rear yard. The garage would observe a 4.0 ft.
setback from the rear lane and a 4.0 ft. setback from the northeast side
property line, which are the minimum setbacks required for an accessory
building. The principal dwelling, approximately 48.5 ft. wide and 36.5 ft.
deep (excluding the front porch and covered rear deck), would overlap almost
the entire width of the detached garage. However, because the south corner of
the proposed dwelling is recessed, only a 10 ft. section of the overlap area
provides less than the required separation.
Given the
relatively small scale of the encroachment, and the small number of windows
facing the garage (one kitchen window), the reduced separation between the
two structures would have few impacts on the interior of the dwelling.
With respect
to outdoor living space, this appeal would marginally reduce the green area
available on this site, but a sizable outdoor living area (over 1,000 sq.
ft.) would remain in the rear yard to the northwest of the proposed detached
garage.
Further,
since the compromised separation between the two structures would occur in
the interior of the site, approximately 17 ft. and 34 ft. away from southeast
and northwest side property lines respectively, this relaxation would have
little massing impacts on adjacent properties.
In view of the above, this Department does not object to the
granting of the first a) appeal.
The second a) and third
b) appeal concern building height and are co-related.*
The second b) appeal proposes a
building height of 29.9 ft., measured from the rear average elevation, where
a maximum height of 29.5 ft. is permitted for sloped roofs.
The third c) appeal proposes a
building height of 31.15 ft., measured from the front average elevation,
where a maximum height of 29.5 ft. is permitted for sloped roofs.
The intent of the Bylaw
in regulating building height is to mitigate the massing of new buildings or
structures and their impacts on neighbouring properties.
Both height variances differ
slightly from those previously requested in the 2016 March 03 appeal, with the second b)
variance (rear elevation) slightly increased (by 0.3 ft.) and the third c)
variance (front elevation) slightly reduced (by 0.15 ft.). These differences
are related to the revised siting of the dwelling, further away from the
front property line, in relation to the sloping terrain of the subject site.
Considering the minor nature of these differences, this Department’s comments
remain similar to those on the previous appeals.
In both cases, the height
calculation is based on existing natural grade at the rear and front
elevation respectively. As noted above, the grade difference from the south
(rear) to the north (front) corner of the subject site contributes to the
excess height of both elevations. The proposed height encroachment of 0.4 ft.
and 1.65 ft. would be limited to a small roof peak area of the main roof.
This roof encroachment would occur approximately 10 ft. away from the front face
of the subject dwelling and approximately 18 ft. away from the rear face.
Both the scale of the encroachment and the substantial setbacks from the
front and rear property line would be mitigating factors with respect to the
massing impacts of the overheight portion of the residence on the
neighbouring property across Oakglen Drive to the northeast and across the
lane to the southwest.
The height encroachment area, when
viewed from the neighbouring properties to the northwest and southeast, would
be generally limited to small triangular roof peak areas on the main roof.
Again, considering the small scale of these encroachments, which are related
to the downward sloping terrain in the south-north direction, little impact
is expected on the neighbouring properties to the northwest and southeast.
In summary, given the site’s
challenging topography and the proposal’s limited impacts on neighbouring
properties and the existing streetscape, this Department does
not object to the granting of the second b) and third c) variances.
The fourth d) appeal
requests a front
yard setback of 36.25 ft., measured to the
front porch posts of the proposed single family dwelling, with a further
projection for roof eaves of 1.5 ft., where front yard averaging
requires a minimum setback of 41.48 ft.
In 1991, Council
responded to public concerns regarding the bulk and massing of newer and
larger homes that were being built in existing neighbourhoods. Several text
amendments to the Zoning Bylaw were made to address these concerns, including
a requirement to set new construction back from the front property line based
on an average of the two dwellings on either side of the subject site. The
intent was to help to ease new construction into existing street frontages
with minimal impact.
As a reminder, in this
case, the front yard averaging calculations are based on the front yard
setbacks of the two dwellings at 5615 and 5625 Oakglen Drive immediately
northwest of the subject site and on the front yard setbacks of the two
dwellings at 5645 and 5655 Oakglen Drive immediately southeast of the subject
site. These front yard setbacks are 39.6 ft., 35.3 ft., 43.9 ft. and 47.1 ft.
respectively.
As noted above, the
front yard setback is measured to the front porch posts. With the exception
of the two bay windows at the main floor and two bay windows at the upper
floor, the main body of the proposed dwelling would be set back an additional
2.5 ft., resulting in a distance of 38.75 ft. to the front property line.
This is an improvement from the 36.25 ft. distance proposed in the 2016 March
03 appeal (incorrectly noted as 35.25 ft. in this Department's previous
comments). In addition, there are 13 ft. wide by 8 ft. deep open decks (with
corner posts) proposed on both the main floor and the upper floor at the
northeast corner of the dwelling.
The proposed revised
siting would place the subject dwelling 0.95 ft. behind the neighbouring
dwelling to the northwest and 7.65 ft. in front of the neighbouring dwelling
to the southeast.
With respect to the
neighbouring dwelling to the northwest, if the actual ‘corner to corner’
relationship is considered, the subject dwelling would project 6.96 ft. in
front of this residence (according to the provided survey, this residence
observes a distance of 45.7 ft. from the front property line to its southeast
corner). However, if the recessed corner areas (open decks) are considered,
the north corner of the subject dwelling would be 1.05 ft. behind the
southeast corner of this neighbouring residence. Also, the upper floor is
proposed to be further set back 2.5 ft. from the main floor face at the
northwest side elevation. This increased setback, in combination with the
proposed 6.7 ft. northwest side yard setback, and the absence of facing
windows in the neighbouring dwelling, would mitigate the massing impacts of
the proposal.
With respect to the
neighbouring dwelling to the southeast, if the actual ‘corner to corner’
relationship is considered, the subject dwelling would project 5.15 ft. in
front of this residence. However, it appears that the revised siting of the
subject dwelling would be sufficient to maintain the existing views from the
front feature windows of this neighbouring dwelling, which are oriented to
the northeast.
The revised siting of
the proposed dwelling would be 3.12 ft. closer to the front property line
than the existing one-storey dwelling on the subject site (which observes a
39.37 ft. front yard setback) or only 0.62 ft. closer if the main body of the
dwelling is considered. Therefore, the existing horizontal massing
relationship between the subject property and the adjacent properties to the
northwest and southeast would be similar.
With regard to the
broader neighbourhood context, there is an established block front, with the
majority of lots observing average front yard setbacks of approximately 42
ft., with deeper front yards (averaging approximately 47.5 ft.) to the
southeast of the subject site and shorter front yards (averaging
approximately 36 ft.) toward the northern terminus of the subject block. The
revised siting of the proposed dwelling would provide for a better transition
between these varying frontage depths than the previous design.
Lastly, it is noted that
the proposed building depth is only 36.5 ft., significantly less than the 60
ft. depth permitted in the R4 District. This reduced building depth reflects
the applicant’s efforts to address the constraints imposed by the historic
development pattern of the area, specifically the large front yard setbacks,
and the more recently adopted separation requirements between detached
garages and principal buildings.
Since this revised
proposal appears to
reach a balance between minimizing impacts on the neighbourhood and meeting
the applicant’s development needs, this Department
does not object the granting of this third c) variance.**
The Administrative Officer to the Board
advised of two corrections to the Planning Comments:
*The
second b) and third c) appeal concern building height and are co-related.
**this
Department does not object to the granting of this fourth d) variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S
COMMENTS:
A petition letter was received from
residents/occupants at 5645 and 5655 Oakglen Drive in support of the
variances being requested.
A letter was received on April 07,
from a neighbour, in opposition to the appeal. They raised concerns
regarding loss of the neighbourhood character, and loss of sunlight, views
and privacy.
No further correspondence was
received regarding this appeal.
|