|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Hitesh Neb submitted an application
to allow for the construction of a new home at 4679 Alpha Drive. Mr. Neb
requested the variances due to the irregular lot shape and the slope of the
property.
Mr. Neb and Mr. Shen appeared before
members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
This property was the
subject of an appeal before the Board on 2016 July 07 (BV # 6237). Five variances were sought to allow for the construction
of a new
single family dwelling with a detached garage observing: a) a distance of
5.60 ft. from the accessory building to the principal building where a
minimum distance of 14.8 ft. is required b) a building height of 22.65 ft.
where a maximum height of 19.0 ft. is permitted for flat roofs, c) a principal building depth of 57.27 ft. where a
maximum building depth of 38.23 ft. is permitted, d) a front yard setback of 16.39 ft.
where a minimum front yard setback of 24.9 ft. is required and e) to permit
retaining walls at the Alpha Drive frontage where no fence or other structure is
permitted in front of the face of the principal building facing the front
yard. The
first a) and third c) appeals concerning distance between two structures and
building depth
were supported by this Department and the Board of Variance granted both
appeals. The second c) appeal concerning building height, while was supported
by this Department,
was denied by the Board of Variance. The fourth d) and fifth e) appeals
concerning front yard and retaining walls were not supported by this
Department,
and the Board of Variance denied both appeals.
Subsequently, in response to the
concerns raised by the neighbours at the hearing, the applicant has revised
the proposal. The revised proposal lowers the principal building by 3.5 ft.
as compared to the previous proposal, which results in a 1.61 ft. reduction
to building height. Also, a 0.18 ft. reduction to the principal building
length along the north (side) property line is proposed, which results in a
0.25 ft. reduction to the building depth of and a 0.16 ft. increase to the
front yard setback. In addition, the previously indicated retaining walls
within the front yard are no longer proposed, and therefore, there is no
longer a need for a variance; otherwise, the proposal is essentially the same
as in the previous 2016
July 07
appeal.
As a reminder, the
subject property is located in the Brentwood Park area, in a mature single
family R10 District neighbourhood that is characterized by low-scale single
family dwellings. The R10
District in this area
was established through a resident-initiated area rezoning process in order
to control the form and character of new development, including fences and
other structures. This
irregular interior lot, which is roughly kite-shaped, is approximately 52 ft.
deep along the southwest (side) property line and has a frontage of
approximately 115 ft. on Alpha Drive to the southeast. Abutting the subject
site to the southwest and across the lane to the north are single family
dwellings. Vehicular access to the
site is proposed to be relocated from Alpha Drive to the north lane. The site
observes a substantial downward slope of approximately 10 ft. in the
north-south direction.
A new proposal for a
single family dwelling with detached garage is proposed for the subject site,
for which four variances are requested.
The first a),
third c) and fourth d) appeals will be discussed first. Comments on the
second b) appeal will follow.
The first a)
appeal would permit a distance of 5.60 ft. from the accessory building to the
principal building, with further roof projections of 0.15 ft., where a
minimum distance of 14.8 ft. is required.
The Bylaw
requires a separation between buildings on the same lot to ensure that the
overall massing of the building does not have a negative impact on the
occupants of the buildings and neighbouring properties, as well as to provide
for sufficient outdoor living space.
Since the relation between the two
structures in the revised proposal is not changed as compared to the previous
proposal, this Department’s comments remain similar to the comments under the
2016 July 07
appeal.
The proposal locates the detached
garage and the principal building side by side along the north (side)
property line, with the garage placed right at the west (rear) property line.
A 5.6 ft. wide pathway is proposed between the two structures, which leads to
an approximately 700 sq. ft. backyard area. Only two small windows, in a
bedroom and bathroom, would face the garage, so few impacts are expected on
the future occupants/users of the subject site. The garage would be aligned
with the detached garage on the adjacent property to the west and with the
detached garage directly across the lane to the north. Therefore, the reduced
distance between the two structures would not impact these neighbouring
properties.
It could be argued that the reduced
distance between the two structures would affect views from the neighbouring
residence at 4572 Napier Street, across the lane to the north, which the
proposed principal building would fully overlap. However, a mature hedge on
the rear property line of this property provides extensive screening.
Further, the proposed dwelling provides the required side yard setback from
the north property line.
In view of the above, this
Department does not object
to the granting of this first a) appeal.
The third c) appeal is for a principal building depth of 57.02, with
further roof projections of 2.95 ft., where a maximum
building depth of 38.23 ft. is permitted.
The Bylaw’s intent in limiting
building depth is to prevent the creation of dwellings that present a long
imposing wall, such that the massing of the building impacts neighbouring
properties.
Since the proposed 0.25 ft.
reduction to the building depth, although an improvement does not essentially
change the massing relation between the proposed dwelling and the
surroundings, this Department’s comments remain similar to the comments under
the 2016
July 07 appeal.
The building depth calculation is
based on the building depth as projected onto the lot depth, which is the line
joining the center points of the front and rear property lines. Due to the
site geometry, this line is angled in relation to these property lines and
measures only 84.97 ft. The siting of the proposed dwelling is also slightly rotated in
relation to the lot depth line. Measured along this line, the proposed
projected building depth is 57.02 ft., which exceeds the maximum permitted
building depth by 18.79 ft. It is noted that the existing building depth, as
constructed in 1957/60, is approximately 50.0 ft., which is legal non-conforming with
respect to current Zoning Bylaw requirements.
The proposed
principal building resembles a rough “L” in plan view, with the longer wing
(17.97 ft. wide by 55.75 ft. long) oriented in the east-west direction and
the shorter wing (23.29 ft. wide by 47.25 ft. long) oriented in the
north-south direction. Given this design, and the rotated orientation
of the subject dwelling with respect to the front property line, the proposal
would
not create a long “wall” effect as viewed from the immediately adjacent
property to the southwest and properties across Alpha Drive to the southeast.
With respect to the neighbouring properties across the lane to the north,
these properties front onto Napier Street and observe generous rear yard
setbacks (approximately 70 ft. deep). In addition, the elevated position of
these residences in relation to the subject dwelling (the terrain continues
ascending to the north) largely mitigates any massing impacts.
Further, the
unique site geometry and orientation of the subject site creates design
challenges and limits the development options available on this site.
Given these factors and
the relatively low impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties, this
Department does not object to the granting of this third c) appeal.
The fourth d) appeal
requests a front yard setback of 16.55 ft., measured to the foundation of the
proposed single family dwelling, with a further projection for roof eaves of
2.95 ft., where a minimum front yard setback of 24.9 ft. is required from the
Alpha Drive property line.
The intent of the Bylaw
is to mitigate the massing impacts of new buildings or structures on neighbouring
properties and to preserve a unified streetscape.
Since the proposed 0.16 ft. increase
to the front yard, although an improvement does not essentially change the
massing relation between the proposed dwelling and the surroundings, this
Department’s comments remain similar to the comments under the 2016 July 07 appeal.
The proposed front yard
setback is measured to the foundation at the southeast corner of the longer
wing, which runs parallel to the north property line. Similarly, the
southeast corner of the shorter wing observes a slightly larger setback of
16.88 ft. Due to the rotated orientation of the proposed dwelling with respect to
the front property line and the proposed “L” shape, these distances
gradually increase up to approximately 28.66 ft. and 32.5 ft. at the
outermost (northeast and southwest) corners of the dwelling respectively, or
to approximately 34.5 ft. at the center of the dwelling where the two wings
connect. As a result, the front yard encroachment of up to 8.51 ft. is
limited to two small triangular areas at the southeast portions of the two
wings. Most of this area would appear as a one and a half storey form.
It is noted that the
current dwelling observes a front yard setback of approximately 23.5 ft.,
slightly less than the minimum required, and is legal non-conforming with
respect to
current Zoning Bylaw requirements.
With respect to the
neighbouring property to the west, considering the small scale of the front
yard encroachment and the generous distance of approximately 23 ft. to the
shared (west) side property lines, no massing impacts are expected on this
property. Similarly,
given the relatively minor nature of the variance, in combination with the
distant siting, the front yard encroachment would not be prominent from the
properties on the opposite side of Alpha Drive. With respect to the
neighbouring properties across the lane to the north, the encroachment areas
would not be visible due to the angled alignment of Alpha Drive, and would
therefore have no impacts. In
addition, the proposed dwelling would exceed the required front yard setback
at the side (north) property line.
In the broader neighbourhood
context, the proposed rotated placement of the subject dwelling would not be
out of the ordinary in the immediate context, in which many of the
neighbouring homes either front different streets or feature a staggered
alignment with adjacent homes.
However, given that the encroaching
portions of the proposed residence are relatively small, it would be feasible
to construct a dwelling that observes the required front yard setback with
only moderate changes to the proposed design. As such, while recognizing the
challenging geometry of the site and the absence of any anticipated negative
impacts on adjacent properties, this Department cannot support the granting
of this fourth d) variance.
The second b) appeal proposes a
building height of 21.04 ft. where a maximum height of 19.0 ft. is permitted
for flat roofs.
The intent of the Bylaw is to
mitigate the massing of new buildings or structures and their impacts on
neighbouring properties.
In this case, the height calculation
is based on the building height base line, which is the imaginary line
joining the mid-points of the projected front and rear lines of the building.
This calculation method applies specifically to the R10 District and is intended
to accommodate sloped sites, such as the subject site. However, the irregular
geometry and skewed orientation of the subject site, combined with the
divergent direction of the slope, makes it difficult to meet this
requirement.
As noted above, the proposed revised
siting of the subject dwelling, 3.5 ft. lower as compared to the previous
proposal, results in a 1.61 ft. lesser variance with respect to building height.
There is essentially no height encroachment when the dwelling is viewed from
the rear (west) elevation. The proposed height encroachment of up to 2.04 ft.
extends from approximately the top of the window line at the upper storey to
the top of the flat roof above, when viewed from the front elevation. It is
difficult to establish the exact extent of the encroachment, given the
proposed rotated siting of the dwelling in relation to the front property
line in combination with the angled alignment of the front and rear property
lines.
The proposed 17.93 ft. wide by 51.22 ft.
long upper storey extends over the longer wing only, which runs parallel to
the north side property line. The proposed area of encroachment at the upper
floor is set back approximately 26 ft. from the rear (west) property line.
Due to the angled alignment of the front property line, the proposed area of
encroachment is set back varying distances, from approximately 22.5 ft. at
the southeast corner to over 50 ft. at the opposite southwest corner. These
measurements exclude the proposed large roof overhangs, facing to the south,
which project into these setbacks. Considering the generous setbacks, the
excess height would have relatively small impacts on views from the
neighbouring properties across Alpha Drive to the southeast and the adjacent
property to the west. When viewed from the properties across the lane to the
north, the proposed dwelling would appear as 14.5 ft. to 15.8 ft. high, given
the grades along the north property line.
Given that this request would not
jeopardize the low-scale character of the streetscape, this Department does
not object to the granting of the second b) variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence
was received from the property owners of 4690 Alpha Drive in opposition to
this appeal. The writers advised that the owners were aware of the lot shape
and the planning bylaw at the time of purchase.
Correspondence
was received from property owners of 4672 Alpha Drive in opposition to the
variances requested. The writer advised that requested variances appear to
replicate the application submitted for the 2016 July Board of Variance
hearing. The writer advised that the variances requested are due to a design
choice and a desire to maximize the square footage permitted.
Correspondence
was received from the home owner of 4566 Napier Street in opposition to the
requested variances.
Correspondence
was received from 4578 Napier Street in opposition to the appeal. The
writers advised that the new submission was not materially different from the
appeal submitted to the 2016 July Board of Variance. The correspondents
expressed concern regarding the adverse effects that massing and height would
have on the enjoyment of their property. As the writers were unable to attend
the hearing, they resubmitted a PowerPoint presentation made at the 2016 July
hearing.
No
further submissions were received regarding this appeal.
|