Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2011-08-16COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 16, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. A. Head and Messrs. A. Lise and B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic Technologist, Mr. G. Stevenson, Planner, 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 Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of July 19, 2011, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINSHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: A 2011-042 Applicant: Arrow Lofts Inc. Property Location: 112 Benton Street Legal Description: Lots 11 to 20, Plan 398, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-15894 Appearances: In Support: C. Pidgeon Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to reduce the number of visitor parking spaces fora 136 unit apartment building, such that 17 visitor parking spaces will be provided (10%) rather than the required 34 visitor parking spaces (20%). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 9, 2011, advising that the subject site is located at the southwest corner of Benton Street and St.George Street at 112 Benton Street. The site is 0.894 hectares (2.21 acres) in size, and is generally rectangular in shape with a small sliver of land connecting the site to Courtland Avenue in the northwest corner. The site has approximately 143 metres frontage on Benton Street, approximately 62 metres frontage on St.George Street and approximately 1.5 metres frontage on Courtland Avenue. The subject property is designated Downtown -Commercial Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Commercial Residential Three Zone (CR-3) with Special Regulation Provision (394R). Site Plan Approval was granted in 2009 fora 134 unit apartment building. There are also plans for future development on the undeveloped portion of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 213 AUGUST 16, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-042 (Cont'd site. Construction of the site is ongoing. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.2.1 b) vi) of the Zoning By-law to permit a reduction in the required visitor parking from 20% to 10% of the total required parking spaces. This equates to a reduction from 34 to 17 visitor parking spaces. According to the applicant, this variance is necessary in order to provide purchasers the option of buying more than one parking space. As currently approved, each unit has been allocated one parking space with the rest required for visitor parking. The Committee may recall this matter was deferred at the June 21 and July 19, 2011 hearings, respectively. Staff feels the variance was unnecessary as there is ample space located elsewhere on site to accommodate the shortfall of visitor parking the variance would present. Since the meeting, staff has held several discussions and meetings with the applicant. Preliminary plans were prepared by the applicant showing a new temporary parking area for 18 parking stalls to be located just to the west of the parking garage in the future development. The intent was to provide temporary visitor parking for the first phase of development and incorporate these spaces in the second phase development plans. Staff was supportive of the plan and it appeared a resolution was nearing. Unfortunately, for a reduction in visitor parking, this was not the option the applicant wished to pursue and has insisted on moving forward with the requested variance. 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 purpose of the Downtown -Commercial Residential designation is to encourage more intensive residential development in the Core as is being proposed on the subject lands. As a result, the intent of the Land Use designation is being met. This test has been satisfied. The Official Plan parking policies are to ensure adequate parking standards are in place and enforceable. These same policies allow the City to consider reduced parking requirements for properties within an area where adequate alternative parking facilities are available, or where it can be demonstrated that such reduction will not negatively affect the surrounding neighbourhood. It has been the experience of the City's Transportation Planning staff that visitor parking for high rise developments is typically utilized to its capacity during evenings, weekends and holidays. As a result, staff is concerned that 17 visitor parking spaces will not sufficiently meet the demand of 134 residential units without compromising the surrounding community and properties as there is limited on street parking available on Benton Street and St. George Street. Therefore, this test has not been satisfied. The variance does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. Zoning By-law 85-1 requires multiple dwellings with more than 60 units to dedicate 20% of the required parking to visitors to ensure there is adequate parking provided on site without having a negative effect on surrounding properties and streets. Staff is of the opinion that providing only 17 visitor parking spaces on site will not be adequate to meet the needs of 134 residential units. Additionally, it is the experience of Transportation Planning that the proposed reduction will create a spill over effect on the abutting properties especially during evenings and weekends. Moreover, staff questions why is this variance is even necessary when the site clearly has the ability to accommodate the 17 visitor spaces by constructing a temporary parking area on the future development portion of the property. This would give the owner the ability to sell off additional parking spaces yet maintain the visitor parking requirement. This test has therefore not been satisfied. The variance is not minor and not appropriate for the following reasons. A 50% reduction to the visitor parking requirement is not considered to be minor as the effects COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 214 AUGUST 16, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-042 (Cont'd of the reduction will have negative impacts on adjacent properties and the surrounding street network and the visitors of residents in the building. This test has not been satisfied. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 7, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Pidgeon stated that he is in attendance in opposition to staff's recommendation. He commented that the reduction in visitor parking spaces is meant to allow purchasers an opportunity to obtain a second parking space when purchasing a condominium in the building. He advised that within the development there are a variety of different types of units ranging up to 2,000 sq.ft. He stated that the developer has tried to mitigate some of parking demand concerns by selling parking separately to the units. There have been units sold where the purchasers have opted out of purchasing a parking space and some where two spaces have been sold. Mr. Pidgeon advised that they have been working with staff to determine the best situation for parking on-site, noting that the larger question regarding the development is whether a variance will be required at all. He stated that it is the developer's intention to provide the required number of visitor parking spaces on site for phase one of the development, 17 parking spaces in the underground parking structure and 17 temporary spaces on the outdoor parking surface. The variance would come into affect in the development of the second phase 16 storey multi-residential building on-site. Mr. Pidgeon stated that the developer wishes to monitor the use of the visitor parking spaces through the phase one development and determine whether the full 20% requirement is required and being utilized. If the spaces are under utilized due to the occupancy and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) options, the temporary spaces would be removed in the development of the second phase. He noted that if the visitor spaces were deemed required through use, the developer plans to incorporate them on a permanent basis. He commented that the reason for the application at this time is due to the property ownership, if the variance is applied for once the building is at full occupancy, it would require applications from each owner in the building. He provided several examples of other multi-residential buildings in the downtown area that have a reduction in visitor parking spaces and stated that there are a significant number of TDM options within blocks of the building and under utilized visitor spaces would not be the most efficient use of the site. He further advised that he was aware of an application of a property on Belmont Avenue that came to the Committee in June that was similar in nature that was refused. He advised that this application would not be setting a precedent, as there was enough room on site to provide the required parking spaces if required and there is significant public parking options within blocks of the site. Mr. Pidgeon advised that the developer is willing to work with staff to find a solution. He stated that he would be willing to amend the variance to request a 25% reduction in visitor parking spaces, which would be 34 to 26 spaces, rather than the requested 50%. He also provided the Committee a handout outlining a potential condition as a second option for the Committee's approval consideration. Ms. von Westerholt advised that she understands the applicant's request and staff would be willing to consider potential compromises. She stated that that City's intention is to err on the side of caution, the requirement of visitor spaces cannot be determined by considering one or two separate events, but considering long term consequences. This property does have access to a number of TDM measures, whether that reduces the need for visitor spaces is unknown. Mr. Lewis stated that a reduction of visitor parking spaces could potentially create an overflow which would negatively affect the neighbouring properties. The visitor parking requirement is to ensure that each property has adequate parking on-site for all its tenants. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 215 AUGUST 16, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-042 (Cont'd Ms. von Westerholt stated that staff are currently of the opinion that if the required number of visitor parking spaces can be provided on site temporarily why could they not be installed permanently. She advised that staff would consider the applicant's proposed compromises but would need time to consider their potential impact on the site and surrounding properties. The Chair questioned whether a deferral would allow staff an opportunity to work with the applicant to consider the newly proposed condition or potential amendment to the application to reduce the variance to a 25% reduction rather than the requested 50%. Both staff and the applicant advised that they could support a one month deferral. The Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application, to its meeting scheduled for September 20, 2011, to allow for the applicant an opportunity work with staff to discuss a long term parking solution. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: A 2011-047 Applicant: Drewlo Holdings Inc. Property Location: 200 Old Carriage Drive Legal Description: Part Block F, Plan 1373, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-16735 Appearances: In Support: G. Bikas R. Tome Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct two 16 storey multi-residential buildings having stepped vertical projections from the street line. The building width along Homer Watson Boulevard will have an exterior side yard setback of 4.288m (14.07`) rather than the required 10.5m (34.45') for the portion of the building having a maximum height of 29.25m (95.96`) (11 floors); an exterior side yard setback of 6.17m (20.24`) rather than the required 15m (49.21`) for the portion of the building having a maximum height of 34.85m (114.34`) (floors 11 to 13); an exterior side yard setback of 12.09m (39.67`) rather than the required 19.5m (63.98`) for the portion of the building having a maximum height of 46.10m (151.25') (floors 14 to 16); permission for a southerly interior side to have a setback of 5.821 (19.1`) rather than the required 6.Om (19.69`); and, permission to locate off-street visitor parking spaces 3.805m (12.48`) from the lot line along Homer Watson Boulevard rather than the required 4.5m (14.76`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 27, 2011, advising that the applicant is requesting minor variances to permit: 1. Minimum side yard abutting at street (Homer Watson Boulevard) of 4.288 metres rather than the required 10.5 metres for that portion of the building having a maximum height of 29.25 metres; 2. Minimum side yard abutting a street (Homer Watson Boulevard) of 6.17 metres rather than the required 15 metres for that portion of the building having a maximum height of 34.85 metres; 3. Minimum side yard abutting a street (Homer Watson Boulevard) of 12.09 metres rather than the required 19.5 metres for that portion of the building having a maximum height of 46.10 metres; COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 216 AUGUST 16, 2011 1. Submission No. A 2011-047 (Cont'd) 4. To permit a southerly side yard setback of 5.821 metres rather than the required 6 metres; and 5. To permit visitor parking to be located 3.805 metres from the side yard abutting a street (Homer Watson Boulevard) rather than the required 4.5 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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The applicant is proposing to construct a 16-storey multiple dwelling which is permissible within the High Rise Residential designation of the Official Plan. The High Rise Residential designation is intended for the highest density residential development within the City. The proposed development will have 274 residential units in two 16- story towers achieving a density of 240.56 units per hectare which well exceeds the minimum of 100 units per hectare as noted in the High Rise Residential designation. The variances for a reduction to the side yard abutting a street meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The R-9 zoning regulations for side yard abutting a street are determined based on building height. For the proposed building, the side yard abutting a street is deficient adjacent to Homer Watson Boulevard. The proposed building will be stepped at the 11th floor and 14th floor to enhance the street profile and to soften the mass of the building adjacent to the public realm. The three building heights have necessitated the request for the three variances to the side yard setback. Staff is of the opinion that the reduction in setback for the proposed building, at ground level, the 11th floor and 14th floor are in keeping with the intent of the setback requirement to ensure building massing is at an appropriate distance from the property line and the public realm. On this particular parcel of land, there is a Regional road right-of-way approximately 11 metres wide along the full length of the side yard abutting the street which further enhances the building setback. In addition to the overly wide right-of-way, the subject property is at an elevation approximately 3 metres greater than street level. These two factors ensure that the mass of the building will not have an impact on pedestrian or vehicular traffic and the stepped feature of the building will enhance the public realm. The variance for a reduction to the southerly side yard from the required 6.0 metres to 5.81 metres is in keeping with the intent of the zoning by-law by maintaining adequate separation from the adjacent property. The adjacent property is a forested area, so the reduction in side yard will not affect any persons or their enjoyment of a private amenity area and will still provide adequate area for any exterior building maintenance. The variance for a reduced parking setback of 3.805 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres meets the intent of the zoning by-law for the following reasons. The parking setback is to ensure there is adequate area for landscaping between the parking area and the property line and to minimize the impact of parking on the streetscape. On this particular property, considering the grade differential of approximately 3.0 metres between the sidewalk and the parking area, the reduced setback will still provide sufficient area to provide buffer landscaping and the parking area will not be visible from street level. The variances are minor for the following reasons. The reduced side yard abutting a street can be considered minor as the building is above street level and will not have an impact on Homer Watson Boulevard and the reduced building setback is only along a small portion of the side yard abutting a street being approximately 18 metres. The southerly side yard setback reduction is also considered minor as an adequate separation will be maintained between the subject property and the adjacent property. The reduction in setback for parking adjacent to the side yard abutting a street is also considered minor as the parking area will not be visible from street level and adequate area for landscaping will be maintained, and again, the reduced setback is only for a small portion of the side yard abutting a street. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 217 AUGUST 16, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-047 (Confd The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The High Density Residential designation of the lands and the R-9 zoning allow for the high density residential development being proposed. The requested variances will not create a negative impact on adjacent property owners or the public realm. The proposed 274 unit multiple dwelling is appropriate at this location given it's proximity to Conestoga College, Highway 401 and public transit. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 5, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. G. Bikas requested an amendment to the application noting that the height of the building for the setback of 6.17 metre side yard abutting a street as referenced in the staff report as variance number two should be 37.65m rather than 34.85m. He further advised that he is in support of staffs recommendation. Mr. McColl advised that in his opinion the variances are minor in nature Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Drewlo Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct two 16 storey multi-residential buildings having stepped vertical projections from the street line. The building width along Homer Watson Boulevard will have an exterior side yard setback of 4.288m (14.07`) rather than the required 10.5m (34.45') for the portion of the building having a maximum height of 29.25m (95.96`); an exterior side yard setback of 6.17m (20.24`) rather than the required 15m (49.21`) for the portion of the building having a maximum height of 37.65m (123.52`); an exterior side yard setback of 12.09m (39.67`) rather than the required 19.5m (63.98`) for the portion of the building having a maximum height of 46.10m (151.25'); permission for a southerly interior side to have a setback of 5.821 (19.1`) rather than the required 6.Om (19.69`); and, permission to locate off-street visitor parking spaces 3.805m (12.48`) from the lot line along Homer Watson Boulevard rather than the required 4.5m (14.76`), on Part Block F, Plan 1373, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-16735, 200 Old Carriage Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall receive approval of a Site Plan Application from the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 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 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2011-048 2142882 Ontario Inc. 465 Highland Road West Part Lot 20, Plan 1004 P. Rose None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 218 AUGUST 16, 2011 2. Submission No. A 2011-048 (Cont'dl Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a plaza complex, with a restaurant use that occupies more than 30% of the gross floor area, to provide 40 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 44 spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 9, 2011, advising that the the subject property is zoned Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6) in the Zoning By-law and designated as a Mixed Use Node in the Official Plan. The site contains a plaza defined as a group of commercial and/or industrial establishments which have been planned, developed, managed and operated as a unit with shared on- site parking. The plaza complex currently contains four separate spaces for lease, two of which are occupied by restaurant uses. The gross floor area of the two restaurants exceeds 30 percent of the gross floor area of the plaza complex. Section 6.1.2 b) ii) A) b) of the City's Zoning By-law 85-1 states that if a restaurant use occupies more than 30 percent of the gross floor area of the plaza complex, specific parking requirements for the restaurant use shall be required for that portion of the gross floor area accommodating that use in excess of 30 percent, in addition to the plaza complex requirement for the remaining gross floor area of the plaza complex. As a result, the required number of parking spaces for the restaurant use (in excess of 30 percent of the gross floor area of the plaza complex) and the remaining portion of the plaza complex is calculated to be 44 spaces in total. Currently, only 40 parking spaces can be accommodated on site. Therefore, relief is being sought from Section 6.1.2 b) ii) A) b) of the City's Zoning By-law to allow a plaza complex with a total restaurant use that occupies more than 30 percent of the gross floor area of the plaza complex, to have a parking requirement of 40 parking spaces rather than the required 44 parking spaces. Transportation Planning staff conducted a review of the site. Staff analyzed the parking supply and occupancy rate on two (2) separate occasions during peak time periods and determined that the peak occupancy rate for the site was only 70 percent during the mid-day peak. Therefore, Transportation Planning staff advise that the reduction in required parking spaces for the plaza complex will not impede its functionality. 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. The Mixed Use Node designation is intended to serve an inter-neighbourhood function and allow for intensive, transit supportive development in a compact form. The Official Plan also states that staff may consider reduced parking requirements for specific developments within this designation. The request for a reduction in parking requirements is consistent with the policies of the Official Plan and may be considered as a step towards promoting transit oriented development by avoiding an excessive amount of parking which is not necessarily required for the adequate functioning of a site. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the Zoning By-law parking requirement is to allow for sufficient parking and proper functioning of the site. The variance can be considered minor as Planning staff is of the opinion that the reduction of 4 parking spaces will not impede the functionality of the site. Transportation Planning staff have also determined that site will be able to handle the reduced parking requirements as the occupancy rate for the site is only 70 percent during the mid-day peak. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 219 AUGUST 16, 2011 2. Submission No. A 2011-048 (Cont'd) The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the restaurant use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law and will cater to the needs of the surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 5, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of 2142882 Ontario Inc., requesting permission fora plaza complex, with a restaurant use that occupies more than 30% of the gross floor area, to provide 40 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 44 spaces, on Part Lot 20, Plan 1004, 465 Highland Road West, Kitchener, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 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 3. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2011-049 Benvin Holdings Inc. 1258 Victoria Street North Part Lot 122, German Company Tract J. Somfay None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate one barrier free parking space Om from the front lot line adjacent to Victoria Street North rather than the required 3m (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2011, advising that the subject property is zoned Service Industrial (M-3) in the City's Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated as Arterial Commercial Corridor in the City's Official Plan. The applicant is seeking relief from section 6.1.1.1.a.iv of the Zoning By-law to permit a barrier-free parking space with a setback of 0.0 metres from a street line rather than 3.0 metres. By-law 85-1 requires that all parking spaces, loading spaces, and all drive aisles giving direct access to abutting parking spaces must be 3.0 metres from any property line abutting a street. The applicant has recently received site plan approval in principle for an expansion to the existing building. As part of the site plan application, the owner is required to dedicate to the Region of Waterloo, free of any encumbrance, a road widening along Victoria Street North. After the road widening is dedicated to the Region and the new property boundary is formed, the proposed barrier-free parking space will be only 0.0 metres from the new right-of-way of the road. As a result, the proposed parking lot will not be in compliance with section 6.1.1.1.a.iv of the By-law. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 220 AUGUST 16, 2011 3. Submission No. A 2011-049 (Cont'd) 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 offers the following comments. The requested relief meets the intent of the Official Plan. Arterial Commercial Corridor districts are predominantly automobile oriented and are generally located along primary arterial roads. These corridors are characterized by the presence of substantial redevelopment opportunities and have historically developed with a range of service type uses relating to the sale or servicing of automobiles or major recreational equipment. The corridors generally provide a specialized product or service to persons coming specifically to the premises to do business; rely on business from and exposure to the travelling public; require accessibility to awell-populated market area; are best located on a Primary or Secondary Arterial Road; and, due to the characteristics of the operation, should not generally be required to locate within an industrial area. To reduce traffic impacts on abutting streets, vehicular access points shall be controlled to minimize disruption to traffic flow and new development may be required to share common driveways and provide for maneuverability between sites. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing business with a new showroom addition at the front of the building. The expansion of the existing building is in compliance with the Official Plan and appropriate measures will be implemented through the site plan to aid in facilitating appropriate buffers between the parking lot and other adjacent properties. The intent of Section 6.1.1.1.a.iv of the Zoning By-law is to create a buffer between off- street parking lots and a municipal right-of-way. The buffer allows for landscaping treatments on the property to create a visual barrier between the parking lot and a sidewalk or street. The property is not currently improved with landscaping between the existing building and the street line. Through a registered Section 41 Site Plan Agreement, at the request of the Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener, the owner has agreed to enter into athree-party agreement to landscape the Victoria Street North road right-of-way adjacent to this property. The agreement will be implemented through a Landscape Plan in part with the Site Plan application. The proposed landscape buffer will provide an adequate visual barrier between the proposed barrier- free parking space and the street line, in turn the intent of the zoning by-law will be maintained. The requested variance is minor. The proposed landscape buffer and plantings will exist in the widened Regional road right-of-way. The variance will allow the applicant to develop abarrier-free parking space at the front of the property within a reasonable distance to the front door. The requested is appropriate. The proposed changes to the entire site are subject site plan approval, ensuring that new visual elements will be incorporated into the landscape design to make it more atheistically pleasing. The variance will allow for abarrier-free parking space with a 0.0 metre setback from the road right-of-way which will ensure that the business can expand, the site can be improved, and the business can continue to legally operate in its current location. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 5, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Benvin Holdings Inc., requesting permission to locate one barrier free parking space Om from the front lot line adjacent to Victoria Street North rather than the required 3m (9.84'), on Part Lot 122, German Company Tract, 1258 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 221 AUGUST 16, 2011 3. Submission No. A 2011-049 (Cont'dl The variance requested in this application is minor. 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 4. Submission No.: A 2011-050 Applicant: David Bradshaw Property Location: 116 Cameron Street North Legal Description: Part Lot 16, Plan 124 Appearances: In Support: D. Bradshaw Contra: V.Oestreich Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change a legal non-conforming convenience retail store to a third dwelling unit. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated Augutst 5, 2011, advising that the owner is now requesting permission under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act to change the legal non-conforming convenience retail store to a "more compatible" third dwelling unit within the existing building. The property is considered legal non-conforming (LNC) since convenience retail is not a permitted use in the R-4 Zone. Additionally, the two dwelling units do not comply with the R-4 regulations for side yard (1.05 metres is provided, whereas 1.2 metres is required) and rear yard (0.87 metres is provided, whereas 7.5 metres is required). Furthermore, the property does not comply with the parking regulations of the Zoning By-law in the following respects: • Parking spaces for the store are located less than 3.0 metres from the Troy Street and Cameron Street street lines [6.1.1.1.a)iv)]. • Parking spaces for the two dwelling units are located less than 6.0 metres from the Troy Street and Cameron Street street lines [6.1.1.1.b)i)]. • The driveway width for the two dwelling units is greater than 5.2 metres on Cameron Street and is more than 50% of the side lot line abutting Troy Street [6.1.1.1.b)ii)g) and h)]. • Parking spaces with access to Troy Street are a minimum depth of 5.31 metres whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum depth of 5.49 metres [6.1.1.2.d)]. • The store parking lot is arranged such that ingress and egress of vehicles to and from streets is accomplished only by reversing, whereas the Zoning By-law requires that all parking lots be arranged such that ingress and egress is accomplished in a forward motion only [6.1.1.2.b)]. It should be noted further that the property would not comply with zoning that does allow three-unit multiple dwellings (e.g., R-5 Zone) for most of the above and additional reasons. Case law sets out the tests to be applied by the Committee of Adjustment in considering applications under Section 45(2)(a)(ii). It should be noted that the test to be applied is not the four-part test for minor variances under Section 45(1) but rather whether the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 222 AUGUST 16, 2011 4. Submission No. A 2011-050 (Cont'd) change in use is similar in purpose to the one previous or is more compatible in purpose [OMB decision: Tanafara v. Niagara Falls (2000)]. In the subject case, the applicant has specifically asked the Committee to consider the "more compatible" scenario. Under this scenario the following question must be answered: Is the proposed use of the property as a three-unit multiple dwelling and associated legal non-conforming characteristics (e.g., parking, etc.) more compatible with the R-4 Zone and surrounding neighbourhood than a convenience retail store with two dwelling units and associated legal non-conforming characteristics. In addition, staff suggests that the Committee consider whether the impact of the proposal on surrounding uses is unacceptably adverse. Staff notes that, if approved, the resultant change in use of the property and associated site characteristics would continue to be considered legal non-conforming. Staff has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments in light of the above noted tests. The proposed three-unit multiple dwelling and associated legal non- conforming characteristics are more compatible with the R-4 Zone and surrounding neighbourhood than a convenience retail store with two dwelling units and associated legal non-conforming characteristics for the following reasons. Generally speaking, convenience retail use generates significantly higher parking demand than residential use. Keeping in mind that meeting the intent of the Zoning By- law is not a test for permission applications, but as an example and for comparison, a convenience retail store of the area described in the application would require 7 parking spaces, whereas a dwelling unit would require 1 parking space under the Zoning By- law. The proposed use is expected to generate less traffic and require less parking than a commercial use, representing a decrease in the degree of legal non-compliance. Additionally, the owner has agreed to remove the parking and asphalt along Cameron Street which should help create a streetscape that is more compatible with the R-4 Zone. The legal non-conforming side and rear yards present a challenge since they do not allow adequate useable, outdoor amenity space for residents. The establishment of a third dwelling unit represents an increase in the degree of non-compliance since there is an increase in the number of households with no increase in amenity space. To address this issue, the owner has agreed to landscape the parking area adjacent to Cameron Street as outlined on the plan submitted with the application. This area would be used for amenity space purposes. In this regard, there would be an increase in usable amenity space from nearly zero square metres for two households to approximately 70 square metres for three households (approximately 20% of the lot). The establishment of usable amenity area represents a significant step towards the intent of the R-4 Zone for private amenity space. Staff recommends a condition requiring the owner to install a low fence (i.e., 0.9m high) around the amenity area to define the public realm from the private amenity space. The proposed three-unit multiple dwelling is more compatible with the uses permitted by the R-4 zoning of the surrounding area than the existing use of the property as a convenience retail store and two dwelling units. Most of the surrounding area is zoned R-4 which does not allow any commercial use except home businesses. Although three-unit multiple dwellings are not permitted in the R-4 Zone, the zone does allow semi-detached dwellings, which can be "stacked" resulting in four units per dwelling. Therefore, the R-4 Zone does support dwellings containing four dwelling units, whereas the subject proposal, if approved, would allow only three units. The opposite side of Cameron Street, which contains recently constructed street townhouse dwellings, is zoned R-6 which would allow multiple dwellings with more than three dwelling units. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed three-unit multiple dwelling and associated legal non-conforming characteristics are more compatible with the R-4 Zone and surrounding neighbourhood than a convenience retail store with two dwelling units and associated COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 223 AUGUST 16, 2011 4. Submission No. A 2011-050 (Cont'd) legal non-conforming characteristics, provided the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report are satisfied. Note that these conditions are in general accordance with the conditions approved by the Committee for Application No. A2009-032, with the exception of a condition requiring a letter of credit for 100% of the value of the site development works. This condition will ensure that the site works are completed as approved. In addition, staff is of the opinion that the proposal does not create unacceptable, adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Staff notes that this property is unique in its physical characteristics and current use. In addition, the subject application is unique in nature. Staff advises the Committee in dealing with such applications in the future, that each proposal should be reviewed on its individual merits and that care be taken when considering application of precedent to subsequent cases. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 5, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Oestreich advised that he is in opposition to this application. He stated that this is the second time that this application has been before the Committee and there was no enforcement to ensure the applicant fulfilled the required conditions to maintain his variance approval from 2009. He noted that there has been significant work done on the property and he has not obtained any of the required permits and there is already a tenant occupying the third unit. He questioned staff as to what kind of recourse would be taken if the Committee approves this variance for a second time and the applicant does not fulfill his conditions. In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff have included a condition requesting a Letter of Credit from the applicant as a means of enforcement to ensure all of the conditions are met and required permits are obtained. Mr. Lise questioned the accuracy of the measurements provided for the side and rear yard setbacks and whether the applicant should also be required to obtain a survey as an additional condition of approval. Ms. von Westerholt advised that adding a condition to obtain a survey is not a condition staff would typically request. In this case, the property is already legal non-conforming and the application is requesting permission to legalize a non-conforming use. Obtaining a survey would be quite onerous on the applicant when the set backs would remain unchanged. Mr. Lise noted that without a legal survey, the provided plan including measurements could be significantly incorrect. He stated that he could support the application, with an additional condition to obtain a survey. He then made a motion to approval this application pending a condition is included for the owner to obtain a survey. In response to questions, Mr. Bradshaw advised that the majority of the work done on the property did not require any permits, things like replacing windows and interior paint. He stated that there was no structural work required to change the store to a third residential unit. He noted that there has been some electrical work completed, that was done by a licensed electrician and has had all the required inspections. Mr. Bradshaw further advised the property has required significant clean up and he hasn't had the money to complete all the work that was required. He stated that he has recently refinanced the building to complete all the required renovations and pay for the required development fees, and an additional cost of obtaining a survey would be significant. The Chair stated that in his opinion the additional condition to require the applicant to obtain a survey would be onerous and costly. He stated that he was inclined to support COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 224 AUGUST 16, 2011 4. Submission No. A 2011-050 (Cont'd) staff's recommendation and questioned whether Mr. Lise would be willing to retract his initial motion to include a condition for a property survey. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of David Bradshaw requesting permission to change a legal non- conforming convenience retail store to a third dwelling unit, on Part Lot 16, Plan 124, 116 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner shall submit and obtain approval of a site plan application from the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development. The said site plan approval shall include, apart from other standard site plan conditions, the following conditions to be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development and all conditions of approval shall be fully implemented by August 16, 2012 (see the plan submitted with Minor Variance Application A2011-050 for specific references. Plan was prepared by David Thompson Architect Ltd., dated July 7, 2011): a. All parking spaces and boulevard ramps leading to such parking spaces except Parking Spaces 1, 2, and 3 and those boulevard ramps leading to these parking spaces shall be removed, with the asphalt being removed and the land being landscaped. In addition, concrete curbing along the traveled portion of the street shall be reinstated in areas where parking/ramps are removed. b. All asphalt within the boulevard on Cameron Street and Troy Street shall be removed and replaced with landscaping except for the driveway ramp leading to Parking Spaces 1, 2, and 3. c. The owner shall submit Building Elevation drawings, which demonstrate how the building facades meet the intent of the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. This may involve changes to the fapades and removal of the cantilevered canopy. d. The owner shall install a 0.9 metre high fence along the front lot line and side lot line abutting Troy Street, except where parking/driveway ramps are proposed. The purpose of such fence is to define the public realm from the proposed private amenity space. e. The owner shall prepare a Landscape Plan showing planting and surfacing details for all areas not covered by the building and parking spaces. f. The owner shall provide a Letter of Credit to the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development for 100% of the total cost of all site development works in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to be held by the City as security for the completion of the site development works required in the Section 41 Development Agreement. 2. The owner shall apply for and obtain an occupancy permit for each of the three dwelling units proposed to be contained within the existing building. 3. The owner shall apply for and obtain a building permit to convert the existing building into athree-unit multiple dwelling. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 225 AUGUST 16, 2011 4. Submission No. A 2011-050 (Cont'd) 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 5. Submission No.: A 2011-051 Applicant: Naim Khan Property Location: 22 Bridge Street East Legal Description: Plan of Lot 2 and Part of Lots 3 and C, Registered Plan 577 Appearances: In Support: N. Khan Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing porch having a height of 1.01m (3.31`) rather than the 0.6m (1.97`) as permitted; and, a front yard setback of 0.25m (0.82`) rather than the required 3m (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 4, 2011, advising that the subject property is located within an Existing Use Zone (E-1) as per the City's Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Open Space in the Official Plan. The subject property contains a single detached dwelling with an existing porch attached to the front fapade of the building. The single detached dwelling has legal non-conforming status as it has lawfully existed and the use has continued since the date the E-1 Zone was applied to the lands. The porch however was built after the E-1 Zone was applied to the lands and therefore must to comply with Section 5.6A.4 (Terraces, Porches and Decks) of the Zoning By-law 85-1. The existing porch encroaches into the required front yard setback and is over 0.6 metres in height and therefore relief is being sort from Section 5.6A.4 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow the following: 1) A porch attached to the main building, to be setback 0.25 metre from the front lot line abutting the street rather than the required 3.0 metres; and 2) A porch attached to the main building, to be 1.01 metres in height rather than the required maximum height of 0.6 metres above finished grade. 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 primary intent of the Open Space designation is to preserve the integrity of the natural environment. The plan also recognizes existing development and allows for minor expansions and alterations. The porch is required for safe access into the primary entrance of the existing dwelling. It is staff's opinion that the porch can be considered a minor, yet an essential alteration to the existing development. Therefore the requested minor variances maintain the general intent of the Official Plan. The general intent of Section 5.6A.4 in the Zoning By-law 85-1 stipulated for porches is to provide sufficient amenity space in the front yard and ensure proper visibility from the road for safety purposes. The owner has advised that the porch was built to align with the original height of the legal non-conforming dwelling and acts as the only access into the primary entrance of the existing dwelling. Planning staff is of the opinion that the reduced front yard setback conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law 85-1 as the amenity space that is lost in the front yard can be provided elsewhere on the subject COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 226 AUGUST 16, 2011 5. Submission No. A 2011-051 (Confdl property. Transportation Planning staff advises that the porch is located within the 4.5 metre driveway visibility triangle. As this impedes visibility for vehicles maneuvering from the driveway to the street and vice versa, Transportation Planning staff is recommending that the decorative lattice be removed. It can be replaced with a clear material to maximize visibility or remain open with only the minimum required support for the railing. In addition, Transportation Planning staff is also recommending that any landscaping existing or proposed in front of the porch abutting the street should not exceed 0.9 metres in height. The requested variances will meet the intent Section 5.6A.4 in the Zoning By-law 85-1 once all remediation measures as mentioned above, have been addressed. The requested variances are considered minor as the porch was built to align with the original height of the legal non-conforming dwelling and is the only access into the primary entrance of the existing dwelling. It is staffs opinion that the reduced front yard setback still allows for comfortable pedestrian movement along the front of the property and the lost amenity space can be provided elsewhere on site. The driveway visibility concerns will be addressed through conditions of approval of the minor variance requests. The requested variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staffs opinion that the porch is a necessary feature for the residents of the legal non- conforming dwelling as it acts as the only access to the primary entrance to the building. The requested variances will not interfere with the neighbouring properties. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 5, 2011, advising that any future applications on these lands may require road widening of approximately 5.85m based upon present designated road width of 26.213m which may change in the future. The Committee considered the report of Grand River Conservation Authority, dated August 8, 2011, advising that the subject property is located within the floodplain of the Grand River. As such, the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Future development on the property will require a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Permit. Mr. Khan advised that he is in support of staff's recommendation. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Naim Khan requesting legalization of an existing porch having a height of 1.01m (3.31`) rather than the 0.6m (1.97`) as permitted; and, a front yard setback of 0.25m (0.82`) rather than the required 3m (9.84'), on Plan of Lot 2 and Part of Lots 3 and C, Registered Plan 577, 22 Bridge Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: The owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City of Kitchener Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variance requested in this application is minor. 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 227 AUGUST 16, 2011 CONSENT Submission Nos.: B 2011-045 Applicant: AirBoss of America Corp. Property Location: 101 Glasgow Street Legal Description: Lots 7 to 10, Plan 431, Part Lot 492, Plan 377, being Parts 1, 3, 4 & 17. Reference Plan 58R-9638 -and - Submission Nos.: B 2011-046 Applicant: 2264385 Property Location: 105 Glasgow Street Legal Description: Part Lot 492, Plan 377, being Parts 5 to 9, Reference Plan 58R-9638 Mr. A. Head declared a pecuniary interest with these applications, as AirBoss of America Corp. is a client of the consulting firm he works for and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications. Mr. B. McColl chaired the meeting during consideration of these applications. Appearances: In Support: S. Patterson B. Dahms Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that in application B 2011-045 the applicant is requesting permission to provide an access easement across this property; having a width of 4.57m (14.99`), a depth of 28.24m (92.65`) and an area of 129.056 sq.m. (1389.15 sq.ft.) in favour of 105 Glasgow Street. In application B 2011-046 the applicant is requesting permission to provide an access easement across this property; having a width of 4.57m (14.99`), a depth of 28.24m (92.65`) and an area of 129.056 sq.m. (1389.15 sq.ft.) in favour of 101 Glasgow Street. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated, August 16, 2011, in which they advised that subject properties are located at 101 and 105 Glasgow Street. Both properties are designated as Comprehensive Development Area in the City's Official Plan and are both zoned General Industrial (M-2) with Special Use Provision 21U in the City's Zoning By-law. In addition to the uses permitted in M-2 zones, Special Use Provision 21U permits refining, rolling, forging or extruding of metal only as an accessory use in the manufacturing of industrial equipment and machinery, stamping, blanking or punch-pressing of metal, and vulcanizing of rubber or rubber products. The owner of 105 Glasgow Street has received Site Plan Approval in Principle for a Commercial Parking Facility. There is an existing right-of-way for access in favour of 101 Glasgow Street from Glasgow Street through the lands municipally addressed as 105 Glasgow Street. In part with the redevelopment of 105 Glasgow Street, the Owner is proposing to relocate the existing access. The proposed extension of the existing right-of-way straddles the mutual property line between 101 and 105 Glasgow Street. While the landowner of 105 Glasgow Street will have aright-of-way access over the lands of 101 Glasgow Street, it is intended that this entrance will solely be for the use of AirBoss of America Corp. The proposed consent will allow for each property to function more independently and appropriately. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 228 AUGUST 16, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-045 and B 2011-046 (Cont'd) 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, staff is satisfied that the creation of the right-of-way easement is required as part of the proposed redevelopment of 105 Glasgow Street. The proposed easement is appropriate and suitable for the proposed Commercial Parking Facility and will better allow for the continual uninterrupted use of 101 Glasgow Street. The proposed easement will ensure that the proposed redevelopment at 105 Glasgow Street will not be subject to the existing right-of-way easement through the middle lands as currently arranged and will allow for a safer and more efficient parking lot configuration and design. The proposed easement will also ensure that adequate and appropriate access will be provided directly to 101 Glasgow Street from Glasgow Street, rather than through a parking lot. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated August 9, 2011, in which they advise that they have no objections to these applications. Mr. Stevenson provided the Committee with a revised recommendation amending conditions 4 through 6 in the staff report. He noted that there is currently an easement registered on title and the owner has requested permission to amend the already existing easement to reflect the new access. Submission No. B 2011-045 Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of AirBoss of America Corp., requesting permission to provide an access easement across this property; having a width of 4.57m (14.99`), a depth of 28.24m (92.65`) and an area of 129.056 sq.m. (1389.15 sq.ft.) in favour of 105 Glasgow Street, on Lots 7 to 10, Plan 431 & Part Lot 492, Plan 377, being Parts 1, 3, 4 & 17, Reference Plan 58R-9638, 101 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to 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. The owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements for the relocation of any existing City-owned street furniture, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 4. That the owner shall provide an Amending Agreement to the existing Common Facilities Agreement (registered as Instrument No. 1254212) to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, to ensure that the easement is maintained in perpetuity, and said agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement. 5. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement and immediately thereafter, the approved amending agreement. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 229 AUGUST 16, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-045 and B 2011-046 (Cont'd) 6. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement and amending agreement immediately following registration. 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. 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 16, 2013. Carried Submission No. B 2011-046 Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 2264385 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to provide an access easement across this property; having a width of 4.57m (14.99`), a depth of 28.24m (92.65`) and an area of 129.056 sq.m. (1389.15 sq.ft.) in favour of 101 Glasgow Street, on Part Lot 492, Plan 377, being Parts 5 to 9, Reference Plan 58R-9638, 105 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to 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. The owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements for the relocation of any existing City-owned street furniture, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 4. That the owner shall provide an Amending Agreement to the existing Common Facilities Agreement (registered as Instrument No. 1254212) to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, to ensure that the easement is maintained in perpetuity, and said agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement. 5. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement and immediately thereafter, the approved amending agreement. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 230 AUGUST 16, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-045 and B 2011-046 (Cont'd) 6. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement and amending agreement immediately following registration. 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. 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 16, 2013. Carried Mr. A. Head reentered the r 2. Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: neeting and resumed the Chair. B 2011-047 Terra View Custom Homes Ltd. 62 William Lewis Street Lot 181, Registered Plan 58M-393 C. Pidgeon None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a triangular shape having a width of 7.2m (23.62`) a northerly depth of 10.04m (32.94`) a southerly depth of 12m (39.37`) and an area of 41.5 sq.m. (446.7 sq.ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 76 Tremaine Drive. The severed and retained land will continue to be used as residential. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 5, 2011, advising that the subject land is located at 62 William Lewis Street, is currently designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law. The parcel is currently 602 square metres in area and is planned to contain a single detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a triangular shape with a width of approximately 7.2m, a depth ranging between approximately 10.Om and 12.Om, and an area of approximately 40 sq.m to be conveyed as a lot addition to 76 Tremaine Drive. The severed and retained lands will continue to be used for residential purposes. The lands for the proposed lot addition have an area of approximately 40 square metres. The resultant lot addressed as 76 Tremaine Drive will be approximately 485 square metres in area. The retained lands addressed as 62 William Lewis Street will be approximately 560 square metres in area. Should the requested consent be approved, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 231 AUGUST 16, 2011 2. Submission No. B 2011-047 (Cont'd) each lot would continue to comply with the Zoning By-law regulations applicable to each lot. 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 the Zoning By-law. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and proposed use of the lands. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The requested consent would have the effect of increasing the rear yard of 76 Tremaine Drive and decreasing the rear yard of 62 William Lewis Street. Staff is of the opinion that both lots would possess adequately sized rear yards for privacy and amenity space purposes. The proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Planning Act and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated August 9, 2011, in which they advise that the lands, or a portion of the lands, are subject to the Region of Waterloo International Airport Zoning Regulations issued under the federal Aeronautics Act. The purpose of the Regulations is two-fold: 1) to prevent lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Region of Waterloo International Airport site from being used or developed in a manner that is incompatible with the safe operation of the airport or an aircraft; and 2) to prevent lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of facilities used to provide services relating to aeronautics from being used or developed in a manner that would cause interference with signals or communications to and from aircraft or to and from those facilities. It is the landowner's responsibility to be aware, and to make all users of the land aware of the restrictions under these Regulations which may include but not limited to height restrictions on buildings or structures, height of natural growth, and activities or uses that attract birds. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Terra View Custom Homes Ltd. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a triangular shape, having a width of 7.2m (23.62`), a northerly depth of 10.04m (32.94`), a southerly depth of 12m (39.37`) and an area of 41.5 sq. m. (446.7 sq.ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 76 Tremaine Drive, on Lot 181, Registered Plan 58M-393, 62 William Lewis Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 232 AUGUST 16, 2011 2. Submission No. B 2011-047 (Cont'd) 3. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title 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. 4. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide 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. 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 16, 2013. Carried COMBINED APPLICATIONS Submission Nos.: B 2011-044 & A 2011-052 Applicant: Ray of Hope Inc. Property Location: 37 Market Lane and 254/262 King Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 10 & 11, Plan 364, being Parts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, Reference Plan 58R-2619 Appearances: In Support: H. Whyte E. Pries Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Market Lane of 27.426 m (89.98'), a westerly depth of 28.337 m (92.97') and an area of 857.5 sq. m. (9230.05 sq. ft.). The severed land requires a variance to permit a maximum building floor space of 346 m.sq. (3724.31 sq.ft) rather than the permitted 180 sq.m. (1937.50 sq.ft); and, legalization of a westerly side yard of 0.719m (2.36`) rather than the required 1.Om (3.28`). The use of the severed land will be office/retail. The retained land will have a width on King Street East of 18.669m (61.25`) a depth of 32.408m (106.33`) and an area of 605 sq.m. (6512.16 sq.ft. ). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 9, 2011, advising that is requesting consent to sever 37 Market Lane from 254/262 King Street COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 233 AUGUST 16, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-044 & A 2011-052 (Cont'd East together with aright-of-way for access over 254-262 King Street East in favour of 37 Market Lane. The applicant is also requesting minor variances for 37 Market Lane to legalize the existing building. The first variance is to permit a side yard of 0.719 metres rather than 1.0 metres and the second is to permit a maximum building floor space of 346 m2 rather than 180 m2, as required by section 15.3 of the bylaw. The parcel to be severed at 37 Market Lane is zoned Market Village Zone (D-3) and the parcel to be retained at 254-262 King Street East is zoned East Market Zone (D-2) with a small portion of Market Village Zone (D-3). Consent 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, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lot is desirable and appropriate. The configuration of the severed lands can be considered appropriate and suitable for the development of the uses permitted in the zoning and any future development should be compatible with the neighbourhood. Therefore the consent is not considered to be premature or pre-determining the outcome of future planning processes. In addition, staff is satisfied that the proposed right-of-way at 3.661 metres is sufficient in size and will function appropriately for access to the parking area. Currently, rights- of-way are already registered over the driveway from King Street East to provide access to the rear of 248-252 King Street East and 270 King Street East (the existing rights-of- way are shown on the proposed severance plan). Furthermore, because the lands are located in the D-2 and D-3 zones, no parking is required to be provided in buildings existing prior to 1994. Therefore, the parking in the rear is not required by by-law. While it is unusual to support the severance of a lot which only fronts a lane (in this case Market Lane) the existing D-3 zoning states that "notwithstanding section 5.2... a building may be located on a lot which abuts a lane or registered right-of-way providing access to the lot from a street or lane". In this case the proposed lot will have access via both Market Lane, and a right-of-way providing access to King Street East. Typically, staff would not support the creation of a new lot which does not have legal frontage on a street, however in this instance it is permitted by the by-law, and staff is of the opinion that it is appropriate. The proposed consent conforms to the Official Plan, does not conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Planning Act, and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Minor Variances The property located at 37 Market Lane currently contains a building which is estimated to be constructed in the 1930's. As a result of the consent there are two zoning regulations that must be legalized. The first is to permit a side yard setback of 0.719 metres rather than 1.0 metres as required by the by-law. The second is to permit a building floor area of 346 m2 rather than 180m2 as required by the by-law. 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 subject lands are designated Market Village in the Official Plan. The intent of this designation is to encourage the conversion of existing buildings and to allow development with frontage on a lane (Market Lane). Staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The subject land is zoned Market District Zone D-3 which permits a range of retail and commercial uses. The intent of the side yard setback at 1.0 metres is to recognize the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 234 AUGUST 16, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-044 & A 2011-052 (Cont'd urban atmosphere of this district, and to recognize the existing yards of many of the single detached dwellings located in this zone. Staff is of the opinion that a side yard setback of 0.719 m is a sufficient setback from the property line. Had this building been located along King Street East, there would be no side yard setback restriction. This situation is generally considered appropriate in an urban setting for commercial buildings. Therefore, as the building has existed for many years, and as it is a commercial building rather than a single detached dwelling, staff are of the opinion that the setback meets the intent of the by-law. The intent of limiting building floor area to 180m2 is to recognize the small scale single detached dwellings that generally make up the district, and to preserve the existing character and scale of the area. Staff note that the variance only arises due to the proposed consent, and as there are no changes proposed to the subject building, the intent of the by-law is maintained. Staff is of the opinion that as the variances are the result of the proposed consent, and as there are no physical changes contemplated to the site, the variances can be considered minor and appropriate for the development and use of the land. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed variances be approved for the existing building. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated August 9, 2011, in which they advise the subject lands are within the Kitchener Market, Frederick/Charles Street and Frederick/Duke Street Rapid Transit Station Areas. For developments in Station Areas, the Regional Official Plan (ROP) is very supportive of increase densities, a mix of land uses, pedestrian friendly and transit oriented development that supports the viability of rapid transit service levels. The subject property is located in close proximity to King Street East. Due to high traffic volumes, a Transportation Noise Study is generally required to assess noise levels and indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate traffic noise levels from this road. If necessary, the owner/applicant will be required to enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener to implement the approved mitigation measures. Alternatively, because the residential building is existing on site, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study, the owner/applicant may enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener, prior to final approval, to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for the retained lot: "Due to the proximity to King Street East, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals". The Region has no objection to this application subject to the following condition 1. That prior to final approval, the owner/developer submits a Transportation Noise Study to assess noise levels and indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate traffic noise levels from King Street East. Alternatively, because the residential building is existing on site, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study, the owner/applicant may enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener, prior to final approval, to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for the retained lot: "Due to the proximity to King Street East, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals". COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 235 AUGUST 16, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-044 & A 2011-052 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 5, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Submission No. B 2011-044 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Ray of Hope Inc., requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Market Lane of 27.426 m (89.98'), a westerly depth of 28.337 m (92.97') and an area of 857.5 sq. m. (9230.05 sq. ft.), on Part Lots 10 & 11, Plan 364, being Parts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, Reference Plan 58R-2619, 37 Market Lane, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to 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 receive final approval of Minor Variance Application A 2011- 052. 4. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the right-of-way for access is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s); 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, shall be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 7. That the owner shall submit a Transportation Noise Study to assess noise levels and indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate traffic noise levels from King Street East. Alternatively, because the residential building is existing on site, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study, the owner/applicant may enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener, to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for the retained lot: "Due to the proximity to King Street East, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals". 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. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 236 AUGUST 16, 2011 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 16, 2013. Carried Submission No. A 2011-052 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Ray of Hope Inc., requesting permission to provide a maximum building floor space of 346 sq.m. (3724.31 sq.ft) rather than the permitted 180 sq.m. (1937.50 sq.ft); and, legalization of a westerly side yard of 0.719m (2.36`) rather than the required 1.Om (3.28`), on Part Lot 10 & 11, Plan 364, being Parts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, Reference Plan 58R-2619, 254/262 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that The variance requested in this application is minor. 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 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of August, 2011. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment