Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2010-08-17COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 17, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs A. Head and M. Hiscott OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic Technologist, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. A. Head, Vice Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of July 20, 2010, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2010-023 Applicant: Triedell Group Ltd Property Location: 40 Centreville Street Leaal Description: Part Farm Lot. Plan 589 Appearances: In Support: L. Furtado Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 11.741 m (38.52') on Centreville Street, by a depth of 40.37m (132.44') and an area of 406 sq. m. (4,370.29 sq. ft.). The retained land will have exactly the same dimensions. The existing house will be demolished and the severed and retained lands will each be developed with asemi-detached dwelling unit. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated July 9, 2010, in which they advise that the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in the Zoning By-law. A single detached dwelling currently exists on the property and is proposed to be demolished. The owner received Demolition Control Approval to demolish the residential building subject to a condition that the owner obtains a building permit prior to issuance of a demolition permit to ensure timely redevelopment. The owner has recently applied for a building permit to construct a semi-detached dwelling on the subject property. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots in such a way as to allow separate ownership of each semi-detached unit. The severed lot would have a frontage of 11.74 metres, a depth of 40.37 metres and an area of 406 square COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 146 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: B 2010-023. cont'd metres, while the retained lot would have a similar frontage of 11.74 metres, depth of 40.37 metres and an area of 406 square metres. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. c.P. 13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential Four Zone (R-4). Section 4 of the Zoning By-law defines asemi-detached dwelling as "a building divided vertically into two semi-detached houses by a common wall which prevents internal access between semi-detached houses and extends from the base of the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal distance of not less than 35 percent of the horizontal depth of the building. Each semi-detached house shall be designed to be located on a separate lot having access to and frontage on a street." This proposal to sever is required to create the semi-detached dwelling and allow separate ownership of each semi-detached dwelling unit. In addition, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the use of the properties as semi-detached houses, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land will have to be serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. Also, the resultant lots would be compatible with those in the surrounding area. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated August 9, 2010, in which they advise that due to existing traffic volumes on King Street East (Regional Road #8), the owner/applicant shall prepare a Noise Study to indicate the methods to be used to abate noise levels for the severed and retained lots and if necessary, shall enter into a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for the implementation of the approved study. They further advise that the subject site is in an area recorded as a former landfill by the Ministry of the Environment. In accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines for the Review of Development Applications on or Adjacent to Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) is required for both the severed and retained parcels. Two copies of the completed and filed Record of Site Condition acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment must be provided to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. In summary, the Region has no objections to this application subject to the following 1. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall prepare a Noise Study for the severed and retained lots, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner or Planning, Housing and Community Services, to indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate traffic noise levels from King Street East (Regional Road #8) and if necessary, the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to provide for implementation of the approved noise study attenuation measure prior to final approval. 2. That a Record of Site Condition be completed for the severed and retained lands. Two copies of the completed and filed Record of Site Condition acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment must be provided to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. Mr. Furtado questioned the conditions recommended by the Region of Waterloo, specifically the noise study. He noted that the property has been used for residential purposes for many years and they will only be adding one residential unit. Further there are residential properties around them. The Chair noted that he spoke with Regional staff about their requested conditions and the planner could not guarantee whether the Region would or would not appeal this Committee's decision if these conditions are not COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 147 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: B 2010-023, cont'd included. He advised that the applicant's redevelopment of this property could be held up for approximately six months if an appeal is filed with the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr. Furtado advised that his company proposes to improve this property by demolishing a derelict building and replacing it with 2 beautiful semi-detached dwelling units. He questioned why they would have to pay for services when services to the property already exist. He stated he would like to know what the costs will be. The Chair advised that Mr. Furtado would have to get costing information from the City's Engineering Services. He advised that it is likely that he would only have to pay for services for 1 of the 2 units; however, if the existing service connections are in the wrong place, they may also have to pay to have them moved. Mr. Furtado questioned what would happen if he does not want to pay the costs involved and he was advised that he could abandon the application or make an application to change conditions which would have to be completed before the 1 year time limit for fulfilling conditions expires. Mr. Hiscott put forward a motion to grant the application subject to the City's recommended conditions and to the Region's request for a Record of Site Condition but not including the requested Noise Study. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Triedell Group Ltd. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 11.741 m (38.52') on Centreville Street, by a depth of 40.37m (132.44') and an area of 406 sq. m. (4,370.29 sq. ft.), on Part Farm Lot, Plan 589, 40 Centreville Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCAd) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and retained lands. 5. That the owner shall have a Record of Site Condition completed for the severed and retained lands. Two copies of the completed and filed Record of Site Condition acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment shall be provided to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 148 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: B 2010-023. cont'd 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 17, 2012. Carried This meeting recessed at 9:40 a.m. and reconvened at 10:02 a.m. with the following members present: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs. A. Head and M. Hiscott. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2010-048 Applicant: Lorraine Osment Property Location: 212 Ross Avenue Leaal Description: Part Lot 20. Plan 914 Appearances: In Support: L. Osment T. Hynes Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a proposed attached garage to have a height to the underside of the fascia, along the rear wall, of 4.9m (16.07') rather than the permitted 3m (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 9, 2010, advising that the subject property located at 121 Ross Avenue is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By-law and is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The subject property is developed with a single detached dwelling with an attached deck in the rear. The owner is proposing to remove the existing shed and construct a new detached garage (29 sq. m.) that will be attached to the existing deck. The existing house is located on a hill where the grade decreases from the front to the rear of the property. As a result the height of the underside of the fascia at the rear of the proposed garage will be 4.9 metres rather than the required maximum height of 3.0 metres as outlined in Section 5.5.2 b) of the Zoning By-law 85-1. Therefore the owner requires a minor variance in order to construct the proposed detached garage. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments regarding the requested minor variance: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of uses and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The proposed variance is compatible with the Low Rise Residential development of the area as the height of the proposed detached garage will COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 149 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-048. cont'd not exceed the height of the existing single detached dwelling therefore maintaining the low rise character of the neighbourhood. The purpose of the required maximum 3.0 metre height of the underside of the fascia is to ensure that accessory buildings (detached garages) are constructed at reasonable heights and are compatible with the subject property and surrounding low rise character of the neighbourhood. The rear height of the underside of the fascia of the proposed detached garage is more than the maximum 3.0 metres requirement due to the decreasing grade from the front to the rear of the subject property. The height of the proposed garage will not exceed the height of the existing single detached dwelling therefore staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variance is considered minor because the height of the proposed detached garage will not exceed the height of the existing single detached dwelling. The increase of the rear height of the underside of the fascia of the proposed detached garage is due to the decreasing grade from the front to the rear of the subject property. Staff are of the opinion the requested minor variance will have no impact on adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the scale of the proposed garage is compatible with the surrounding low rise residential development. The proposal will maintain the low density development of the neighbourhood and the intention of the Official Plan. The requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the height of the underside of the fascia of the rear of the proposed garage. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 29, 2010, advising that have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Resource Planner dated August 4, 2010, advising that they do not object to the above-noted minor variance application as proposed in the circulated material. They advised that a portion of the subject property is located within the floodplain and allowance associated with Montgomery Creek; as such, a portion of the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses). Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Lorraine Osment requesting permission for a proposed attached garage to have a height to the underside of the fascia, along the rear wall, of 4.9m (16.07') rather than the permitted 3m (9.84'), on Part Lot 20, Plan 914, 212 Ross Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED; subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtained Building Permit #10 113948 from the City's Building Division for the proposed detached garage. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 150 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2010-049 Williamsburg Homes Inc. 94 Harding Street Lot 74, Registered Plan 58M-409 T. Lesperance None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an attached garage having a setback from Harding Street of 5.84m (19.16') rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 6, 2010, advising that the subject property located at 94 Harding Street is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law and is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The subject property is a corner lot and is currently undeveloped. The owner is proposing to construct a single detached dwelling unit. Relief is being sought from Section 38.2 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow a portion (the garage) of the proposed dwelling unit used to accommodate off-street parking to be located 5.84 metres from the street line rather than the required 6.0 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments regarding the requested minor variance: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of uses and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The proposed variance will be compatible with the Low Rise Residential development of the area and will legalize the location of the garage as well as maintain the low density character of the property and neighbourhood. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the required 6.0 metre setback from the street line is to ensure adequate buffer exists between the garage and Harding Street to allow an opportunity for a visitor's car to be parked off the road right-of-way and on the subject property. The City of Kitchener's standard parking stall dimensions are 2.6 metres by 5.6 metres. The proposed garage is set back 5.84 metres from the street line therefore staff are of the opinion that there is sufficient space for a car to be parked between the garage and the street line without encroaching onto the street right-of-way. The variance is considered minor because parking can still be accommodated on-site. The reduction in the garage setback from the street line will have minimal impact to adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the scale of the proposed single detached dwelling unit is compatible with the surrounding low rise residential development. The proposal will maintain the low density development of the neighbourhood and the intention of the Official Plan. The requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the location of the garage. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 151 AUGUST 17, 2010 2. Submission No.: A 2010-049, cont'd That the application of Williamsburg Homes Inc. requesting legalization of an attached garage having a setback from Harding Street of 5.84m (19.16') rather than the required 6m (19.68'), on Lot 74, Registered Plan 58M-409, 94 Harding Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: A 2010-050 Applicant: Mirko and Brankica Sarcevic Property Location: 31 Sophia Crescent Leaal Description: Lot 144, Reaistered Plan 58M-374 Appearances: In Support: M. & B. Sarcevic Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a covered outdoor kitchen at the rear of the house, to have a rear yard of 5m (16.04') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 9, 2010, advising that on October 20, 2010, the Committee of Adjustment approved application A2009-062, requesting relief from Section 40.2 of the Zoning Bylaw to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.85 metres to allow for the construction of a covered porch in the required rear yard. Since that approval, the owners have revised the building and construction drawings for the covered porch and now requires a further setback reduction of 0.85 metres, for a rear yard setback of 5.0 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required. The subject property is located at 31 Sophia Crescent, which is located in a newer subdivision in the southwest area of Kitchener near the intersection of Fischer Hallman Road and Huron Road. The property has approximately 9.144 metres of frontage, an area of approximately 292 square metres, and is developed with a single detached dwelling. It is zoned Residential Six (R-6) and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. Relief is being sought from Section 40.2 of the Zoning Bylaw where the applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback from 5.85 (approval A2009-062) metres to 5.0 metres to allow for the construction of a covered outdoor kitchen in the required rear yard. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 152 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-050. cont'd variety of low density residential uses. The proposed development at 31 Sophia Crescent is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 5.85 metres (reduced from 7.5 metres) rear yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. The applicants have provided a sworn statement from the immediately adjacent neighbours which states that they are in agreement with the proposed variance. It is staff's opinion that a setback of 5.0 metres would continue to allow outdoor amenity space. The outdoor kitchen will also provide outdoor living amenity space as well. The variance is considered minor as there is adequate separation from the proposed addition to abutting residential properties and as such will likely have minimal impact to adjacent lands. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed covered patio in the rear yard will allow for an outdoor kitchen which will continue to serve as amenity space for the property owners. In an effort to save on construction costs and time, the owners are now proposing to revise the covered porch from the original plans that were submitted to and approved by the Committee of Adjustment in October 2009. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Mirko and Brankica Sarcevic requesting permission to construct a covered outdoor kitchen at the rear of the house, to have a rear yard of 5m (16.04') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 144, Registered Plan 58M-374, 31 Sophia Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: A 2010-051 Applicant: Michael and Kelly Dybowski Property Location: 3 Fran Ellen Crescent Leaal Description: Lot 106, Plan 1600 Appearances: In Support: M. & K. Dybowski Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 153 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-051, cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct an addition to the existing house to have a side yard abutting Yellow Birch Drive of 3.5m (11.48') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 6, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at the southeast corner of Yellow Birch Drive and Fran Ellen Crescent in the Forest Heights Planning Community. The property backs onto Yellow Birch Park and contains a single detached dwelling constructed in approximately 1987. The surrounding area was constructed around the same time period and is composed primarily of single detached dwellings. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By-law. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on August 4, 2010. Through the subject Minor Variance Application, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the minimum side yard abutting a street (Yellow Birch Drive) to 3.5 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 4.5 metres, The purpose of the application is to allow the construction of a 4.6 metre wide by 6.4 metre deep addition onto the north side of the existing dwelling. The addition would increase living space of the dwelling by 29.3 square metres (315 sq. ft.) or 24.2%. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The City's Official Plan states that "The City shall support and encourage the ongoing maintenance and stability of the existing housing stock in the community by supporting the reuse and adaption of the housing stock through renovation, conversion and rehabilitation." The proposed variance conforms to this purpose since it would allow the property to be renovated through the construction of an addition. However, Part 2, Section 1.6 of the Official Plan states "Where...minor variances are requested or proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulations or minor variances shall be reviewed to ensure the...new additions and modifications to existing buildings are to be directed to the rear yard and are to be discouraaed in the front vard and side vard abutting a street, except where it can be demonstrated that the addition and/or modification is compatible in scale, massing, design and character of adiacent properties and is in keeping with the character of the streetscape." It further states that "to ensure consistency and compatibility with the existing built form and the character of established neighbourhoods, through the review of an application for zone change or minor variance, the City may require a site plan and elevation drawings to demonstrate that the proposed development is compatible with respect to building massing and height, building orientation, architectural design..." In this case, the proposed addition as shown in the elevation drawings provided with the application is not in keeping with the character of the streetscape and is not compatible in design and character with adjacent properties. For example, the proposed 4.6 metre wide west elevation (refer to "Proposed Front View" drawing provided with the application) of the addition is constructed entirely of brick and contains no windows, doors or architectural treatments. The proposed 6.4 metre wide north elevation (refer to "Proposed Side View" drawing provided with the application) of the addition is constructed entirely of brick and although windows are provided above the height of the eaves, no windows are provided below this point for the entire length of the wall. No doors or architectural treatments are included. The streetscape is further compromised since the addition is proposed to be closer to the side lot line abutting Yellow Birch Drive COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 154 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-051, cont'd than other dwellings in the area. The overall impact of the proposed addition as shown would result in a design that is not in keeping with the character of the streetscape and not compatible with the existing built form. Through the review of the application, staff discussed the potential for changing the above mentioned elevations with the applicant. Staff has worked with the applicant to achieve a potential design concept that satisfies the compatibility and streetscape design objectives of the City and desires of the applicant. This concept includes the addition of a bay window to the west elevation (i.e., Fran Ellen Cres.), enlargement of windows in the north elevation (i.e., Yellow Birch Dr.), and inclusion of architectural treatments (refer to Appendix "A" for a potential design concept). Although, this design is a concept only staff is satisfied that the applicant can meet the Official Plan objectives, without changing the dimensions and shape of the addition. The applicant has expressed a desire to continue to work with staff to finalize the design of the addition. In this regard staff recommends that an approval condition be imposed to ensure that elevation drawings meet these objectives to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. The intent of the side yard abutting a street setback is to ensure adequate buffer space between the street and the building for vehicular/pedestrian safety, streetscape aesthetics, and to provide an adequate amenity area for corner lots. Transportation Planning has not indicated any safety concerns with the proposed 3.5 metre setback. Staff is satisfied that as long as the above noted condition is imposed, the streetscape will not be negatively affected. In addition, the property will continue to maintain an adequately sized rear yard for amenity space purposes. The proposed variance is minor since it will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties as long as the above noted condition is imposed. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land since it will allow the expansion of an existing single detached dwelling which is a permitted use in the R- 3Zone and will increase the functionality of the dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Michael and Kelly Dybowski requesting permission to construct an addition to the existing house to have a side yard abutting Yellow Birch Drive of 3.5m (11.48') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), on Lot 106, Plan 1600, 3 Fran Ellen Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall submit and obtain approval of elevation drawings for the west and north facades of the proposed addition. Such drawings shall portray a design that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and is in keeping with the streetscape, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. Such design may include windows, doors, variation in building materials, and architectural treatments. The approved elevation drawings shall be implemented through the building permit process. 2. That the owners shall submit and obtain approval of building permit drawings for the proposed addition that are based on and in general accordance with the site plan included with Minor Variance Application A2010-051, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 3. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the proposed addition from the City's Building Division. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 155 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-051, cont'd It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: A 2010-052 Applicant: Aspen Ridge Co-Operative Development Corporation Property Location: 1275 Block Line Road Legal Description: Block 312, Plan 1349 Appearances: In Support: J. Ciuciura S. Patterson Contra: None Written Submissions: J. Heij The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 119 unit multiple dwelling with a side yard abutting Block Line Road of 7m (22.96') for a portion of the building having a height greater than 10.5m (34.44') rather than the required 13.3m (43.63'); and, permission to designate 10% of the parking spaces for visitors rather than the required 20%. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 3, 2010, advising that the subject property is located on Block Line Road southeast of the corner of Strasburg Road. The property is 1.5 hectares in area, of which approximately 0.7 hectares is devoted to a registered scenic easement and is not developable. The property is presently a treed vacant site and is the subject of a site plan application with the intent to develop a high rise residential building. Staff conducted a site inspection of the property on August 3, 2010. The surrounding area is comprised of a mix of commercial, residential and open space uses. Uses in the area surrounding the property include Strasburg Woods, a convenience retail/gas bar establishment, Forest Glen Plaza and existing low rise and high rise residential development. The subject property is designated High Rise Residential and surrounding properties are designated Low Rise Residential, High Rise Residential, Open Space and Mixed Use Node in the Official Plan. The subject property is zoned Residential Nine Zone (R- 9) on the developable portion of the site and Open Space Zone (P-2) in the area noted as `Scenic Easement'. The Residential Nine Zone permits the development of a high rise residential building. The applicant is requesting the following minor variances To permit a minimum side yard abutting a street of 7.0 metres for that portion of a dwelling with a building height exceeding 10.5 metres rather than the required 13.3 metre setback; and, To provide 10% demarcated and reserved visitor parking rather than the required 20% demarcated and reserved visitor parking. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 156 AUGUST 17, 2010 5. Submission No.: A 2010-052, cont'd With regard to the requested variance for a reduction in the minimum side yard abutting a street, staff considers Block Line Road to be the `front yard' rather than the `side yard abutting a street'. The setback regulations in Zoning By-law 85-1 are the same for both front yard and side yard abutting a street. In this report, the term `front yard setback' shall replace the applicant's reference to `side yard abutting a street'. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The property is designated High Rise Residential in the Official Plan, which is intended to support a large residential building. The applicant is proposing a 119 unit, 10-storey residential building and therefore meets the intent of the Official Plan. The variance pertaining to the reduced front yard setback meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The purpose of the minimum set back requirement is to ensure there is an adequate buffer zone from the public space (roadway and sidewalk) to any development. The proposed apartment building will have a stepped fagade facing Block Line Road. The one-storey covered parking garage area will have a setback from the property line of 4.5 metres which is in keeping with the requirement of the zoning by-law and the stepped back portion of the "tower" of the building will have a setback from Block Line Road of 7.0 metres at the closest point. This section of Block Line road has a significantly wide right-of-way and the reduced setback will not impact vehicular or pedestrian movements nor will it visually impact the streetscape. The variance pertaining to a reduction in the allotment of demarcated and reserved visitor parking does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reason. The requirement for dedicated visitor parking spaces in a multiple dwelling development is to ensure there is adequate space available on site for visitors and to ensure that the surrounding streets and properties are not impacted with a spill over effect of parking. The subject property requires 148 parking spaces pursuant to the Zoning By-law, of which 20% or 30 parking spaces are to be demarcated and reserved for visitor use. The applicant is proposing to provide 10% or 15 demarcated and reserved spaces for visitor use. While staff recognizes the development constraints on the site due to the scenic easement lands, it is noted that the applicant is proposing to provide 166 parking spaces on site, exceeding the minimum requirement of 148 spaces for the proposed multiple dwelling. Staff consulted with Transportation Planning staff who shares the opinion that the proposed 119 unit multiple dwelling will require the 20% visitor parking and it should be provided on site. Therefore, providing 10% visitor parking does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variance pertaining to a reduced front yard setback is minor for the following reasons. The municipal right-of-way is significantly wide for this portion of Block Line Road (approximately 7.5 metres to the public sidewalk) which provides an adequate buffer for pedestrian and vehicular traffic and further, the building is stepped which will also create a perception of greater setback on the property. The reduced setback will have no impact on surrounding properties and can therefore be considered minor in nature. The variance pertaining to a reduction to the percentage of required visitor parking cannot be considered minor. Staff believes that a 50% reduction of visitor parking for the proposed 119 unit multiple dwelling is not minor and will lead to spill over parking at the nearby Strasburg Plaza, or on adjacent properties which cannot be considered minor. The variance pertaining to a reduced front yard setback is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The reduced setback will COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 157 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-052, cont'd allow for construction of a high rise residential building of an appropriate size and scale for the developable portion of the subject property with the benefit of the scenic easement being retained for the enjoyment of the residents of the proposed development. The Official Plan and Zoning By-law intend for this site to be developed with a higher density residential use which the applicant is proposing. The variance pertaining to a reduction to the percentage of required visitor parking cannot be considered appropriate for the development and use of the subject land for the following reasons. Visitor parking for higher density residential uses is essential and needs to be reserved on site. Without adequate visitor parking, there is a significant risk to the surrounding property owners that vehicles will use their lands. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 29, 2010, advising that any future development of this site may require conveyance for dedicated road widening allowance. The Committee considered the Report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Resource Planner dated August 4, 2010, in which they advise that GRCA Staff are not in a position to comment on the above application at this time. We consider this application premature as we have not received a permit application pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06 or any of the following requested documents as part of the proposed Site Plan Application (SP08/80/B/LT): • Site Plan with a GRCA verified wetland boundary and a calculation of the amount of wetland loss, • Grading and Drainage Plans, • Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, • Stormwater Management Brief; and, • A Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Watercourses and Shorelines (Ontario Regulation 150/06) permit. Until we have received the above noted information, GRCA Staff will not be in a position to comment on this application. The Committee considered a letter from a neighbour in opposition to this application. Mr. Patterson advised the Committee that he agrees with the recommendation of City staff regarding the setback from the street but not the visitor parking. He advised that the request for the reduction in visitor parking has been made because they are limited by the constraints of the site and many of the intended purchasers have requested a second parking space. Mr. Patterson explained that in 2008, they submitted a site plan fora 10 storey building with 168 parking spaces rather than the required 189 parking spaces. At that time staff advised that they would support this reduction. The current proposal is fora 9 storey building containing 119 units and they are requesting a reduction in the number of visitor parking spaces. Mr. Ciurciura advised that if the requested variance is not approved it will affect the saleability of these units. Based on the parking demand by prospective owners, only 16 parking spaces will remain for visitors. The Chair commented that there are 166 parking spaces proposed for this property and only 148 spaces are required. Since the zoning by-law requirements can be met, he questioned why this variance is being requested. Mr. Patterson responded that the request is based on practical need. One parking space is being sold with each unit, and purchasers have an option to purchase an additional parking space. At this time 25% of the units have been sold and 75% of these purchasers want to buy a second parking space. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 158 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-052, cont'd Mr. Lewis advised that Transportation Planning does not support a reduction in the number of visitor parking spaces. He stated that when sufficient visitor parking spaces are not provided, parking will spill over to the neighbouring plaza parking lot and there is no on-street parking available in this area. He stated that he could support an overall reduction in the number of parking spaces on site, as Mr. Patterson had advised that there will be a car share program proposed for this development but no a 15% reduction in the number of visitor parking spaces. He also advised that there is additional space on site to provide more parking spaces, even given the site restraints. Mr. Ciurciura stated that they have made this application to legitimize this parking reduction; however, in other sites of this nature, visitor parking is rented to tenants. He advised that the demand for parking spaces is 150 for owners, which only leaves 16 parking spaces for visitors. Mr. Lewis recommended that consideration of this application be deferred until the applicants prepare a parking study for visitors parking. Mr. Hiscott put forward a motion to approve the variance to the set back and to approve a reduction in the number of visitor parking spaces from 20% to 15%. Mr. Lewis responded that Transportation Planning does not support any reduction in the number of visitor parking spaces. Ms. vonWesterholt requested that if Mr. Hiscott's motion is approved, a condition be added that the applicants, through the site plan approval process, explore with staff the potential for additional parking spaces on site. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Aspen Ridge Co-Operative Development Corporation requesting permission to construct a 119 unit multiple dwelling with a set back from Block Line Road of 7m (22.96') for a portion of the building having a height greater than 10.5m (34.44') rather than the required 13.3m (43.63'); and, permission to designate 15% of the parking spaces for visitors rather than the required 20%, on Block 312, Plan 1349, 1275 Block Line Road, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That through the site plan approval process, the applicant shall work with the City's Transportation Planning staff to explore the feasibility of providing additional parking spaces on this site. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 159 AUGUST 17, 2010 6. Submission No.: A 2010-053 Applicant: Roslyn Verity Property Location: 89 Highland Road East Legal Description: Part Lot 365, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract At the recommendation of City staff, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for September 21, 2010. CONSENT Submission Nos.: B2010-028 Applicant: Centennial Manor Apartments Inc Property Location: 55 Ross Avenue and 60 Wilfred Avenue Legal Description: Lots 97, 98 & 116 and Part of Lots 94, 95, 96, 117, 119 & 120. Plan 765 Appearances: In Support: A. Radovic Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land at 60 Wilfred Avenue to have a width on Wilfred Avenue of 15.05m (49.37'), a depth of 93.06m (315.15') and an area of 1,876 sq. m. (20,193.75 sq. ft.) The retained parcel of land at 55 Ross Avenue will have a width on Ross Avenue of 79.82m (261.87'), a depth of 41.14m (134.97') and an area of 1,964 sq. m. (21,141 sq. ft.). The existing and proposed use of both parcels is residential. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated August 5, 2010, in which they advise that the subject properties are located on Weber Street East, just south of the expressway, and are legally described as Parts 3, 4 and 6 of Reference Plan 58R-15241. The lands have dwellings at each address. The properties are designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in By-law 85-1. Staff visited the site on July 27th, 2010. These properties were the subject of consent application in 2005, where they were proposed to be severed from 63 and 73 Ross Avenue and 72 Wilfred Avenue after they all merged on title. However, staff was not able to endorse the deeds for 55 Ross Avenue and 60 Wilfred Avenue because that particular application did not address Part 4 of Reference Plan 58R-15241, which is aland-locked area between the two parcels. As such, 55 Ross Avenue and 60 Wilfred Avenue remained joined. The applicant is now requesting consent to sever the two properties; one lot for 55 Ross Avenue comprised of Parts 3 and 4 of Reference Plan 58R-15241, and the other for 60 Wilfred comprised of only Part 6 of Reference Plan 58R-15241. Planning comments: The proposed severance satisfies the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13. Planning staff notes that the high- lighting on the plan submitted with the application squared-off the south-east corner of the parcel to be known as 55 Ross Avenue where it abuts Weber Street East. All of Part 3 of Reference Plan 58R-15241 is to be considered a part of 55 Ross Avenue as per the bolded outline of the property on this plan, regardless of the green high-lighting. Furthermore, staff notes that achain-link fence has been installed between the two parcels that does not appear follow the property line as proposed in this application, and should be moved to reflect the new boundaries as identified in this application. Aside from this, Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed severance and recommends that the application for a consent to sever 55 Ross Avenue and 60 Wilfred Avenue, be approved, subject to conditions. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 160 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: B2010-028, cont'd Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed application. Parks Comments: No new building lots are being created; therefore, no park dedication required. Engineering Comments: • Driveways: Any redundant driveways are to be closed with new curb and gutter and boulevard landscaping, all to City of Kitchener standards and any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing sidewalk. All works is at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building • Severance: The proponent is advised that severance of any blocks within the subject lands would require separate, individual service connections for sanitary and water, in accordance with City policies • Servicing: The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the removal of any redundant service connections and the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, all prior to site plan approval. Our records indicate municipal services are currently available to service this property. • Servicing: There are services in the area and should not be a problem if the severed portion of the property needs to connect to the street separately. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated August 9, 2010, in which they advise that they have no objections to these applications. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Centennial Manor Apartments Inc requesting permission to sever a parcel of land at 60 Wilfred Avenue to have a width on Wilfred Avenue of 15.05m (49.37'), a depth of 93.06m (315.15') and an area of 1,876 sq. m. (20,193.75 sq. ft.), on Lots 97, 98 & 116 and Part of Lots 94, 95, 96, 117, 119 & 120, Plan 765, 55 Ross Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCAd) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the removal of any redundant service connections and the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property. 4. That the owner make satisfactory arrangements with the City's Engineering Services that any redundant driveways are to be closed with new curb and gutter and boulevard landscaping, all to City of Kitchener standards and any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing sidewalk. Works are at the owner's expense and all works need to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 161 AUGUST 17, 2010 Submission No.: B2010-028, cont'd It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 17, 2012. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of August, 2010. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment