Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2010-10-19COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 19, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybakski, B.McColl and M. Hiscott OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:11 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of September 21, 2010, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: A 2010-055 Applicant: Access Self Storage Property Location: 50 Ottawa Street South Legal Description: Lots 1-11, Plan 262, Part Lot 486, Streets & Lanes and Part Park Lot 25, Plan 404, being Parts 2-5 & 7, Reference Plan 58R-2633 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: None Based on the staff recommendation, to which the applicant agreed, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday November 23, 2010, to allow the owner an opportunity to revise their application for any additional variances that may be required. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2010-060 Applicant: Janusz Jelinski Property Location: 50 Durham Street Legal Description: Lot 41, Plan 1472 Appearances: In Support: J. Jelinski Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 194 OCTOBER 19, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-060. cont'd Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for the parking space in the existing driveway to be located 3m (9.84') from the front lot line rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated October 8, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at 50 Durham Street and contains a single detached dwelling with an attached garage. The subject lot is approximately 15.24 metres wide by 30.48 metres deep, with an area of approximately 465 square metres. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Three (R-3) with special regulation 319U in the City's Zoning By-law 85-1. Special Regulation 319U prohibits duplex units. The previous owner has converted a portion of the existing attached garage into living space. The By-law requires that the required parking be set back 6.0 metres from the street line - in this case, the required parking was provided in the garage and cannot be provided in front of the existing garage door, as the driveway is less than 11.5 metres in length. The current owner is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a parking space to be located 3.3 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. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The conversion of the garage into residential living space at 50 Durham Street is consistent in form and use with other development in the area. The internal renovation has allowed for an expansion of living space without altering the exterior appearance of the residential dwelling. The variance meets the intent of By-law 85-1 because the purpose of locating the required off-street parking space 6.0 metres from the street line is to provide an adequate buffer between the garage and street and to maintain the appearance of the streetscape and to allow an opportunity for two vehicles to be parked off of the road right-of-way on the property. The subject property currently contains a driveway with a length of 8.8 metres and a width that can accommodate two vehicles, side by side. The off-street parking by-law requires one parking space for each dwelling unit, which is usually provided in the garage. However, on this property one parking space can be fully achieved on the driveway without encroaching onto the street right-of-way. Staff is of the opinion that the variance requested is minor in nature because parking can still be accommodated on-site. The reduction in the setback from the street line will not have an adverse impact on the neighbourhood because the development is consistent and compatible with the area. The variance is considered desirable because it will not alter the appearance of the dwelling from the street line and the character of the neighbourhood will be maintained. The variance is appropriate for the development and the use of the land as the conversion of the garage creates increased living space for the Applicant without the need for an external addition to the dwelling. In addition, the subject property will be able to accommodate the required parking space. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 29, 2010, advising that have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 195 OCTOBER 19, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-060, cont'd Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Janusz Jelinski requesting permission for the parking space in the existing driveway to be located 3m (9.84') from the front lot line rather than the required 6m (19.68'), on Lot 41, Plan 1472, 50 Durham Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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 2010-061 Applicant: Pravin and Bindu Desai Property Location: 118 Hickory Heights Crescent Legal Description: Lot 218, Plan 1334 Appearances: In Support: P. & B. Desai Contra: J. & T Oja Written Submissions: J. & T Oja The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a carport on the easterly side of the existing dwelling, to have a side yard of 0.25 m (0.82') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated October 8, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at 118 Hickory Heights Crescent and has 12.1 metres of frontage, a depth of 30.48 metres, and an area of approximately 368 square metres, and is developed with a single detached dwelling. It is zoned Residential Four (R-4) and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. Relief is being sought from Section 48.2.1 of the Zoning Bylaw where the applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required minimum side yard setback from 3.0 metres to 0.25 metres to allow for the construction of a carport in the required side 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 variety of low density residential uses. The proposed development of a carport at 118 Hickory Heights Crescent is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 3.0 metre side yard setback is to provide sufficient room in the side yard to accommodate any required driveway leading to a required off-street parking space that is situated between the dwelling and the side lot line. The proposed carport is consistent with the intent of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 196 OCTOBER 19, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-061, cont'd side yard setback regulation in the By-law because the carport will accommodate the required off-street parking space. The variance is considered minor as there is adequate separation from the proposed carport and the adjacent residential property. The carport, including any required eave troughs or other required storm water management improvements, will be located fully on the subject property and as such the proposed carport and variance will have minimal impact to adjacent lands because the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed carport in the side yard will allow for a covered off-street parking space for the owner of the subject property. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 29, 2010, advising that have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submission of a neighbour in opposition to this application. Mr. Desai advised that Committee that they wish to construct a carport on the side of their house that will consist of a roof and posts and it will not have walls. The eaves on the carport will reach to the property line and the roof will slope towards the driveway and the rear yard. Mr. Oja advised the Committee that he is representing his mother who owns the abutting property on the side adjacent to the location for the proposed garage. She bought the property 5 months ago. Mrs. Oja was also in attendance. Mr. Oja advised the Committee that his mother is concerned about water run-off from the garage because it will be so close to their common lot line. He stated that water running off the roof towards the driveway will not be absorbed by the ground because the driveway is made of a hard surface. Also, water running off the roof towards the rear yard will not be absorbed because there is a deck immediately behind the proposed location for the carport. He also noted that there is a window well on that side of his mother's house closest to the carport which will fill with water if there is no proper drainage. During further discussions, Mr. Desai advised that the carport roof will be an extension of his house roof and it will slope towards Mrs. Oja's house. He advised that there will be an eaves trough and a downspout at the front and rear of the carport. Ms. von Westerholt questioned whether there is an opportunity to reduce the size of the carport. Committee members advised that they want to be able to see elevation drawings of the proposed carport and that they have concerns about Mr. Desai's ability to maintain the carport and to be able to clean-out the eaves if the carport is built out to the side lot line. The Committee generally agreed to defer their consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for November 23, 2010 to allow for the following: a meeting to take place with Mrs. Oja and her son and Mr. & Mrs. Desai to try and address each others' concerns and to reach a compromise if possible; and, that Mr. Desai is to provide elevation drawings for the proposed carport for the meeting with the neighbours and for the November 23rd committee of Adjustment meeting. Ms. von Westerholt advised that she will have Mr. Stevenson, the planner who has been working on this application, arrange the neighbours' meeting and to attend that meeting. When Mrs. Desai advised if their contractor could still build the carport in November, the Committee advised that no decision will be made on the application until at least the November meeting, so they would not be able to build in November. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 197 OCTOBER 19, 2010 3. Submission No.: A 2010-062 Applicant: Rahim Mohammad Husaini Property Location: 21 Ottawa Street South Legal Description: Part Park, Lot 25, Plan 404 Appearances: In Support: R. Husaini P. Singh Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for an existing triplex to have 2off-street parking spaces rather than the required 3off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated October 8, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at 21 Ottawa Street South and is developed with a triplex dwelling. It is designated Mixed Use Corridor in the Official Plan and is currently zoned Commercial Residential Four (CR-4) in the Zoning By-law. On September 7th, 2010, Council passed By-law 2010- 155 and Official Plan Amendment 89 to re-designate and rezone the King Street East Mixed Use Corridor, effecting rezoning the subject property to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-3). The Official Plan amendment is subject to final approval by the Region of Waterloo. The Official Plan amendment and zoning bylaw will be in effect at the end of the appeal period, in accordance with the Planning Act. Both the existing and proposed zoning permit the use of the property as a triplex. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to legalize the existing triplex having only two parking spaces rather than the three parking spaces as required in Section 6.1.2(a). of the Zoning By-law 85-1. In late 2009, the applicant was informed that the property does not currently meet requirements for a triplex. Staff advised that in order to legalize the existing triplex use, the following would be required: 1) Occupancy permit; and 2) Site plan approval for the increase in the parking areas in order to comply with the parking requirements; alternatively, a minor variance approval to permit the reduction of two parking spaces rather than the required three spaces. The applicant applied for an Occupancy Certificate in March 2010. This application for a Certificate of Occupancy is on hold until the required parking is provided or minor variance approval is obtained to permit the reduction of two parking spaces rather than the required three spaces. As such, the applicant is proceeding with a minor variance to legalize the existing triplex having only two parking spaces rather than the three parking spaces. 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 for the following reasons. The property is designated as Mixed Use Corridor in the City's Official Plan. This designation supports the use of the property as a multiple dwelling. The Mixed Use Corridor areas are intended for intensive, transit supportive development. The subject property provides the intensity of use with easy access to public transportation thus meeting the intent of the Official Plan. The Official Plan also stipulates that appropriate amenity area should be provided on site in order for residential lands to function appropriately and not adversely impact adjacent properties. The reduction of one parking space provides more amenity area. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 198 OCTOBER 19, 2010 3. Submission No.: A 2010-062, cont'd The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The property is zoned Commercial Residential Three (CR-3) which permits the use of the property as a multiple dwelling. The Zoning By-law requires parking for a triplex use at the rate of 1 space per unit. This is to ensure each tenant has access to a private parking space on site without impacting the public right-of-way with parking on the street. Staff took into consideration the location of the existing triplex (being in close proximity to the Downtown) and the fact that there are two parking spaces on site to determine that the application meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The subject property is within walking distance to the Downtown and can provide adequate accommodation for two vehicles on site. There will be no physical changes to the property and on-street parking will not be impacted. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. Multiple dwellings are permitted by the zoning and the variance is only a result of legalizing the existing parking situation and not for any proposed changes to the existing structure. The location of the property provides for easy access to public transportation and the development is transit supportive, therefore achieving the objective of the Mixed Use designation. Furthermore, the reduction in parking allows for more amenity area, thus a reduction in one parking space is appropriate. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 29, 2010, advising that have no concerns with this application. However, future development applications may require a dedicated road widening allowance. The Committee considered the written submission of a neighbour in opposition to this application. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that this property is located in a Mixed Use Corridor and it is reasonable to recognize a 10 - 30% reduction in parking. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Rahim Mohammad Husaini requesting permission for an existing triplex to have 2off-street parking spaces rather than the required 3off-street parking spaces, on Part Park, Lot 25, Plan 404, 21 Ottawa Street South, 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 199 OCTOBER 19, 2010 4. Submission No.: A 2010-063 Applicant: Elizabeth Ann Miles Property Location: 38 Breckwood Place Legal Description: Lot 16, Plan 58M-49 Appearances: In Support: E. Miles Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to put a roof over an existing rear deck, with a rear yard of 4m (13.12'), rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated October 8, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at 38 Breckwood Place and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property has approximately 16 metres of frontage, an area of approximately 952.5 square metres. It is zoned Residential Three (R-3), Special Regulation 173R and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. Relief is being sought from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning Bylaw where the applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 4.0 metres to allow for the construction of an enclosed roof structure over the existing deck in the required rear yard. Environmental Planning staff has concerns that the subject property has a tree preservation area within the rear 5 - 8 metres of the property. The intent of the original detailed vegetation and grading plan having a'tree preservation / no touch area' on this property has not changed since it was established in 1995 and revised in 1998 (clause C1.55 within the Residential Subdivision Agreement Registered on Title). 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 variety of low density residential uses. The proposed development is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 7.5 metres rear yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff's opinion that a setback of 4.0 metres would continue to allow access to outdoor amenity space. 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 existing deck will be enclosed and still have access to the rear yard will which will continue to serve as amenity space for the owners. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 200 OCTOBER 19, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-063, cont'd In response to the conditions recommended by staff, Ms. Milas advised that she went through a process of protecting the vegetation and questioned why she would have to do it again. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that if Ms. Milas could provide evidence that she has already fulfilled this condition she would not have to do so again. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Elizabeth Ann Milas requesting permission to put a roof over an existing rear deck, with a rear yard of 4m (13.12'), rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 16, Plan 58M-49, 38 Breckwood Place, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan 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, 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, vegetation to be preserved and the assessment of all trees within 15 metres beyond the current edge of the woodland. 2. That upon clearance of the Condition #1 above, the applicant obtains a building permit from the City's Building Division for the proposed enclosed roof structure that will be constructed over the existing deck in the required rear yard. 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 2010-064 Applicant: Karen Spencer and John Czako Property Location: 215 Old Carriage Drive Leaal Description: Part Lot 3, Biehn's Tract Appearances: In Support: K. Spencer J. Czako Contra: C. Pudel H. Stronks Written Submissions: G. Cressman S. Dawson The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to build a duplex on a property that does not have frontage on a public street, contrary to the zoning by-law. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated October 6, 2010, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 215 Old Carriage Drive and is legally described as Part of Lot 3 Biehn Tract. The property does not have legal frontage onto a City street but is municipally COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 201 OCTOBER 19, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-064, cont'd serviced/addressed and has legal access to Old Carriage Drive over City owned property by way of an established right-of-way created in 1978. The property contains a single detached dwelling built in the 1840's and is approximately 40 by 57 metres with an area of approximately 0.23 hectares. It is split zoned Residential Two (R-2) (187U) and Existing Use (E-1 ). Permitted uses in the R-2 zone are single detached and duplex units. Semi-detached and lodging homes are not permitted. The E1 zone boundary reflects the Grand River Conservation Authority's Regulatory Flood Line. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential/Open Space in the Official Plan and it also falls within the Heritage District of Upper Doon. A site visit of the subject property was completed in August 2010. The applicant/owners would like to demolish the existing structure and re-build a duplex dwelling but because the property does not have legal frontage onto a public street, relief from Section 5.2 of the Zoning Bylaw is being sought from the Committee. Section 5.2 of the Zoning Bylaw prohibits constructing any building for any purpose on a lot which does not abut a street. Section 5.2 is very specific and under normal circumstances the owner would have to apply for a zone change. However, this case is unique. After obtaining the City's Legal Department's opinion to a title search of the property, the Legal Department has concluded that, for purposes of the Zoning By-law, the existing right-of-way will be interpreted as frontage onto a public street. As such, it is appropriate to take this request through the Committee of Adjustment to legalize the frontage so that a building permit can be obtained. Planning staff accept the opinion of the Assistant City Solicitor and have no concerns with the request. For the Committee's information, there are concurrent approvals being sought. First, because the property falls within the Upper Doon Heritage District, Heritage Kitchener and Council approval is required for the demolition of the existing 1840 structure. The owners have received Heritage Kitchener endorsement to demolish the structure and are in the process of finalizing approvals for building elevations for the new duplex. The owners have applied for Demolition Control and a report will be forwarded to Council pending the approval of this variance. Second, Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) approval has also been sought and received because of the structure's proximity to the floodplain. This should be confirmed in the GRCA's letter to the Committee. Planning staff would like to point out that this property is located near Conestoga College where student housing is commonly situated. The existing R-2 zoning permits single detached and duplex dwellings only. Lodging homes are not permitted within this zone. For the record, should this property be rented, staff would have no issues providing it is done in accordance with the Zoning By-law and all applicable laws and regulations. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planner, dated October 5, 2010, advising that the GRCA has no objection to the approval of this application; and, issued permit #612/09 on January 29, 2010 for the construction of a new dwelling on this property. Ms. Spencer addressed the comments of the Heritage Planner, contained in the staff report, advising that she has been to Heritage Kitchener in regard to her demolition permit and will go before that committee again with designs for the new house. Ms. Spenser advised that they bout this property 5 years ago, noting that the existing house was built in the 1840's. She had a construction company prepare an estimate of the cost to bring the house into conformity with current codes. They estimated the cost to be a minimum of $240,000. After careful consideration they decided to demolish the existing house and build a new one. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 202 OCTOBER 19, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-064, cont'd Ms. Spencer advised that they live at 219 Old Carriage Drive. They currently rent the subject property and will continue to do so. They are close enough to care for the rental property and keep an eye on what happens there. She noted that if this application is approved, she will be able to relocate the new house on the lot so that it is close enough to the land to be able to connect to the municipal sewer. At this time, because of the grade of the land, the waste goes into a holding tank which is then pumped up to the municipal sewer. If they can move the location of the house, they will no longer need the holding tank. The committee considered the two written submissions in support of this application. Ms. von Westerholt advised that the City created this situation when they constructed Old Carriage Drive. She advised that the lane is owned by the City of Kitchener and it provides access to municipal services. She noted the opinion of the City's Legal Services that the current situation gives the owners the frontage that they need. She also cautioned that any approval of this application would not allow for the construction or use of the property as asemi-detached or lodging house. Mr. Stronks addressed the Committee and advised that he lives at 195 Old Carriage Drive, directly behind the subject property. He stated that none of the neighbours are in support of this development because of their concerns that it will be converted into student housing. He noted that the Traffic Department has stated they have no concerns with this application however, a highrise is to be constructed across the street and that coupled with this duplex will substantially increase traffic in the neighbourhood. Mr. Stronks also expressed concern about traffic in relation to the public's use of the land to get to the trail. He stated that seniors and parents with their children use this trail and cars using the lane have no regard for pedestrians. He also noted that previous tenants were very noisy, garbage is left on the laneway and noted problems with garbage pick-up. He concluded by asking that the application not be approved. Mr. Pudel stated that on paper the proposal looks good but it does not translate that way in reality. This is a nice community and any change is going to affect neighbourhood life. The development will increase traffic and there are problems with garbage collection down the lane. Ms. Spencer agreed that on garbage day there are lots of garbage cans on the street. She stated that she personally has gone out and cleaned up any garbage that is left behind. However, her tenants' garbage is not the only garbage, as people using the land and the trail drop garbage there as well. The Chair advised that this application is an improvement to the area by taking care of a dilapidated building. This application also eliminates the need for the septic system. He stated that the right-of-way looks like a street that was never finished; however, it has municipal services. Mr. Hiscott suggested that someone should look into the possibility of garbage collection on the lane. Ms. von Westerholt clarified the requested variance; permission to build on a lot that does not have frontage on a public street. The use of the property is not part of the application; however, staff wanted to make it clear to the owner that semi-detached dwellings and lodging houses are not permitted uses in the zone. Mr. McColl spoke in support of the application stating that the proposal is an improvement to the property; although, he does understand the neighbours' concern about student housing. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 203 OCTOBER 19, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-064, cont'd That the application of Karen Spencer and John Czako requesting permission to build a duplex on a property that does not have frontage on a public street, contrary to the zoning by-law but not to permit the construction of asemi-detached dwelling or a lodging house, on Part Lot 3, Biehn's Tract, 215 Old Carriage Drive, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the owners shall obtain approval from Council for demolition of the existing structure. 2. That the owners shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 3. That once the new duplex has been constructed, the owner shall decommission the existing (septic) holding tank on the property. 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 2010-065 Applicant: Margaret Janzen Property Location: 311 Union Boulevard Legal Description: Lot 3, Plan 350 Appearances: In Support: M. Janzen Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission for the off- street parking space to be located in the existing driveway, 4.86m (15.94') rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated October 6, 2010, advising that the subject property subject property is located at 311 Union Blvd. and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property is zoned Residential Two (R-2) in the Zoning By-law and is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to use a portion of the garage area to construct a stair well to lead into the basement which will reduce the parking area in the garage. As a result, the legal parking space for the single detached dwelling will have to be relocated onto the driveway. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) to allow an off- street parking space located on a driveway, to be 4.86 metre setback from the street line rather than the required 6 metre setback. 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: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 204 OCTOBER 19, 2010 Submission No.: A 2010-065. cont'd 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 required parking space on the driveway as well as maintain the low density character of the property and neighbourhood. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of the required 6 metre setback from the street line is to allow an opportunity for a visitor's vehicle to be parked on the driveway and off of the road right-of-way. The subject property contains a wide enough driveway that can adequately accommodate a visitor's vehicle beside the resident's required parking space if required. The variance is considered minor because parking can still be accommodated on-site. The reduction in the 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 it is compatible with the surrounding low rise residential development. The requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the location of the required parking space on the driveway. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated October 12, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Ms. Janzen advised that she has read the staff report and is in agreement with it. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Margaret Janzen requesting permission for the off-street parking space to be located in the existing driveway, 4.86m (15.94') from the front property line rather than the required 6m (19.68'), on Lot 3, Plan 350, 311 Union Boulevard, 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 CONSENT 1. Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: B 2010-043 Huron Gateway Developments Inc. 1800 Strasburg Road Part Lot 1, Plan 1382, being Parts 2 & 5, Reference Plan 58R-12683 A. Weber R. Sutherland None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 205 OCTOBER 19, 2010 Submission Nos.: B 2010-043. cont'd Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Strasburg Road of 21.421 m (70.27') by a depth of 251.033m (823.59') and having an area of 6057 sq. m. (65,199.13 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 1830 Strasburg Road. The retained land will have a width on Strasburg Road of 115m (377.29'), a depth of 251.033m (823.59') and an area of 32,405 sq. m. (348,815.93 sq. ft.). The retained land is currently vacant and will remain so at this time. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated October 8, 2010, advising that the subject property is located north- west of the intersection of Huron Road and Strasburg Road and is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting consent to sever a strip of land from 1800 Strasburg Road as a lot addition to 1830 Strasburg Road. The proposed area to be conveyed is 21.421 meters wide, runs the full depth of the properties and has an area of 6,057m2. The applicant has noted that the purpose of this consent is to increase the side yard of the property at 1830 Strasburg Road. Staff note that any new development or redevelopment including building additions or changes to access, driveways or the parking lot layout at 1830 Strasburg Road will be subject to site plan approval. Furthermore, any future development of 1800 Strasburg Road will be subject to Site Plan control. The property is designated Business Park and has split zoning of Restricted Business Park Zone (B-2), Business Park Service Centre Zone (B-3) and Restricted Business Park Zone (B-2) with Special Use Provision 211 U which modifies the permitted uses. These zones are similar and any future development must comply with the regulations of the zone in which it is located. Minimum lot area and width is consistent between these zones and staff note that the resultant parcels of land will comply with lot size regulations. Environmental Planners comment that the lands are adjacent to a future Core Environmental Feature (Regionally Significant Woodland) in the new Regional Official Plan. The lands underwent an EIR/EIS when the parcel was originally created by Plan of Subdivision, and these studies established the current rear lot line. As the rear lot lines will remain the same as a result of this consent, the City does not require any new or updated EIR/EIS and the parcel proposed as a lot additional contains no natural heritage or significant treed features of any kind. 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 retained lands and the lands to which the lot addition shall be conveyed are in conformity with the City's Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the resulting lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing and future business park uses, and the resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The lands front on established public streets and have adequate means of access. Independent and adequate connections to municipal services can be provided to both parcels of land. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law regulations. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated October 12, 2010, in which they advise that they have no objections to these applications. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 206 OCTOBER 19, 2010 Submission Nos.: B 2010-043, cont'd That the application of Huron Gateway Developments Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Strasburg Road of 21.421 m (70.27') by a depth of 251.033m (823.59') and having an area of 6057 sq. m. (65,199.13 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 1, Plan 1382, being Parts 2 & 5, Reference Plan 58R-12683, 1800 Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 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. a) That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. b) That the owner's Solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. 4. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 2% of the value of the lands to be severed. 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 October 19, 2012. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 207 OCTOBER 19, 2010 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of October, 2010. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment