Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-20-010 - 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: January 21, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD: 10 DATE OF REPORT: January 14, 2020 REPORT #: DSD -20-010 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 and January 2, 2020. At the October 15, 2019 Committee of Adjustment Meeting, in order to facilitate the development of a duplex, the applicant requested minor variances 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. At this meeting, Planning staff recommended approval subject to conditions, being satisfied that the variances met the four legislative tests. Staff was of the opinion that the variances were desirable for the appropriate development of the land and that they would not cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. After hearing a number of delegations from neighbours, the Committee of Adjustment decided to defer the application to the January 21, 2020 meeting, in order to allow an opportunity for the applicant to prepare revised plans and discuss the application and revised plans with the neighbours. At that time, the applicant advised that the plans included with the application form (i.e., Version #1) did not fully represent what he planned to construct. Accordingly, on December 12, 2019, Planning staff hosted a meeting at City Hall with the neighbours, the applicant, and the ward councillor (Councillor Marsh), and discussed the application and revised site plan and elevation drawings (i.e., Version #2). Approximately 14 neighbours attended. At the meeting, the applicant confirmed that he is now planning to construct a single detached dwelling, rather than a duplex. The notes taken by staff at this meeting are attached. The following documents were posted to the City's website on December 18, 2019: • Staff report dated October 9, 2019, • Committee of Adjustment minutes of October 15, 2019. • Version #2 drawings, • Preliminary Tree Report & Plan, and • Neighbours Meeting notes of December 12, 2019. On January 9, 2020, the applicant submitted a further revised site plan and elevation drawings in response to the comments expressed by staff and the neighbours at the December 12th meeting (see Version #3, attached). The below chart summarizes the evolution of the development concept for the site: Planning staff is of the opinion that the development concept has evolved positively from Version #1 through to Version #3, such that the variances meet these tests in a more fulsome manner. Version #1 (provided Version #2 (shared at Version #3 (received with original Dec 12, 2019 on Jan 9, 2020 and application form in neighbours meeting attached to subject October 2019) and posted on City report) website Dwelling Type Duplex Single Detached Single Detached Building Type Two-storey Back -split Back -split Approx. Building 10. Om (32.7 ft) 7.6m (25 ft) 6.7m (22 ft) Height Building Cladding All sides: combination Front: brick All sides: brick of brick & vinyl siding Rear & sides: vinyl (front also includes siding stone) Front Yard Setback 51.22m 38.86m 38.86m Northerly Side Yard 3.13m 3.77m 4.75m Setback Southerly Side Yard 3.14m 3.60m 2.60m (reduced to save Setback walnut tree abutting northerly side lot line) Planning staff is of the opinion that the development concept has evolved positively from Version #1 through to Version #3, such that the variances meet these tests in a more fulsome manner. Planning staff applauds the applicant for his willingness to attend the meeting with the neighbours, contribute to meaningful discussion about the development concept, and make an effort to address a number of the neighbours' concerns. In deciding the subject application, the Committee ought to keep in mind the purpose of the requested variances, which is simply to legalize the existing lot width for an existing lot and allow an increased front yard setback, in order to allow the lot to be developed with a low density residential use that is a permitted use within the zoning by-law. It should be noted that these 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 proposes to rezone the subject lands to RES - 3 (159)(160). This proposed zoning would allow the very similar uses to the current zoning. It should also be noted that 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 single detached 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 single detached dwelling 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 single detached dwelling 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 revised plans provided suggest that the subject property will be able to easily accommodate a single detached dwelling, 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. A City Urban Designer has already reviewed an Arborist Report prepared by Natural Resource Solutions Inc., on behalf of the applicant, dated January 2020. This report outlines tree protection measures and is acceptable to City staff. Planning staff recommends that the recommendations of the Arborist Report be implemented through approval conditions. Also, the variances would facilitate a low density use that is permitted by the current and proposed 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. Planning staff is satisfied that as long as the recommended conditions are imposed to require a site plan, elevation drawings, and a tree management plan, to the satisfaction of staff, that the variances are justified. 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: The standard tree management condition to enter into an agreement is 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: Preparation of a fire route plan is not required for a single detached dwelling. However, should the dwelling be converted to a duplex or other multi -unit dwelling in the future, a fire route plan will be required. RECOMMENDATION That Minor Variance Application A2019-108, requesting to relief from Section 39.2.1 of 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: That prior to issuance of a building permit for a dwelling, the owner shall submit a site plan drawing and elevation drawings for all sides of the dwelling, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. Additionally, the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division and the above mentioned drawings shall be implemented through the building permit process, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning and City's Chief Building Official. This minor variance approval shall apply only to the dwelling constructed and maintained in general accordance with said plans, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 2. 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 an Arborist Report, 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. The report shall address, 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 Arborist Report, including the recommendations and tree protection measures outlined in the report. No changes to the said report 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 Arborist Report, for the life the development. 3. 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. Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Planner Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Attach: • Revised drawings provided by subject property owner, submitted January 9, 2020 • Notes from December 12, 2019 Meeting with Neighbours 5c I wo b� i N?%.TWg N2i052',WW___ I S, d rW Flom =- 18 10C a� Par rzri 2 ZZ W 3 �m y �VVi Lt Q ix M v m r � T V b Z rP� gg z d " m fil X FFri r G4 O In z Z 3a n• y °_ 9:xs I 0 � n I �I € y I� Z wsi I I ag J mm I� E � 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — I 0 n -. Ai I I I I I lu ! 9 ! I I I W 1m aC . X I� x o I 41A 2 I L I � � • I �,rsm 4bN6111LHG 8Ef 1 G c A C) l I I uooy C 90 °Q"li0 My ��ou of cz: < D y I> of© a m D z 1 .szM 1 8j C- w °' m r LA 1 a g MOORE AVENUE 1 - d m � � � auum m � a rzri 2 ZZ W 3 �m y �VVi Lt Q ix M v r � T V b Z gg z d " m fil X FFri r G4 O In z Z 3a n• y °_ 9:xs a 0 � n IN �I € y M Z m $ ag J mm 3 § § \ ^ / § L. j f | § \ . f» §k w 2 ! !k (,\ I21 A § : t� . * § t m §| { z J � / . . !■! i . � . � $ � � : � /� ■� | I|| ! } � ( �\ . � � ... � \ . C - p \ § , �E ,\ §§ ------------------- §.1 - !) .1 ■ . §) ' } ^ � ( - z� k « z 2 7 ! \ 7 , Ck: | § LU ( � mz ` c - U- 2 LLI & . . §.1 - !) .1 ■ . )} § k § � OC)~ | 0) � � ! \ § . � W) 21 � E 7! 7 2 w ° !\� ,| 2 ■ \& $ j 0 $ w ! k ! .| , 4( q: k !°° !° Meeting Notes (Dec 12 2019) Neighbourhood Meeting — December 12, 2019 City staff in attendance: Andrew Pinnell; luliane VonWesterholt; Richard Kelly-Ruetz; Sandro Bassanese Counciiiors in attendance: Councillor Sarah Marsh Applicant: Robert Nelson Location: Conestoga Room (City Hall) INTRODUCTION f BACKGROUND luhane (Cityl: introduced staff in attendance and purpose of meeting Andrew tlaty): Provided background inrormation on property. Applicant proposed new dwelling on unusually shaped lot with frontage on Moore Avenue that does not meet zoning by-law lot width requirements; minor variance required to legalize lot width. Minor variance application went to Committee of Adjustment in October 2019. The Committee heard comments from neighbours and directed staff to hold meeting to go over the revised site drawing for the single detached house. (Andrew showed up-to-date drawings to meeting ottendeesl. The proposed dwelling is shorter than the dwelling. proposed in October (-25 feet rather than "32 feet). (Discussion took place on location of property line relative to retaining wait(sj on side of subject propertyl. Property is not currently proposer] to be used as a duplex; zoning could permit future conversion to duplex. (Applicant confirmed he does not intend to duplex at this time]. Hobert (Appiicantj: Added that roof pitch will be further lowered from drawings avaiiabie tonight. Andrew (City): Provided overview of comments from other agencies. Single dwelling proposed is acceptable to Kitchener Fire. For environmental matters, a Tree Management Plan (TMP) will be required through the minor variance application (Sondro confirmed receipt of TMP and will review as port of opplico tion). Resident (33 Louisa Street): Inquired on shadow impacts. Andrew (City): Responded to shadow inquiry. Explained that a Shadow Impact Study is not a requirement for a Single Detached Dwelling and will not be required with this application. Andrew (city}: [Continued discussing comments from otheragenctesi. Trie Building uivision will require a Record of Site Condition to be completed prior to obtaining a building permit for the new dwelling. This wifi assess any potential contamination on the property. Property is on record as having a previous warehouse use. Andrew (Cityl: Have received direction from the Director of Parks & Cemeteries that City staff does not recommend a City park (dog park, etc.) at this location due to a number of factors such as: small size, visMinry, emergency access, sorely, err. 1 L1+Scdoimer: these notes are not verbor,m and ony intended to generofy copture the items discussers at the meeting on December i2rh. Meeting Notes (Dec 12 2015) Andrew (City): There are utility poles on the property; Bell Canada has indicated they have been in contact with the applicant regarding their relocation prior to construction of the proposed dwelling. r Resident (35 Louisa Street): (ii Understands that density is objective of planning framework. However, with this neighbourhood intensifying (i.e. new condos), there are too few park spaces. (2) The variance Is not 'minor'. (3) Loss of sunlight is a concern — existing tree on site blocks sunlight. (4) The proposed development is more than what's appropriate for the site (S) Anticipates fire access to the site to be a challenge (bi Concerns with obtaining notes from this meeting only the Friday before the ianuary Committee of Adjustment meeting. (7) Concerns with being 'sold' a site plan at this meeting. How can we be certain that developer will implement plan before neighbourhood tonight? (Andrew (City) confirmed that architectural control' can be added as a condition of the minor variance approval. This wit! 'tie` the site pian before the neighbourhood tonight to the approvoi process and even tualbuilding permit) (Further discussion took place between Resident (35 Louisa Street), Resident (39 Louisa Street) and applicant regarding additional tweaks Ito the elevation drawings. Applicont mentioned that he was adding brick along sides of house, and lowering the pitch on the roof. Sandra (City[ added that windows can be changed to improve privacy. He suggested that the windows be a transom style to allow light in while mointarning privacy. Revised drowings con be mode available in advance of Committee of Adjustment meeting, depending on applicant's ability to prepare oheod of time). Further concerns raised around timingof releasing updates to plans to the neighbourhood. Andrew (City): Confirmed that by December 20`', Planning staff can make available: (1) the notes from this meeting, (21 any updated drawings (if availablel, and (3) the tree management plan. Resident (4i Louisa Street): asked if Landscape Pian will be a requirement of the approval. Raised concerns about overtook from new dwelling into abutting rear yards and discussed that landscaping can potentially mitigate some of those concerns. overall, it is not ideal to lose views of green space. Councillor Sarah Marsh: asked if staff could require a Landscape Plan for this application. Andrew (City): Explained that for a single detached dwelling, staff will not be recommending requiring a Landscape Plan. Added that Committee is free to add additional conditions, as they see fit, following feedback from attendees at the upcoming Committee or Adjustment meeting. Resident (18 Wellington St Ni: (1) Appreciates applicant's willingness to share plans with neighbourhood and openness to making changes (2) The lot in question in an unusual shape and everyone is grappling with it. is it an appropriate lot for new residential development? Andrew (City): Explained that staff has been grappling with the same issues. Through staff's review of this application, staff also has a desire to make it the best it can be. 2 aasdaimer. mese notes ore not verborin ondonig urrended ro generolr coprure the items discussed or lire meer,ng on December i2th. Meeting Motes (Dec 12 2019) Resident (39 Louisa Street): Asked applicant if they intend to duplex the unit; and if they would be prepared to sell the land to neighbourhood residents. lApp&cont indicated he does not intend to duplex. Added that he would be open to selling the property to interested neighbours). Resident (39 Union Street East): Explained that he lives further away from the subject property, and that his father lives beside It. Explained how his father is open to this change and is accepting of the proposal. Does not think a dog park or community garden Is the best fit for the property. Resident 13-3 Louisa street!; & Resident 141 Louisa street): Inquired about mecnanics of acquiring property from applicant and adding portions of It to their respective backyards. (lulione10ty) and Sondra (City) exploined that this would be somewhat complex, but could be done thought a separate Committee of Adjustment process. Discussion took place on possibility thot deeper lots created jrom the possible purchase of this property could facilitate rear yard additions on existing dwellings). Resident (33 Louisa Street): Explained that she plans on 'living in her house for 2S years. She appreciates the greenspace that is on the subject property. She prefers a single detached dwelling over a duplex (lulione (staff) clarified that the property couldstill be converted to a duplex in the future). Inquired about extent of architectural control; if architectural control Is added as a condition of the minor variance approval, is it tired to the property lndefinitelye Andrew (City): All variance approvals are tied to the property. If property Is sold and new owner wishes to construct a dwelling, they either (1) must build in accordance with approved variance, approved building elevations, and "tree management plan or (2) must apply for a new minor variance application. Resident (11 Braun street): How do the new tiny mouse rules apply to this property? Richard (City): The new regulations for detached additional dwelling units have been drafted and will iikeiy be applied to this property. it is likely that an additional minor variance would be required for a detached unit in the rear as the lot width would be insufficient. Resident (11 Braun Street): Discussed Idea that applicantcould sever portion of rearyard, and sell,iconvey to neighbouring properties to use as vehicle parking for their (future) tiny houses. Robert (Applicant): Indicated a preference to only selling the lot in its entirety, 4 sold at all. Preference is to build home using plans before residents tonight, with further tweaks. Resident (41 Louisa Street): Asked applicant tar clantication on location at side property lines. )Applicant indicated that 3.7m side yard setbock is measured from exterior wall of proposed house to outside of retaining walls bordering property]. Resident (49 Louisa Street): Thanked applicant for attending. Asked applicant about any trees being removed with new dwelling. (Applicont is anticipating removing I tree in the centre of property, and 1 on the side of the property]. 3 Oisclarmer: these notes are not verbolo'n and only wended to generolly copture the items d+scussedat the meetng on December 22th. Meeting Notes (Dec 12 2019) CONCLUDING REMARKS City staff and Counciffor Marsh thanked residents for attending the meeting and for providing input to this planning process. iuf lane reiterated that by December 20th, the following items will be available to those in the neighbourhood: (ij Tree management pian (2) Drawings (as up-to-date as possible) and (3) Meeting notes. u scr'amer: rhese notes ore not verboten and only intended to generohl capture the gems arscussedor rhe meeivig on december i2rh. Staff 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: January 7, 2020 YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2019-103 581 Strasburg Road A 2019-108 41 Moore Avenue A 2020-001 618 King Street West A 2020-002 149 Roxborough Avenue A 2020-003 5 Manitou Drive A 2020-004 30 Saddlebrook Court A 2020-005 196 Grand Flats Trail A 2020-006 95 Crosswinds Drive A 2020-007 78 Valleybrook Drive 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 *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope Page 1 of 1 and mandate of the 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.