HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-19-239 - A 2019-108 - 41 Moore AveStaff Report
Development Services Department
1
R
www.ki tch en er. c a
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: October 15, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157
PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Planner— 519-741-2200 ext. 7668
WARD: 10
DATE OF REPORT: October 9, 2019
REPORT #: DSD -19-239
SUBJECT: A2019-108 — 41 Moore Ave
Owners — Robert and Linda Nelson
Approve Subject to Conditions
yam°` go
REPORT
Planning Comments:
The property is located on the west side of Moore Avenue, between Louisa Street and Wellington Street,
in the KW Hospital Planning Community. The property is comprised partly of the eastern portion of a
former public laneway, which used to run between King Street and Moore Avenue. Another portion of the
lane, beginning at the rear lot line of the subject property and extending to King Street remains open and
public. The subject property is surrounded by the rear yards of those properties fronting onto Louisa and
Wellington Streets.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
The subject property was formerly used for warehousing, but is currently vacant and vegetated. Retaining
walls outline large sections of the north, south, and west property boundaries. The property is 1,255
square metres in area and has 4.57m of frontage on Moore Avenue (the width of the former laneway). A
right-of-way for access to the two abutting properties on Moore Street, addressed as 37 and 43 Moore
Street, remains in effect. The property is designated Low Rise Conservation in the KW Hospital
Secondary Plan and is zoned Residential Five (R-5), with Special Use Provision 129U (prevents triplexes)
in the Zoning By-law. Planning staff visited the site on September 23, 2019.
In order to facilitate the development of a duplex, the applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow:
1. a minimum lot width of 4.57 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 9.0 metres, and
2. a maximum front yard of 45.0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.67 metres.
It should be noted that the City's Residential Intensification in Existing Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS)
resulted in a zoning regulation that would prevent a garage from projecting beyond the front facade of
the habitable portion of the duplex (regulation 5.51D). Although the plans submitted with the application
form show a design that does not comply with this regulation, the owner has confirmed to Planning staff
these plans are conceptual and are provided simply to demonstrate that a duplex could fit on the subject
lot. The owner further stated that he intends to change the design of the proposed home to a back -split
layout with no garages. If this occurs, the duplex could be shorter than proposed in the plans submitted
(6-7 metres in height, rather than 9.5 metres). That said, the zoning would allow for many layouts / design
options for a duplex, as long as the regulations are complied with, including a max height requirement of
10.5 metres. Note that the design/layout provided as part of a future building permit application would
be required to comply with the above noted regulation.
The subject variances are being considered under By-law 85-1, rather than 2019-051 (CRoZBy), because
the subject area is within a Secondary Plan area and CRoZBy does not apply to secondary plan areas.
The KW Hospital Secondary Plan and associated zoning is currently being reviewed, but a new
secondary plan has not yet been proposed.
It should also be noted that in this case, in accordance with the RIENS study recommendation and
Section 39.2.1 and Appendix `H' of By-law 85-1, the maximum front yard (i.e., 4.67 metres) is calculated
by averaging the front yards of the abutting lots (i.e., 37 Moore Avenue and 43 Moore Avenue) and adding
1.0 metre.
General Intent and Purpose of Official Plan Test
The Low Rise Conservation designation policies state that duplex dwellings are a permitted use. In
addition, the KW Hospital Secondary Plan aims to retain the existing low rise, low density residential
character of the neighbourhood. Accordingly, the variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent and Purpose of Zoning By-law Test
The intent of the 9.0 metre lot width regulation is to ensure that an appropriately sized building can be
placed on the property. In this case, although the technical lot width is only 4.57 metres, the lot widens
to about 20 metres at approximately 28 metres from the front lot line (due to its irregular shape). This lot
width is more than sufficient to support the development of a duplex and associated parking, landscaped
area, etc.
The intent of the maximum front yard requirement is to ensure a consistent streetwall / streetscape is
established, for neighbourhood character purposes. In this case, a dwelling that fits into the existing
streetscape cannot be constructed on the property due to the lack of frontage. However, a building can
be constructed completely outside of the streetscape. If a variance is approved, the construction of a
duplex will not create a streetscape that is inconsistent or that degrades streetscape character.
The variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law for the reasons cited above.
"Minor" Test
The plan provided suggests that the subject property will be able to accommodate a duplex, appropriate
setbacks, and all facilities required to support the use, including parking, landscaping, amenity space,
etc. On-site trees would be protected to the extent possible and off-site trees would be fully protected
through a recommended tree preservation plan condition. Also, the variances would facilitate a low rise
use that is permitted by the current zoning. In this regard, the variances are minor in that they will not
create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent uses or lands.
Desirability for Appropriate Development or Use Test
The variances would facilitate low-density infill development of a permitted use, in an appropriate manner.
Also, by authorizing the variances, the owner would be required to undertake a Record of Site Condition
as part of the future building permit process, including possible remediation as a result of former
warehouse operations. This would improve the environmental condition of the property. Planning staff
is of the opinion that the variances are appropriate for the desirable development of the land.
For the abovementioned reasons, Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance requests should be
approved, subject to the conditions outlined below.
Building Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided the building permit for the new
residential building is obtained prior to construction. Record of Site Condition will be required to develop this
site with a residential use Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with any questions.
Transportation Services Comments:
Transportation Services has no concerns with the subject application.
Engineering Comments:
No Engineering concerns.
Heritage Comments:
Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with this application. The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape
Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by
Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory. The CHLS was the first step of a phased
Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The applicant is advised that the property
municipally addressed as 41 Moore Avenue is located within the Mt Hope/Breithaupt Neighbourhood
CHL. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal
Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with
specific conservation options.
Environmental Planning Comments:
Standard tree management condition to enter into an agreement to be registered on the title of the
property to complete and implement a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan prior to the issuance of
any building permit, and maintain that plan for the life of the development. Shared ownership trees will
be an issue for the proposed development.
Fire Services:
For infill projects, Fire Services has accepted a maximum of 105 metres, and can accept it in this case.
Furthermore, City by-laws require the address of the building to be visible from the street and, as such,
the owner is required to erect a sign at the entrance from the road. Also, the owner must demonstrate
that 60 metres of preconnect hose will reach all areas of the units from the street.
RECOMMENDATION
That Minor Variance Application A2019-108 requesting to relief from Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow:
A. a minimum lot width of 4.57 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 9.0 metres, and
B. a maximum front yard of 45.0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 4.67 metres
be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a building on the subject property, the owner
shall install municipal address signage in an appropriate location on the subject property
that is visible from Moore Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Fire Official.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a building on the subject property, the owner
shall prepare and submit a fire route plan, implement the plan as part of the building permit
process, and maintain the plan for the life of the development, to the satisfaction of the
City's Chief Fire Official.
3. Prior to the commencement of grading on the subject property, the owner shall enter into
an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered
on title of the subject property, which shall include the following:
a. That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the subject property in
accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's
Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading,
servicing, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall
include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building
envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved.
b. The owner further agrees to implement the approved Tree Preservation Plan. No
changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's
Director of Planning.
c. The owner agrees to maintain the subject property, in accordance with the approved
Tree Preservation Plan, for the life the development.
Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP
Planner
Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Attach:
• "Existing Site Plan" submitted with application form
7 I
. • m
..
\
x
§r
m,
r
§
E--/----------
-.__- -m
--- --g
\q 1-4�
\z u
t
&
C�
C�
�
L -------------------
m_GSLMm
w
�
%
(
/
§�
/
w| �
!�
|�
= w
M
% j
\
4 *{
�Z..
MOSRIC AVC\ kE
Region of Waterloo
September 26, 2019
Holly Dyson
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
Dear Ms. Dyson:
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, Sth Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca
File No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN
Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on October 15, 2019, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have following comments:
1. A 2019-106 — 78 Castlebay Street— No Concerns.
2. A 2019-107 — 38 Gordon Avenue — No Concerns.
3. A 2019-108 — 41 Moore Avenue — No Concerns.
4. A 2019-109 — 26 Baird Avenue — No Concerns.
5. A 2019-110 — 330 Manitou Drive Unit C — No concerns.
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the
provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor
thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these
developments prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site
is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply.
Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
Joginder Bhatia
Transportation Planner
(519) 575-4500 Ext 3867
Document Number: 3115951
Page 1 of 1
Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729
Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6
Andrew Herreman, Resource Planning Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2228
Technician E-mail: aherreman@grand river. ca
PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener
Holly Dyson
DATE: October 7, 2019 YOUR FILE: See below
RE: Applications for Minor Variance:
A 2019-094
205 Strange Street
A 2019-106
78 Castlebay Street
A 2019-107
38 Gordon Avenue
A 2019-108
41 Moore Avenue
A 2019-109
26 Baird Avenue
Applications for Consent:
B 2019-064 53 & 55 Perth Road
B 2019-065 210 Simeon Street
B 2019-066-071 253 Clark Avenue
GRCA COMMENT:
The above noted applications are located outside the Grand River Conservation Authority
areas of interest. As such, we will not undertake a review of the applications and plan review
fees will not be required. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
xThese comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of 1
Grand River Conservation Authority
To Whom it May Concern;
Andrew Pinnel (planner, Planning Division, COK) andrew.pinnel@kitchener.ca 519-741-
2200 ext. 7668
Dianna Saunderson
From;
Note: deadline for submissions unknown
dianna.saunderson(@kitchener.ca
Re: 2019-108 41 Moore Ave Application for Minor Variance, site plan, related issues
submission (subsequent to conversation with Andrew Pinnell on 08OC2019)
Procedural:
-insufficient time before hearing for all interested parties (incl., COK Fire, EMS, Water and sewer,
Snow/Maintenance) and affected area residents to respond responsibly and completely.
-when was the application made? Is it accurate?
-sign went up/notices prepared 27SE2019, only 18 days (into statutory holiday) for parties to respond.
INSUFFICIENT TIME!
-site plan submitted;
-is it the truly intended plan or a facsimile/other? (formally submitted and paid for?)
-does not reflect/indicate the complicated terrain (actual property line vis a vis existing concrete
walls on three sides of lot) nor existing, abutting structures (multiple fences, garages, hydro poles etc...)
Variances:
-neither are 'minor', roughly 100% and 1000% respectively
-and in COMBINATION are far more contrary to by-law rationale, and create a problematic if not
dangerous bottleneck with regard to issues raised below
Other COK Departments (consulted? Conclusions?)
-Fire and EMS:
-there has been a fire on this property previously causing damage and threats to adjacent
properties (c. 1993??) and revealed commensurate challenges in Fire response.
-even a future, closer hydrant (if not buried in snow) would not improve responder's access
through snowbanks, parked or incapacitated vehicles or other potential obstacles along narrow laneway
past bracketing homes and garages and driveways/parking/their cars.
-Water/Sewer/Storm drains and Road Maintenance/snow removal
-where/how will so many sq. ft. of snow and ice be deposited? And what equipment and
intrusion onto Moore Ave. would it entail
-would it present problems when this concrete wall enclosed envelope's snow melts and
proceeds downslope to Moore Ave. and homes to either side of the laneway?
Environmental Impacts:
-how would mature walnut trees be affected (#1 at wall to the west at City laneway from King St., and
#2 further northeast on Louisa resident's rear yard)
-who owns west wall tree (and fence, and wall)? This is an unresolved dispute. (Tammy Shirle of 33
Louisa St./ Mike Niederer COK).
-is a tree/root preservation review not warranted?
-will structure(s) vents/exhausts and 1.2 M proximity to longstanding walls/fences/garages etc...
present other negative environmental or health issues (and in conjunction with snow, shade...)?
Residential Impacts (hardly limited to those below listed):
-X notices issued multiplied by # of occupants per home would result for many people and households
considerable and cumulative negative impact (inclluding concomitant real-estate and financial loss),
-Louisa St. properties adjacent have tiny back yards (mine 18 ft in depth north to south, wall/fence and
garage on west and east respectively). The proposed structure would block nearly all of the remaining
sunlight to my grass, gardens and my only south facing windows. Others face near identical impacts
given 1.2m offset indicated.
Construction/Future Logistical
-has any consideration/consultation with regard to the ongoing condominium project underway (across
Moore St./Google parking lot) and that project's entry/exit and 'corner park' implications, including
further congestion
-how might the construction purported in the application itself affect or imperil Occupants and property
of Moore Ave. 'Choke Point' owners? Has any action been specifically taken to apprise these profoundly
impacted?
Previous Negative ruling with regard to essentially identical Application for Adjustment
-what was the reasoning supporting that determination, and is this available to all parties, and how?
-what, if anything has changed (materially or policywise... ) since that judgement?
I realize that these are a great many questions. I believe they merit consideration and investigation if
not outright answers or solutions.
GIVEN THE GREAT COMPLEXITY AND BROAD IMPACT OF THIS APPLICATION, we respectfully request that
the hearing for this application be (if not denied) DEFERRED TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR ALL
CONCERNED to address the points raised above.
Sincerely,
To: The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Tuesday October 15, 2019
Council Chamber, Kitchener City Hall
RE: Application for minor variance (zoning) A2019-108-41 Moore Avenue.
The application requests permission to construct a duplex on a lot having a width of
4.57m rather than the required 9m; and, a front yard setback of 45m rather than the
maximum permitted front yard setback of 4.67m.
The application is essentially identical in its request to the application A2008-026,
considered by the Committee of Adjustment on May 20, 2008, which was refused. It
was the opinion of the Committee that the variance was not minor in nature. Moreover,
the 2008 application was not desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
There are three major concerns we have with this application.
First, we participated in the conversation held in 2008 for this application, which in part
focused on fire safety. While our neighbours who witnessed the fire that destroyed the
previous building have since passed, I recall their description of the difficulties the fire
fighters had in tackling the blaze given limited frontage access to the building. The
proposed building plans indicate buildings would be 3.14m from the north and south
property lines, which is less than 3m from the existing concrete retaining walls. This
would not provide sufficient room for emergency access, placing several residential
homes at risk.
Second, we have been patiently in conversation with Municipal Law Enforcement Officer
Mike Niederer regarding determination of where precisely the property line for 41 Moore
falls. In particular, there is some confusion regarding responsibility for the broken fence
and large walnut tree that is atop the wall at the end of the City's alley. Once this is settled
we will have better sense of the implications of the building plan. With the short notice of
this application we have not been able to finalize those conversations or properly review
existing land surveys.
Third, it is not clear to us how final these plans are for the proposed duplex. We are very
concerned that expansions or revisions will not require consultations with members of
the community.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
October 9, 2019
Re: Application for Minor Variance A-2019-108-41 Moore Avenue
From:
This letter is in response to the above proposed application to construct a duplex at 41
Moore Avenue. The application requests permission to construct a duplex on a lot
having a width of 4.57m rather than the required 9m; and a front yard setback of 45m
rather than the maximum permitted front yard setback of 4.67m.
This irregular shaped property consists of a long shared laneway bracketed between
two existing homes (37 & 43 Moore Street, garage and parking in their rear yards)
opening to a larger parcel of land in the centre of the Moore/Wellington/King/Louisa
Street block. This property abuts the rear yards of the surrounding homes. The King
Street border is a 15+ foot retaining wall to elevated properties above.
We have the following comments and concerns regarding this application.
This Minor Variance Application request is nearly identical in its request to the
2008 application which was denied citing the variance was not minor in nature
and the application was not desirable for the appropriate development of the
property. This current application is also not minor in nature and would not be
desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The size of the building footprint and the height of the building (9m/30 feet) is too
large and intrusive for this property. Multiple vehicle parking and usage is also
not desirable.
2. Entrance/laneway: This property has no visibility from the street. The existing
lane is shared by the two adjacent homes (37 & 43 Moore). The lane is narrow
and paved to the maximum (43 Moore) touching the home's sidewalk and stairs
and there is limited ability to widen into the side yard (37 Moore). There is no
ability to widen this laneway sufficiently to permit two-way traffic and/or
emergency vehicles and widening would encroach on these properties.
3. Fire/EMS: Just prior to our purchase in, there was a fire at one of the now
demolished single story warehouses at oore and the fire truck was unable to
get into the property via the laneway to contain the fire and the fire spread to
surrounding garages. Our garage was one of these.
Rear yards of the surrounding properties are no more than 15 or 20 feet in depth
and garages, sheds, and fences are in immediate proximity (less than 10 feet)
from the proposed building. Should snow bank accumulation or a vehicle impede
or block access, there is a real potential for this to occur again due to the depth
of this property and" land -locked" nature of proposed building. The closest fire
hydrant is at Moore and Louisa Streets.
EMS as per above, limited or potential impeded access.
4. Privacy/Suitability: Our primary concerned is with privacy and the suitability of
this property for residency. The rear yards of the surrounding properties are
already very small (15 or 20 feet depth) and look out/face into this property.
Proposed side setback of 3.1 m / 10 feet is insufficient to have a sense of privacy
in one's back yard and property lines have shifted over time which may leave this
setback considerably less. Privacy for the tenants of this proposed duplex and
the privacy of the surrounding neighbours would be compromised resulting in
loss of enjoyment for all.
5. Sunlight reduction/Light pollution: The height of the proposed building (9m / 30
feet) will result in a significant loss of sunlight to the surrounding homes and rear
yards which are already very small (15 to 20 feet in depth). Conversely, outdoor
and interior building lighting would shine into our yard and bedrooms and the
surrounding homes.
6. Vehicle noise/exhaust fumes: Noise and exhaust from vehicles on the property
would effectively be in the rear yard of the surrounding properties.
7. Trees: The health of the roots and overhang of large trees on the surrounding
properties (Walnut, Red Maple, and existing Maple on property) would be
compromised by the foundation and paved parking area. Hydro pole with
overhead telephone services wires located on this property are connected to the
surrounding homes and would need to be relocated.
8. For future consideration: This has been a stable block of single family homes
with recent and coming intensive high-rise residential development in the
surrounding blocks. Public green space is sorely absent in the "Mid -Town" area.
Further consultation is requested with the City Parks Department to consider
purchasing this parcel for a playground, park, dog park or community garden and
a query will be made to the owners of the property to determine interest in selling
to the City of Kitchener or possibly adjoining residents to expand their rear yards.
With limited notice of this hearing, these conversations have not been finalized.
For the above reasons, we respectfully request that Application A-2019-108 — 41 Moore
be declined.