Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2011-09-20COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. D. Cybalski, A. Lise OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic Technologist, Mr. G. Stevenson, Planner, Ms. J. Billett, Acting Secretary-Treasurer, Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk and L. Garovat, Administrative Clerk Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of August 16, 2011, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINSHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. 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. Baker 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, and is municipally addressed as 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 238 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-042 (Confd 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 site. Construction of the site is ongoing. Proposal 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 it currently is approved, each unit has been allocated one parking space with the rest required for visitor parking. Discussion The Committee may recall this matter being deferred at the June 21, July 19 and August 16, 2011 hearings, respectively. At the August 16t" hearing staff presented a report recommending refusal of the application. What was largely contributing to that position was staff felt a variance was unnecessary given the shortfall of visitor parking could be accommodated on the undeveloped portion of the property. However, the applicant still wished to pursue the variance and presented an option to the Committee that staff had not had the opportunity to review. The matter was then deferred to the September 20, 2011 meeting. Since the August 16, 2011 hearing, staff has met with the applicant to review and discuss the proposal put forth by the applicant. Essentially, the applicant has proposed that the City support the variance conditional upon the owner entering into an Agreement with the City that would set out the parameters for a Visitor Parking Utilization Study to be initiated as soon as full occupancy of the Phase 1 development is reached. Should that study show that visitor parking is not being used to capacity, then the variance will stand and the 17 visitor parking spaces will not be incorporated into the Phase 2 development. If the study reveals the opposite, then the temporary visitor parking area that the owner has agreed to build to cover the shortfall in the interim will either be incorporated into Phase 2 or become permanent, if Phase 2 does not get developed within a 5 year time frame. Staff supports this approach. It allows for flexibility and assurance the owner is looking for and from staffs perspective, the City's interest to ensure that adequate on site visitor parking will be achieved through the implementation of the Agreement. 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. Ms. von Westerholt provided the Committee with amended conditions noting that staff would like to amend their recommendation to add a condition to provide for an Off-Site Parking agreement and/or amended Site Plan Agreement if required. Ms. Baker advised that she is in support with staffs recommendation, as amended. In response to questions, Ms. Baker advised that pending the parking utilization study if the additional 17 visitor parking spaces are required they will be incorporated in the construction of the second multi-residential building referred to as Phase 2. The Chair noted the comments from the Region regarding the potential for a future road widening and the City's Engineering division and their request for updated engineering plans. Ms. von Westerholt advised that Benton Street has already seen significant road widening and the request for updated engineering plans will be covered in the Site Plan approval process. The Chair questioned staff on the inclusion of a condition referencing Site Plan Approval as an additional requirement to ensure that the Visitor Parking Utilization Study is conducted 6 months after full occupancy of Phase 1. Ms. von Westerholt noted that the date for construction to begin on Phase 2 is yet to be determined and the proposed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 239 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-042 (Cont'd agreement will be registered on title of the entire property which will ensure the required parking study is completed once Phase 1 has reached full occupancy. If it is determined following the completion of that parking study that the temporary visitor parking spaces are actually required they will be incorporated into the site on a permanent basis and the approved variance would become null and void. Ms. Baker confirmed that pending the results of the parking study if the visitor parking spaces are deemed required then easements would be obtained to allow access between both sites and the use of all of the visitor parking spaces. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Arrow Lofts Inc. 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%), on Lots 11 to 20, Plan 398, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-15894, 112 Benton Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall enter into an Agreement with the City that sets out the parameters for a Visitor Parking Utilization Study to occur within 6 month of full occupancy of Phase 1 with wording of such Agreement to be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Planning in consultation with the Director of Planning and the City Solicitor. 2. That the owner shall enter into an Off Site Parking agreement and/or amended Site Plan Agreement, if necessary, at the absolute discretion of the Director of Planning and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, to implement and regularize the Agreement referenced in condition number 1. 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 NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: A 2011-043 Applicant: Robert Balahura Property Location: 123 North Drive Legal Description: Part Block F, Plan 1373, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-16735 Appearances: In Support: A. Mertz Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 240 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-043 (Cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a new roof over an existing deck that exceeds 0.6m (1.97`) in height, having side yard setback of 0.26m (0.85`) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76`); permission to construct new stairs towards the existing deck along Marlborough Avenue exceeding 0.6m (1.97`) in height, having a 1.7m (5.58`) setback from the street rather than the required 4.5m (14.76`); the construction of a new garage having a side yard setback along Marlborough Avenue of 4.5 (14.76`) rather than 6.Om (19.68`); legalization of a house on a lot having a width of 12.2m (40.03`) rather than the required 15m (49.21`); a northerly side yard of 1.Om (3.28`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`), a side yard abutting Marlborough Avenue of 2.6m (8.53`) rather than the required 4.5m; legalization of an existing enclosed porch exceeding a height of 0.6m (1.97`) having a northerly side yard set back of Om rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); permission to construct a porch in the rear yard exceeding 0.6m (1.97`) in height having a northerly side yard setback of 1.Om (3.28`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); permission to allow two parking spaces located within the garage to have a width of 2.74m (8.99`) rather than the required 3.04m (9.97`); and, permission for a single family dwelling to have 2 driveways off Marlborough Avenue whereas the By-law only permits 1 driveway per street frontage. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 12, 2011, advising that the subject property is located at the northwest corner of Marlborough Avenue and North Drive in the St. Mary's Hospital Planning Community. The area is comprised mainly of single detached dwellings. The property contains a duplex dwelling that was constructed originally as a single detached dwelling in approximately 1943. City records seem to indicate that it has been a legal duplex since at least 1957. The duplex has been legal non-conforming due to setback deficiencies since at least the mid-1980s. The dwelling is one storey in height at North Drive (easterly end of lot) and, due to a receding grade, is two storeys at the westerly end of the lot. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four (R-4 ). The owner is proposing to construct a 3-car garage that is technically considered a detached garage under the Zoning By-law, though it would be attached to the second storey of the existing duplex dwelling via a proposed deck. In order to allow for the construction of the garage, the applicant is requesting approval from the Committee of Adjustment for the following Minor Variances: 1. Minimum lot width of 12.2 metres whereas the zoning requires 15.0 metres (legalization of existing situation) [identified as "A" on plan submitted]. 2. Minimum side yard of 1.0 metres whereas the zoning requires 1.2 metres (legalization of existing situation) [identified as "B" on plan submitted]. 3. Minimum side yard abutting a street (Marlborough Avenue) of 2.6 metres for the existing duplex dwelling, whereas the zoning requires 4.5 metres [legalization of existing situation; identified as "C" on plan submitted]. 4. Minimum side yard abutting a street (Marlborough Avenue) of 4.5 metres for the proposed garage whereas the zoning requires 6.0 metres [identified as "C" on plan submitted]. 5. A minimum setback of 0.26 metres from the side lot line abutting a street (Marlborough Avenue) for a covered porch that exceeds 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level, whereas the zoning requires 4.5 metres [identified as "D" on plan submitted]. 6. Minimum side yard abutting a street (Marlborough Avenue) of 1.7 metres for steps that exceed 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level, whereas the zoning requires 4.5 metres [identified as "E" on plan submitted]. 7. Minimum side yard of 0.0 metres for an existing enclosed porch, whereas the zoning requires 1.2 metres [legalization of existing situation; identified as "F" on plan submitted]. 8. Minimum side yard of 1.0 metres for a proposed deck exceeding 0.6 metres in height, whereas the zoning requires 1.2 metres [identified as "G" on plan submitted] COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 241 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-043 (Cont'd 9. Minimum parking space width of 2.74 metres for a parking space within a building with direct access from a driveway, whereas the zoning requires 3.04 metres [identified as "H" on plan submitted]. 10. Two driveways from one street, whereas the zoning permits a maximum of one driveway [identified as "J" on plan submitted]. 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. Variances 1, 2, 3, and 7 relate to existing, legal non-conforming characteristics of the dwelling and lot. The proposed changes to the property and requested additional variances do not functionally increase the degree of non-conformity of the property. In this regard, Planning staff is satisfied that the variances do not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Staff notes that the covered porch outlined in Variance 7, above, encroaches onto the property to the north, addressed as 127 North Drive, by 0.05 metres. While it is not the interest of staff to comment on such encroachments, staff does note that the owner has submitted a letter from this property owner granting permission for the encroachment. Variances 4, 5, and 6 relate to deficiencies with the side yard abutting Marlborough Avenue. Notwithstanding the fact that these variances would allow building area to be located closer to the street than the zoning permits, Transportation Planning Division has commented that it has no concern with these variances (including pedestrian and vehicular safety concerns). In addition, there are no planned road widenings on Marlborough Avenue and, therefore, the location of proposed building area would not impede any widenings. Variance 4 requests a setback reduction for the detached garage from 6 metres to 4.5 metres. Staff is satisfied that this meets the four tests as the garage would be located further from the street than the existing dwelling and would therefore not increase the degree of non-conformity or be creating visibility concerns. Staff recommends a condition that no parking be permitted on the driveway in front of the detached garage since the length required for a legal parking space cannot be accommodated. Variance 5 deals with an existing porch that will be covered with a new roof. The porch is currently covered by a pergola structure. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed roof will have a positive effect on the streetscape and would not increase the degree of non-conformity. Variance 6 would allow steps to the proposed covered porch off Marlborough. These steps would be located behind the building line of the porch and would allow functional access to the porch while improving neighbourhood character. Variance 8 relates to a 0.2 metres deficiency of the side yard setback respecting a proposed elevated deck. Staff is of the opinion that this deficiency will not create unacceptably adverse impacts for abutting properties and will allow for an appropriately sized landscaping feature that will act as a functional amenity area. Variance 9 relates to a deficiency in the parking space width of two parking spaces located within the proposed detached garage. The Transportation Planning Division has stated that it has no concerns with the proposed 2.74 metres parking space width. Staff further notes that the required width of an outdoor parking space is 2.58 metres, which is less than what is proposed. Variance 10 relates to a request to allow two driveways off Marlborough. While staff could prove existence of two driveways back to 2000, file evidence and the written record of the owner seems to indicate existence of two driveways dating to 1982. Transportation Planning has indicated that it has no concerns with the driveway closest to Belmont Avenue; however, it has indicated that it does have concerns with the driveway closest to North Drive. Planning staff notes that this driveway is set back at least 15 metres from the nearest intersection, whereas, the zoning requires only a setback of 9.0 metres. Notwithstanding, staff notes that this driveway is located almost COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 242 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-043 (Confd entirely on the Marlborough Avenue right-of-way (City property). Not enough distance exists between the property line and the dwelling to allow a legal parking space on the portion of the driveway owned by the property owner (approx 2.7 metres is available, whereas 5.5 metres would be required). While the applicant may contend that the driveway has been in existence for decades with no concerns, perhaps under a legal non-conforming status, the fact that there are works proposed causes existing zoning deficiencies to become non-conforming. As such, staff cannot support this variance. The driveway may not be used for the parking of vehicles and should be closed with the curb and gutter reinstated. A condition has been formulated in this regard. Staff is confident that conformity with Official Plan policies related to neighbourhood compatibility and design may be achieved through imposition of an approval condition requiring building elevations for all site changes related to the proposed variances. In addition, the proposed variances will allow adequate amenity space to continue to exist despite the increase in rear yard building coverage. Amenity space will be provided via a new deck and patio area (below the deck), rather than via a traditional sodded rear yard. Staff further notes that the detached garage is proposed to contain an area for storage of a vehicle. It is staffs understanding that this area is not to be used for regular parking, but rather for long-term storage of an automobile. In conversations with staff, the applicant has agreed to complete the driveway of a material, pattern or colour that is distinguishable from all other ground cover or surfacing, including that portion of the side yard abutting Marlborough Avenue that is directly in front of the overhead door leading to the vehicle storage area portion of the detached garage. An approval condition has been formulated in this regard. Additionally, staff notes that any proposed encroachments on City property (e.g., steps, stone wall, etc.) must be approved by the City's Legal Department, prior to implementation. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 12, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Mertz questioned whether staff would be willing to reconsider their recommendation to refuse the variance to maintain the second driveway. He advised the applicant is planning on doing some significant upgrades to the property and would like to continue to have the second driveway. He noted that the majority of the variances applied for are required to legalize the current situation, which has existed for over 65 years. He commented that the owner does not want to give up his rights to the second driveway and there have been no concerns with the use of this driveway to date. Mr. Lewis advised that staff would not be willing to amend their recommendation. The second driveway is redundant and if it was used for parking it would be an illegal parking space as the vehicle would be parked on City property. He added that the driveway in front of the garage has already been widened to accommodate additional parking. In response to questions, Ms. Von Westerholt advised that staff would like to amend condition #e in the staff report to remove the reference to reinstating the curb and gutter as there is no curb and gutter on that portion of the street. Rather the applicant would only be required to reinstate the landscaping on the boulevard to City standards. The Chair stated that he could not support approving the variance for the second driveway as the garage it led to no longer exists, making the driveway redundant; and no legitimate reason has been given as to why it should remain other than the applicant's desire to keep it. He further advised that page two of the staff report notes that the applicant has received a letter granting permission for an encroachment of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 243 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-043 (Cont'd) covered porch on the northerly side of the property. He asked that it be noted that while he could support the variance for the covered porch, encroachments are not typically supported and would not be included in the Committee's decision for this application. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Robert Balahura requesting permission to construct a new roof over an existing deck that exceeds 0.6m (1.97`) in height, having side yard setback of 0.26m (0.85`) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76`); permission to construct new stairs towards the existing deck along Marlborough Avenue exceeding 0.6m (1.97`) in height, having a 1.7m (5.58`) setback from the street rather than the required 4.5m (14.76`); the construction of a new garage having a side yard setback along Marlborough Avenue of 4.5 (14.76`) rather than 6.Om (19.68`); legalization of a house on a lot having a width of 12.2m (40.03`) rather than the required 15m (49.21`); a northerly side yard of 1.Om (3.28`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`), a side yard abutting Marlborough Avenue of 2.6m (8.53`) rather than the required 4.5m; legalization of an existing enclosed porch exceeding a height of 0.6m (1.97`) having a northerly side yard set back of Om rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); permission to construct a porch in the rear yard exceeding 0.6m (1.97`) in height having a northerly side yard setback of 1.Om (3.28`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); and, permission to allow two parking spaces located within the garage to have a width of 2.74m (8.99`) rather than the required 3.04m (9.97`), on Part Block F, Plan 1373, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-16735, 123 North Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for those site works requiring a building permit. 2. That the owner shall submit building elevation drawings for the proposed detached garage and changes to the duplex dwelling demonstrating compatibility with the existing neighbourhood and conformity with the City's Urban Design Manual to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. The owner shall implement these elevation drawings through the building permit process, required through Condition 1. 3. That the owner shall construct the ground cover in front of the proposed vehicle storage area portion of the detached garage (as outlined on the plan submitted with Minor Variance Application A2011-043) in a material, pattern or colour that is distinguishable from the driveway leading to the two required parking spaces contained within the remaining portion of the proposed detached garage. 4. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the property which shall include the following: i. That parking is prohibited on the driveway located closest to Belmont Avenue in front of the building line of the detached garage. 5. That the owner close the driveway closest to North Drive reinstating boulevard landscaping to City of Kitchener standards. All such works shall be completed at the owner's expense and shall be completed by September 20, 2012, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Planning. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 244 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-043 (Cont'd 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. -and further - That the application of Robert Balahura requesting permission for a single family dwelling to have 2 driveways off Marlborough Avenue whereas the By-law only permits 1 driveway per street frontage, on Part Block F, Plan 1373, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-16735, 123 North Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variance requested in this application is not minor. 2. This application is not 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 not being maintained on the subject property. Carried 2. Submission No.: A 2011-053 Applicant: Cynthia Jennison Property Location: 147 Krug Street Legal Description: Part Lot 186 & Part Lot 187, Plan 86 Appearances: In Support: D. Erb Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a two storey addition on an existing single family dwelling having a northerly side yard of 0.304m (1`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); and, legalization of the southerly side yard of 1.18m (3.87`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 8, 2011, advising that the subject property is located at 147 Krug Street and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law and is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The applicant intends on demolishing the existing attached garage and replacing it with a new attached garage with an extension of the second floor proposed above it. Relief is being sought from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow the addition (new attached garage and second floor extension above it) to have a left side yard setback of 0.304 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres. The current setback of the existing attached garage is 0.12 metres. The applicant further requests relief from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize the existing right side yard setback of 1.18 metres rather the required 1.2 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 offers the following comments regarding the requested minor variance: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 245 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 2. Submission No. A 2011-053 (Cont'd) The requested variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for modest alterations. The proposed variances will legalize the reduced side yard setbacks and will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 1.2 metres side yard setback is to allow for adequate separation between the abutting property and sufficient access to the rear yard. The proposed development will add a few more centimetres than the current right yard setback between the existing garage and property line. Staff understands that access from the front yard to the rear yard and vice versa will be provided through the new garage. Therefore staff is of the opinion that the encroachment of the new addition into the required right side yard setback is minimal and will provide adequate separation between the neighbouring property and access to the rear yard. Staff further advises that the additional minor variance request for the left side yard complies with the intent of the Zoning By-law as it will legalize the existing setback of 1.18 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres. The requested variances are considered minor as the proposed development will occur within the existing setback and as such will likely have no impact on the adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. The requested variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed addition will provide a similar separation from the side lot line than what currently exists. The proposed addition will be compatible with the subject property and the balance of dwellings within the neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the low density development of the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 12, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. In response to questions, Mr. Erb advised that the proposed garage would accommodate a vehicle. The dimensions of the proposed garage are to ensure that the overhangs and eaves troughs do not overhang the neighbouring property. He further advised that there will not be a rear yard access door in the new garage and although the southerly side yard requires a variance it is still sufficient in size to provide access to the back yard. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Cynthia Jennison, requesting permission to construct a two storey addition on an existing single family dwelling having a northerly side yard of 0.304m (1`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); and, legalization of the southerly side yard of 1.18m (3.87`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`), on Part Lot 186 & Part Lot 187, Plan 86, 147 Krug Street, Kitchener, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. The owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City of Kitchener Building Division for the new addition. 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 246 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 2. Submission No. A 2011-053 (Cont'd) 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.: A 2011-054 Applicant: Robert & Sue McKay Property Location: 15 Tyson Drive Legal Description: Lot 11, Plan 577 Appearances: In Support: R. McKay Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second storey addition having a side yard setback abutting Horning Drive of 0.21 m (0.69`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); an increase in gross floor area of 28% rather than the permitted 25% increase; and, permission for a rear yard setback of 6.3m (20.67`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.61`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 29, 2011, advising that the subject property is located at the southwest corner of Tyson Drive and Horning Drive in close proximity to the Grand River, Bridgeport Trail and Tyson Park. The property is approximately 1,050 square metres in area and has approximately 50 metres of frontage on Tyson Drive and 21 metres of frontage on Horning Drive. Tyson Drive is deemed to be the front lot line. The portion of Horning Drive which abuts the subject property is not constructed as a road right of way and appears as a vacant lot. There are four buildings on the property; a two storey single detached house and three sheds. Two of the sheds are not shown on the plan. One of the sheds is shown on the plan and encroaches by approximately 5 centimetres on the adjacent property municipally addressed as 7 Bridge Street East. City records indicate that the shed was built prior to 1980 and as such the location of the shed is considered legal non- conforming. City records indicate that the original house was built circa 1860 as part of the Village of Bridgeport. City records also confirm that minor variance application A24/81 was approved by the Committee of Adjustment in February of 1981 with respect to the 0.32 metre and 0.23 metre yards shown on the plan which were deficient from the zoning regulations at that time. Application A24/81 did not request minor variances for the 0.21 metre side yard abutting the street nor the 2.26 metre front yard, although the plan submitted with that application confirm that those yards were existing at that time and as such are currently legal non-conforming. The surrounding area is comprised of low rise residential uses. The property across Horning Drive to the north is a vacant and municipally owned gravel parking lot used for access to the Bridgeport Trail to the west and Tyson Park to the east. Along Tyson Drive and Horning Drive all surrounding properties are occupied by low rise residential uses. To the west of the property the Bridgeport Trail runs along the Grand River. The subject property and surrounding properties along Tyson Drive and Horning Drive are designated Open Space in the Official Plan. The subject property and surrounding properties along Tyson Drive and Horning Drive are zoned Existing Use Zone (E-1 ), with the exception of the municipally owned gravel parking lot which is zoned Hazard Land Zone (P-3). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 247 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 3. Submission No. A 2011-054 (Cont'd) The building addition as proposed (to expand the second storey floor area) requires Committee of Adjustment approval to legalize two legal nonconforming yards and one zoning deficiency. The applicant is requesting the following minor variances: • To increase the maximum additional building floor area from 25% to 28% of the total ground floor area of the building that existed on the date that the E-1 Zone was applied to the land; • To reduce the minimum front yard set back from 4.5 metres to 2.26 metres; and • To reduce the minimum side yard abutting a street set back from 4.5 metres to 0.21 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 property is designated Open Space in the Official Plan and is located within the floodway portion of the flood plain identified in the Two-Zone Policy Areas mapped in the Official Plan. The flood plain policies of the Official Plan do not permit any new development on lands located within the flood way but do recognize uses legally existing at the time the Open Space designation was applied to the land and allows for minor expansions and minor alterations to such uses, subject to the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation administered by the Grand River Conservation Authority. The general intent of these policies is to prevent the loss of life or property damage that could occur as a result of a flood or erosion. The variances requested do not propose to create any new residential dwelling units, only to add a minor expansion to the single detached dwelling that legally existed at the time the Open Space designation was applied to the land and therefore is in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan. The maximum additional building floor area regulation of the Zoning By-law is intended to implement the above noted Official Plan policies pertaining to minor additions to legally existing buildings. The relief sought from this regulation meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law because it represents a minor addition only to the second storey of the building. The front yard and side yard abutting a street regulations of the Zoning By-law are intended to ensure that new development is set back an appropriate distance from the street. The addition proposed on the second storey of the building would be in line with the existing ground floor set backs of the building. The proposal to build a minor addition to the second storey requires that the existing set backs be legalized. Future redevelopment of the site would be required to meet the set back regulations of By-law 85-1, and therefore the intent of the Zoning By-law would be maintained. The requested front yard and side yard abutting a street variances are minor because both yard deficiencies are existing conditions, neither of which pose any compatibility concerns with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed addition is located at the rear of the building and as such only the 0.21 metre side yard abutting Horning Drive will be extended from the first storey vertically to the second storey. Since Horning Drive in this location does not function as a typical road right of way and the 0.21 metre side yard abutting Horning Drive is not visible from any adjacent residential property, the reduced side yard abutting Horning Drive will have no impact. The requested building expansion variance is minor because it represents a nominal increase above the permitted maximum 25% expansion (less than 2.0 square metres of building floor area). The impact of adding 2.0 square metres more than what is permitted by this regulation is negligible in this context because of the location of the addition. The variances requested are appropriate for the development and use of the land because they would permit a small addition to an existing residential dwelling. The size of the building would be consistent with the scale of development in the surrounding area and be compatible with the low rise residential land uses predominant in the area. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 248 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 3. Submission No. A 2011-054 (Cont'dl The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 12, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report from the Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planner, dated September 8, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. It was noted that the subject property is located within the floodplain of the Grand River and as such, the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/6. It was further noted that the GRCA has issued a required development permit (No. 435/11) for the proposed second storey addition; and therefore, a condition of approval relative to the GRCA permit is not required. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Robert & Sue McKay, requesting permission to construct a second storey addition having a side yard setback abutting Horning Drive of 0.21 m (0.69`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); an increase in gross floor area of 28% rather than the permitted 25% increase; and, permission for a rear yard setback of 6.3m (20.67`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.61`), on Lot 11, Plan 577, 15 Tyson Drive, 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 4. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2011-055 Brwa & Muayad Koji 3 Cannes Street Lot 128, Registered Plan 58M-338 B. Koji None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission construct an enclosed entrance abutting Rochefort Street having a sideyard setback abutting a street of 3.95m (12.96`) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76`); and, permission for the driveway to be located 7.5m (24.61`) from the intersection of Cannes Street and Rocherfort Street rather than the required 9m (29.53`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 12, 2011, advising that the subject lands are zoned Residential Three (R-3), with special provision 405R, in By-law 85-1 and are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The property is developed with a single family dwelling and is located on the north-west corner of the intersection of Cannes and Rochefort Streets. The applicant is requesting permission to construct an enclosed entrance abutting COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 249 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 4. Submission No. A 2011-055 (Cont'd) Rochefort Street having a sideyard abutting a street of 3.95 metres (12.96 ft) rather than the required 4.5 metres (14.76 ft); and, permission for the driveway to be located 7.5 metres (24.61 ft) from the intersection of Cannes and Rochefort Streets rather than the required 9 metres (29.53 ft). In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation is designed to achieve a low overall intensity of use and the proposed enclosed entranceway and the existing driveway do not impact the intensity of the residential area. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the setback for the enclosed entranceway is to ensure that there is sufficient setback from a building to the public realm of the sidewalk in order that the public is not negatively impacted. The proposed structure to be built is an entranceway to a new basement door and can be considered appropriate development for the subject lot and surrounding area. The intent of the 9 metre setback for a driveway for corner lot properties is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. The existing driveway encroaches 1.5 metres (5 ft) into the required setback and permits the owner to park two cars side-by-side in the driveway. Staff is of the opinion that this is minor and does not negatively impact the property or surrounding area. City Traffic staff does not have any concerns with the proposed request. For the reasons noted above, the variance may be considered minor and appropriate development for the subject property and surrounding lands. In addition, staff notes that the house was built in 2008 as a single family dwelling. The applicant has stated to staff that the new basement entrance will not be used for a duplex unit. However, it is noted that a duplex is permitted and should the owner decide in the future to convert the building to a duplex use then a building permit would be required. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 12, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Brwa & Muayad Koji, requesting permission construct an enclosed entrance abutting Rochefort Street having a sideyard setback abutting a street of 3.95m (12.96`) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76`); and, permission for the driveway to be located 7.5m (24.61`) from the intersection of Cannes Street and Rocherfort Street rather than the required 9m (29.53`), on Lot 128, Registered Plan 58M-338, 3 Cannes Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: The owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City of Kitchener Building Division for the walk out entrance. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 250 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 4. Submission No. A 2011-055 (Cont'd) 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.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2011-057 Erwin & Heather Reidl 513 Morrison Road Unit 7, Waterloo Vacant Land Condominium Plan No. 517 E. Reidl None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a new single family dwelling with a height at the centre of the building to be 12.8m (41.99') rather than the permitted 10.5m (34.44'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 12, 2011, advising the subject property is located on Morrison Road, south of Sims Estate Drive. The property is one of 23 units (similar to lots) within a vacant land condominium (similar to a subdivision). Each unit has access to Morrison Road via a common element driveway that is legally tied to the vacant land condominium (see attached Vacant Land Condominium Plan No. 517). The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and is zoned Residential Two (R-2) in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1, with special use provision 368U and special regulation provisions 468R and 469R. It should be noted that a rear portion of the property is subject to special regulation provision 1 R. The applicant intends to construct a new single detached dwelling with a building height of 12.8 metres. The current zoning permits a maximum building height of 10.5 metres. As a result, relief is being sought from Section 36.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow the new residential dwelling to have a building height of 12.8 metres rather than the permitted 10.5 metres, which is an increase of 2.3 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 offers the following comments. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation encourages a full range of housing types to achieve a low overall intensity of use. Similarly, the maximum building height under this designation is limited to three stories in height, which maintains a scale appropriate to low rise housing. The proposed dwelling is two storeys in height and is, therefore, consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. In addition, the proposed use of the property as a single detached dwelling is permitted under the Low Rise Residential designation. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of a 10.5 metre maximum building height is to ensure that low rise residential development remains at an appropriate scale and does not exceed three storeys in height. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed additional 2.3 metre building height remains consistent with this policy and enhances the architectural style of the proposed residential dwelling. The proposed variance is minor. The additional 2.3 metre height is minimal considering COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 251 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 5. Submission No. A 2011-057 (Cont'd) the proposed building footprint area and style of the proposed residential dwelling. The additional building height likely has no unacceptably adverse impacts due to the large property area and adequate distance separating neighbouring residential properties. In addition, it should be noted that staff fully expects to receive similar variance requests from many of the other unit owners in this vacant land condominium. The proposed variance is appropriate for the desirable development and use of the land. The proposed increase in building height is suitable for the scale and location of the proposed residential dwelling and is compatible with the architectural style planned for the area as confirmed by both Heritage and Urban Design staff. The variance would allow a single detached dwelling to be constructed that conforms to approved design guidelines for the condominium development. (Riverglen Estates Design Guidelines, prepared by MHBC Planning March 2008 and revised Jan. 2009). The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 12, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application; however this building falls within the Region of Waterloo International Airport's Zoning regulated area. Therefore the property has Building Restrictions (i.e high rise building and/or any communication systems/towers), Interference with Communications restrictions (i.e high voltage welding), Natural Growth Restrictions (i.e trees) and Bird Hazard restrictions (i.e Storm water retention, compatible land use) and will require review by Region of Waterloo International Airport Authorities. Ms. Meader questioned whether the neighbouring properties were circulated on the application and whether the other homes in the area would be similar in nature. Ms. von Westerholt noted that the lots are considerably large and it is likely there could be other variances similar in nature for the neighbouring homes. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Erwin & Heather Reidl, requesting permission to construct a new single family dwelling with a height at the centre of the building to be 12.8m (41.99') rather than the permitted 10.5m (34.44'), on Unit 7, Waterloo Vacant Land Condominium Plan No. 517, 513 Morrison Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the design and construction of the single detached dwelling be in general accordance with the building elevation drawings submitted as part of Minor Variance Application A2011-057, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 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 CONSENT Submission No.: B 2011-048 Applicant: Suncor Energy Inc. Property Location: 4341 King Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 252 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-048 (Cont'd Appearances: In Support: S. Ethier 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 King Street East of 60.975m (200.05`), a depth of 65.99m (216.5`), and an area of 4023.74 sq. m. (43311.176 sq.ft.). The retained land will have a width on King Street East of 56.3m (184.71`), a depth of 65.97m (216.44`) and an area of 3714.11 sq. m. (39978.347 sq.ft). The retained land will continue to be gas bar and carwash, the use of the severed land is unknown at this time. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 12, 2011, advising that the subject property is located near the intersection of Sportsworld Drive and King Street East and is comprised of two former commercial lots, with civic addresses 4341 King Street East and 4319 King Street East. The property addressed as 4341 King Street East was previously used as a Sunoco gas station and is currently vacant. The property addressed as 4319 is currently used as a Petro Canada gas station. Suncor Energy Inc. is now the owner of both properties and at the time of the purchase, the titles for the two properties were registered in the same name and therefore the two properties have merged on title. In order to sell either property individually, the owner requires consent to sever the property back into the original two lots as required by the Planning Act. The property is designated as Service Commercial in the City's Official Plan and zoned Arterial Commercial Six (C-6) in By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the property back into the original two lots, which was the situation until the titles were merged. The proposed retained parcel is addressed as 4319 King Street East. The proposed lot would be an interior lot with approximately 56 metres of frontage on King Street East. The proposed lot would have a lot depth of approximately 66 metres. The proposed lot area of the retained parcel is 0.37 hectares in size. The proposed severed parcel is addressed as 4341 King Street East. The proposed interior lot would have approximately 60 metres of frontage onto King Street East, with an approximate lot depth of 66 metres. The proposed lot area of the severed parcel is 0.40 hectares. 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, Planning Staff are satisfied that the creation of the severed lot is desirable and appropriate. The merging of the lots was unintentional and was not merged as a requirement of a previous planning approval. The proposed lots (retained and severed) are of the same shape and size as the lots which previously existed. Both lots are currently adequately serviced by municipal servicing and each lot fronts on a public road that is maintained year-round by the City. The current use of the lots (gas station and vacant) is compatible with the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and conforms to, or does not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or policy. Further the severance will allow for the sale and eventual redevelopment of 4341 King Street East. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated September 12, 2011, advising that King Street East COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 253 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-048 (Cont'd (Regional Road No. 8) has an existing road allowance width of approximately 41.90 metres and a designated width in the Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP) of 45.00 metres; therefore, a (45.OOm - 41.90m /2= 1.55m) 1.55 metre road widening is required for both frontages of the severed and retained lands. The exact road widening must be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor. Along with a registerable deed to convey the road widening, the applicant must provide a mylar copy of the registered reference plan at no cost to the Region of Waterloo. A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment will be required for both the severed and retained road allowance widening to be conveyed to the Region of Waterloo as the lands are identified in the Region's Threat's Inventory Database as having potential contamination. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment must be undertaken by a qualified person as defined in the Ontario Regulation 153/04 and the Region must be named in the report as a party that can rely on the report. If the Environmental Assessment Report concludes contamination has been found on the road widening, the Owner will be required to remove the contamination; alternatively the Owner must provide the Region with sufficient funds (based on Regional estimates) to clean up the contamination. If contamination is found, the Region's file will be referred to the Region's Senior Project Manager, Environmental, Corporate Services to determine if any action is required related to the contamination within the existing road allowance. The Region has no objections to this application subject to the following conditions That prior to final approval, for both the severed and retained lands, the owner provide an approximate 1.55 metre widening on King Street East (Regional Road No. 8) to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Along with a registerable deed to convey the road widening, the applicant must provide a mylar copy of the registered reference plan at no cost to the Region. 2. That prior to final approval, a Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment will be required for the approximate 1.55 metre widening to be conveyed to the Region across the severed and retained lands. If the Environmental Site Assessment Report concludes contamination has been found on the road widening portion, the Owner will be required to remove the contamination; alternatively the Owner must provide the Region with sufficient funds (based on Regional estimates) to clean up the contamination. Mr. Ethier advised that while he was in support of staffs recommendation, he questioned the need for the Regional conditions for a road widening at this location. He stated that this area of King Street has already been significantly widened and any additional widening would considerably affect operation of the business. Ms. von Westerholt stated that the Region has the authority to ask for additional road widenings through these applications and the City does not have the authority to deny their request. She noted that the Region does not typically attend the meeting as there is an understanding that their requested conditions will be imposed. She advised that the applicant could request a deferral to consult with the Region regarding their requirement for a road widening. At the request of the applicant, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for November 15, 2011. 2. Submission No.: B 2011-049 Applicant: Forest Glenn Inc. Property Location: 700 Strasburg Road Legal Description: Part Block A, Plan 1416 Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 254 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 2. Submission No. B 2011-049 (Cont'dl In Support: G. Swinkin Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a lease in excess of 21 years to the Canada Trust Company for the building they occupy on the corner of Strasburg Road and Block Line Road within the Forest Glen Plaza. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 26, 2011, advising the owner, Forest Glen Inc., is requesting consent for a lease in excess of 21 years for the TD Canada Trust bank located on the subject lands. A previous owner of the plaza was granted consent for this same request in 1994; however, the decision lapsed. The lands have recently been acquired by Forest Glen Inc. and the new owner is seeking to rectify the situation and has re-applied for the subject consent. The plaza is located at 700 Strasburg Road (Part Block A, Registered Plan 1416) and the subject lease will apply to the building which was developed and is in use as a financial institution. Approval of the consent application would permit the lease of the building to the Canada Trust Company for a period of time in excess of 21 years and would not have any negative impacts on the remainder of the commercial plaza or its parking areas. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed lease in excess of 21 years is consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection 3(1) of the Act; does not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or plans; and conforms to the official plan of the municipality or planning board. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated September 12, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Ms. von Westerholt advised that she had received additional comments regarding parkland dedication, stating that outstanding parkland dedication required would be requested through the Site Plan approval process. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Forest Glen Inc., requesting permission for a lease in excess of 21 years to the Canada Trust Company for the building they occupy on the corner of Strasburg Road and Block Line Road within the Forest Glen Plaza, on Part Block A, Plan 1416, 700 Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 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. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 255 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 2. Submission No. B 2011-049 (Cont'd) 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 September 20, 2013. Carried 3. Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: B 2011-050 Forest Glenn Inc. 700 Strasburg Road Part Block A, Plan 1416 G. Swinkin None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a lease in excess of 21 years to the Shoppers Realty Inc (Shoppers Drug Mart) for the building they occupy on the corner of Strasburg Road and Block Line Road within the Forest Glen Plaza. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 26, 2011, advising the owner, Forest Glen Inc., is requesting consent for a lease in excess of 21 years for the Shoppers Drugmart located on the subject lands. A previous owner of the plaza was granted consent for the same request in 2006; however, the decision lapsed. The lands have recently been acquired by Forest Glen Inc. and the new owner is seeking to rectify the situation and has re-applied for the subject consent. The plaza is located at 700 Strasburg Road (Part Block A, Registered Plan 1416) and the subject lease will apply to building which was developed and is in use as a drug store. Approval of the consent application would permit the lease of the building to the Shoppers Realty Inc. for a period of time in excess of 21 years and would not have any negative impacts on the remainder of the commercial plaza or its parking areas. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed lease in excess of 21 years is consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection 3(1) of the Act; does not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or plans; and conforms to the official plan of the municipality or planning board. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated September 12, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 256 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 3. Submission No. B 2011-050 (Cont'd) Ms. von Westerholt advised that she had received additional comments regarding parkland dedication, stating that outstanding parkland dedication required would be requested through the Site Plan approval process. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Forest Glen Inc., requesting permission for a lease in excess of 21 years to the Shoppers Realty Inc (Shoppers Drug Mart) for the building they occupy on the corner of Strasburg Road and Block Line Road within the Forest Glen Plaza, on Part Block A, Plan 1416, 700 Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 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. 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 September 20, 2013. Carried 4. Submission Nos.: B 2011-051 Applicant: Mandec Corporations Property Location: 1545 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, being Parts 3, 4, 5 & 6, Reference Plan 58R-16572 Appearances: In Support: D. Aston Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 257 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 4. Submission No. B 2011-051 (Cont'd) parcel of land having a triangular shape having a width of 70.8m (232.28`), a northerly depth of 52.1m (170.93`), a southerly depth of 87m (285.43`) and an area of 1800 sq.m. (19375.038 sq.ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 1495 Victoria Street North. The severed and retained land will continue as a commercial use. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 12, 2011, advising the subject property shown above is municipally addressed as 1545 Victoria Street North. Located on the south side of Victoria Street North, east of Lackner Boulevard, the subject property is irregular in shape encompassing an area of approximately 2 hectares with 30 metres of frontage onto Victoria Street. The subject lands are developed with a self storage facility. Surrounding land use is primarily commercial to the north, east and west and open space lands (Kolb drain and trail) to the south. The applicant is requesting to convey a triangular shaped parcel of land that is 0.18 hectares in area and convey it as a lot addition to the rear portion of an adjacent property addressed as 1495 Victoria Street North. The retained lands will maintain its 30 metre frontage with an area of 1.8 hectares. No variances are required to facilitate the lot addition. The subject property is designated Arterial Commercial Corridor in the City's Official Plan and Commercial Corridor in the City's Draft Official Plan. The implementing zoning of the subject property is Arterial Commercial (C-6) in the City's Zoning By-law. Staff is supportive of the proposed lot addition as these lands are surplus to the needs of the subject property and would facilitate any potential future expansion plans or re- development of 1495 Victoria Street North. 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 lot addition is appropriate as the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement, City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law; the dimensions and shapes of the severed and retained lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street; and both parcels of land are currently serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated September 12, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Resource Planner, dated September 8, 2011, advising that they do not have any objections to the above noted lot line adjustment. Portions of the subject lands contain Kolb Creek, an associated floodplain and allowances adjacent to these features. Consequently, portions of the subject lands are regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Future development on the regulated portions of the subject parcels will require a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Permit from our office. The Chair noted the comments from the GRCA and questioned whether a condition should be imposed for consent approval. Ms. von Westerholt advised that she has consulted with the GRCA regarding this application and has received correspondence stating that a condition would not be required. She further advised that the requirement for parkland dedication for the subject property was collected through the Site Plan application process. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 258 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 4. Submission No. B 2011-051 (Cont'dl That the application of Mandec Corporations requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a triangular shape having a width of 70.8m (232.28`), a northerly depth of 52.1m (170.93`), a southerly depth of 87m (285.43`) and an area of 1800 sq. m. (19375.038 sq.ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 1495 Victoria Street North, on Lot Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, being Parts 3, 4, 5 & 6, Reference Plan 58R- 16572, 1545 Victoria Street North, 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 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 September 20, 2013. Carried COMBINED APPLICATIONS Submission Nos.: B 2011-052 & A 2011-056 Applicant: Kenmore Homes Inc. Property Location: Eden Oak Trail Legal Description: Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-370 Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 259 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-052 & A 2011-056 (Cont'd In Support: D. Aston Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having an width on Eden Oak Trail of 0.227 m (0.74'), a depth of 33.349 m (109.41') and an area of 7.581 sq. m. (81.60 sq. ft.). The severed land will be conveyed as a lot addition to 19 Eden Oak Trail. The retained land will have a width on Eden Oak Trail of 14.773m (48.47`) a depth of 33.349m (109.41') and an area of 484.964 sq.m. (5220.11 sq.ft.). The retained land will require a variance to permit a corner lot frontage of 14.773m (48.47`) rather than the required 15m (49.21`). The use of the severed and retained land will be residential. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 9, 2011, advising that the undeveloped subject property is located at 23 Eden Oak Trail in the northwest corner of Eden Oak Trail and Stillwater Street. The applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Eden Oak Trail of 0.227 metres, a depth of 33.35 metres and an area of 7.59 square metres, to be conveyed as a lot addition to the adjacent lot located at 19 Eden Oak Trail. The retained lands will have a width of 14.773 metres, a depth of 33.35 metres and an area of 484.96 square metres. The applicant is proposing the lot addition so that the resultant lot is more appropriately sized for the proposed residential building product. As a result of the severance, the retained lot fails to comply with the required minimum corner lot width under the Residential Four Zone (R-4). Therefore, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow a corner lot width of 14.773 metres rather than the required 15.0 metres. The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan which encourages a range of uses and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The retained parcel is zoned Residential Four (R-4) and will be developed with asingle-detached residential dwelling as permitted in the Zoning By-law. Consent application: 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 as a lot addition to the adjacent lot at 19 Eden Oak Trail. The configuration of the severed lot and resultant lot (subsequent to the lot addition) can be considered suitable for the development of the uses permitted in the zoning. The proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and conforms to, or does not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or policy. As such, Planning staff recommends that the application for consent be approved with conditions. Minor Variance application: With regard to the variance requested, Planning staff offer the following comments 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: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of uses and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The retained corner lot can still be developed with asingle- detached dwelling unit which will maintain the low density character of the property and neighbourhood. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 260 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-052 & A 2011-056 (Cont'd The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The reduced corner lot width will continue to maintain sufficient frontage on Eden Oak Trail allowing the lot to be developed with a single detached dwelling as permitted in the zoning. The variance is considered minor because the reduction in lot width is minimal and will not have any impact to adjacent lands or the overall neighbourhood. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The retained lands will be appropriately developed with a single detached dwelling unit which is compatible with the proposed surrounding low rise residential development. 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 concerns with this application. For information purposes, the owner is advised 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. Submission No. B 2011-052 Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Kenmore Homes Inc., requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having an width on Eden Oak Trail of 0.227 m (0.74'), a depth of 33.349 m (109.41') and an area of 7.581 sq. m. (81.60 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 19 Eden Oak Trail, on Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-370, 23 Eden Oak Trail, 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 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 261 SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-052 & A 2011-056 (Cont'd) 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: 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 September 20, 2013. Carried Submission No. A 2011-056 Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Kenmore Homes Inc., requesting permission to permit a corner lot frontage of 14.773m (48.47`) rather than the required 15m (49.21`), on Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-370, 23 Eden Oak Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, 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. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:37 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20th day of September, 2011. Janet Billett Acting Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment