Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2011-04-19 FNCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. Cybalski and B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Ms. M. Wade, Heritage Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. A. Buitenhuis, Student Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:25 a. m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider applications regarding variances to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law. The Committee will not make a decision on these applications but rather will make a recommendation which will be forwarded to the Committee of the Whole and Council for final decision. The Chair explained that the Committee's decisions with respect to fence variances are recommendations to City Council and not a final decision. He advised that the Committee's recommendations will be forwarded to City Council on Monday, May 9, 2010, at 7:00 p. m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. NEW BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: FN 2011-002 Applicant: Victoria Ariens Property Location: 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent Legal Description: Part Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession and Part Block 12, Registered Plan 58M-400, being Parts 1, 3 and 4, Reference Plan 58R-15677 Appearances: In Support: J. Ariens M. Johnston Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a fence (stone wall) having the height of 1.35m (4.43') to be setback Om from the driveway rather than outside the 4.57m (15') driveway visibility triangle. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2011, advising that the subject property is located at 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent on the south side of the road, in the Pioneer Tower West planning community. The property contains a single detached dwelling and an accessory building (commonly referred to as the drive shed). The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The property is zoned Residential Two (R2) in By-law 85-1 and is subject to special regulation provisions 231R and 263R and special use provisions 228U and 236U. The property is also designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and is subject to a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing drive shed building to a garage in order to provide two interior required parking spaces. The applicant has installed a driveway that leads to the proposed garage and the same driveway extends east of the garage in order to provide one required surface parking space and two additional parking spaces. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 19, 2011 The applicant is requesting relief from the City's Fence By-law, Section 630.1.4 and Section 630.3.1 to allow a fence having a height of 1.35 metres to be setback 0 metres from a driveway rather than outside the 4.57 metre Driveway Visibility Triangle. In considering the requested variance to the City's Fence By-law, Planning staff offer the following comments. The intent of Section 630.1.4 and Section 630.3.1 to ensure that a fence does not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic and to ensure that a fence does not obstruct the clear visibility of a normal approaching pedestrian or vehicle. It should be noted that a previous application (FN2008-013) approved a 1.5 metre high fence and a 0.5 metre Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) for the drive shed access and a 3.0 metre DVT for the driveway access. At the time of the previous application, the driveway on the east side of the drive shed provided a full 4.57 metre DVT as required in the Fence By-law. Since that time, the applicant has widened the driveway eastwards up to the edge of the fence. The result is that the previous 4.57 metre DVT has been reduced to 0 metres. The design and location of the fence in relation to the new driveway obstructs the clear visibility of pedestrians and vehicles. The position of the driver of a vehicle parked in "P3" attempting to reverse over the sidewalk onto the street. It is clear that the visibility of an approximate 6 foot pedestrian is obstructed. Based on the height of the fence, the visibility of pedestrians under 4 feet (e.g. children) will be fully obstructed. These obstructions create a safety concern. As a result, It is the opinion of Planning staff that the variance does not meet the intent of the Fence By-law and does not represent good planning and should therefore not be approved. Transportation Planning staff advised that they can not support space 3 as proposed on the parking plan provided by the applicant. Parking space 3 does not meet the minimum required dimensions for a parking space as defined in the "City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual". At its shortest point the stall is 4.8m in length. For comparative purposes, the average length of a minivan is app. 5.Om and therefore could not fit into space 3 as it is proposed. While there is a flagstone path directly adjacent to the parking stall, given the design (each individual flagstone is surrounded by sod, and clearly not intended for parking) it can be assumed that vehicles would not encroach in the pathway, and would instead block a portion of the sidewalk. Additionally, this stall is directly adjacent to the stone fence, which restricts visibility of pedestrians/children using the sidewalk. There is minimal clear visibility provided in this area, and a variance to the driveway visibility triangle cannot be supported in this area, due to pedestrian safety. While there was a variance granted for the fence within the DVT on the opposite corner of the property (in front of the drive shed), that variance was granted under much different context. Firstly, the fence is not directly adjacent to the stall, secondly, the stall recessed deeper into the property so that the vehicle is not directly adjacent to the sidewalk and thirdly, the sidewalk is curb face, so therefore sufficient visibility is provided to ensure that pedestrians have a safe path of travel. Given the nature and intended use of the site (a single family residence/bed and breakfast that is infrequently used), Transportation Planning can support the approved parking stalls on site exiting in a rearward motion. Transportation Planning can support the plan as proposed for spaces P1, P2, B1 and B2, provided that stall P3 is removed and reinstated in an alternate softscape material that does not support the parking of vehicles. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 4, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated April 8, 2011, advising that they will not provide comments on the above noted applications as there is still and outstanding GRCA plan review fee outstanding from a previous application. They note that the subject property contains steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplain associated with the Grand River and allowances adjacent to these features. Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/60 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 19, 2011 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation). Mr. M. Johnston, the applicant's planner, addressed the Committee and provided the members with printed material in support of these applications. He requested that the Committee consider the fence application and minor variance application in conjunction with each other as they are interrelated. He provided a brief history on the property advising that the Arien's purchased this property in 2003 and have been trying to find a suitable parking solution that would be satisfactory to the Heritage requirements, the City and the owners, since the date of purchase. He referenced the material circulated to the Committee, outlining the variances previously approved and potential solutions to the concerns outlined in the staff report. He noted that the variances previously approved are no longer viable, as the owner would like to install forward swinging carriage doors on the drive shed that would hinder the use of the spaces located directly in front. Mr. Johnston stated that the owner investigated other potential solutions for the parking demand; however, the work was going to be onerous and quiet costly. He commented that the applicant has three cars and operates a bed and breakfast and would like to maintain the location and number of spaces that are currently being used. Mr. Johnston, referencing the printed materials, addressed each of the issues outlined in the staff report. In addressing the concerns for the reduced Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) and the pedestrian and vehicle safety, Mr. Johnston advised that the applicant in proposing to the reduce the stall widths from 3.Om to 2.53m, increasing the DVT to 2.53m which would improve the pedestrian and vehicle visibility. He noted that a 2.53m DVT although not in compliance with the Fence By-Law it is a larger DVT than what was approved for the opposite side of the driveway in 2008. In response to the concerns regarding the encroachment on City property, Mr Johnston advised that with the reduction in width of the parking stalls it varies the location of the parking spaces closer to the drive shed, increasing the distance to the sidewalk. He stated that the owner has also proposed to move the spaces further on the property utilizing the flagstone in front of the driveway for parking, thereby decreasing the encroachment. He noted that this would not negate the requirement for an encroachment agreement but would minimize the impacts on City land. He referred to the photos in his presented material, demonstrating what parking would look like on the property if the variances were approved. The Chair questioned whether the parking dimensions were a condition of the Heritage Permit approval, and whether the spaces outlined as P2 and P3 in the provided material could be aligned in similar location as P1. Mr. J. Ariens stated that the stall widths were not a condition of the Heritage approval, the sizes were proposed to maximize the spaces between the vehicles to try and maintain the heritage vistas from the street. He further advised that he would have no problem aligning P2 and P3 closer to the location of P1; however, the vehicles would be partially parked on the flagstone rather then the driveway. Ms. von Westerholt commented that the amended proposal to narrow the spaces would be seen as an overall improvement, though it does not change the fact that the applicant would still be using City land for parking and liability still exists. She noted that if vehicles were parked over the sidewalk or on a driveway apron they would be ticketed for parking on City property. Ms. von Westerholt further advised that although the new doors on the drive shed would be more aesthetically pleasing to the property, the previous variance would still allow for the applicant to have five parking spaces, three in front of the drive shed and two located inside. It would be similar to other property owners having a one lane driveway or forward swinging doors. If one vehicle was parked in the garage, other vehicles would have to be moved to provide access. Mr. Ariens advised that with the narrowing of the stall widths it would reduce the number of variances required; noting, that the Committee could choose to approve the applications with the condition of getting an encroachment agreement and he would deal with the Legal Department in fulfilling the condition. Ms. von Westherholt stated that narrowing the stalls would decrease the variances; it would not eliminate any of them. She further advised that she could not speak on Legal Service's COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 19, 2011 behalf, but wanted it noted that there was no guarantee they would recommend an encroachment agreement. She added that the amended proposal does show progress and staff would be willing to work with the applicant to find a satisfactory solution to both the Zoning By-Law and the Heritage requirements. Ms. Wade commented that as part of the previous Committee of Adjustment decision in 2008, the spaces were to be delineated defining the parking on the property. The reduction in stall size does not take into consider the current pavers on the property as the solider coursing design within the pavers is what defines the spaces. By reducing the stall size the delineating no longer defines the parking spaces. She added that the suggestion of aligning spaces P2 and P3 would potentially require another variance as the Zoning By-Law states that driveways must be a consistent material and in this case the flagstone would be used as a portion of the driveway. The Chair suggested that planters could be installed in the P3 location or P3 could be removed in its entirety freeing up those pavers to extend the rear edge of the driveway to accommodate the realignment of spaces P2 and P3 and to minimize or eliminate the encroachment concern. Mr. Ariens advised that he would like to leave the pavers as they are and that a deferral maybe in order to speak with Heritage Staff and Planning staff to find a more satisfactory solution. Mr. B. McColl stated that his one concern about using planters to mitigate parking in the P3 parking location would be that they are temporary and can be moved to accommodate parking, as this is not likely something that would be policed in the future. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Victoria Ariens requesting legalization of a fence (stone wall) having the height of 1.35m (4.43') to be setback Om from the driveway rather than outside the 4.57m (15') driveway visibility triangle, on Part Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession and Part Block 12, Registered Plan 58M-400, being Parts 1, 3 and 4, Reference Plan 58R-15677, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, BE DEFFERED, to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for May 17, 2011. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 a. m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of April, 2011. Dianne Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment