Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2012-02-21 FNCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 21, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. A. Head, A. Lise and B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Mr. S. Bassanese, Urban Designer, Ms. H. Holbrook, Planner, Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary- Treasurer and Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk Mr. A. Head, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:04 a. m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider applications regarding variances to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law. The Committee will not make a decision on these applications but rather will make a recommendation which will be forwarded to the Committee of the Whole and Council for final decision. The Chair explained that the Committee's decisions with respect to fence variances are recommendations to City Council and not a final decision. He advised that the Committee's recommendations will be forwarded to City Council on Monday, March 5, 2012, at 7:00 p. m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. NEW BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: FN 2012-001 Applicant: Peter Hodson & Vicki Gohl Property Location: 2 Westgate Walk Legal Description: Lot 1, Plan 977 Appearances: In Support: D. Van Dam Contra: A. McCorkell Written Submissions: A. & M. McCorkell The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a brick fence under construction having a height of 2.9m (9.51`) rather than the permitted 2.44m (8.0'). The fence will be used to support a pergola structure on the subject property. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 10, 2012, advising that the property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Westgate Walk and Aberdeen Road. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to permit the legalization of a brick fence under construction having a total height of 2.9 metres (9.51 ft) rather than the permitted maximum of 2.44 metres (8 ft). The fence will be used to support a pergola structure. The variance meets the intent of the Fence By-law and can be considered minor for the following reasons: the intent of the 2.44 metre (8 ft) height restriction is to ensure that a fence does not create an exceedingly high wall effect on the surrounding streetscape or properties. The bricks on the walled fence will meet the 2.44 metres height restriction. However, the posts that will hold up the fence/pergola structure will extend 0.46 metres (1.5 ft) above the bricks. This will soften the view of the top of the fence and will not be as severe as a brick wall fence only. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Submission No. FN 2012-001 (Cont'd FEBRUARY 21, 2012 The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land and surrounding streetscape for the following reasons: the applicant states that the cantilevered pergola structure is to be located above an existing spa and the height is required to maintain a safe clearance of 1.8 metres (6 ft) from the underside of the pergola structure to the top of the spa structure; in addition, the brick fence provides privacy for people using the pool and spa. In regards to the streetscape, the fence does not negatively impact the streetscape along Aberdeen as it is set back a sufficient distance from the public road. This is a corner property and the fence is not visible from the Westgate Walk frontage. It is noted that there have been concerns received from neighbouring property owners. This application is the result of a complaint to Enforcement. As well, a comment has been received through a phone conversation to staff in regards to shadows created by the structure. In the aerial photo, it is noted that the there would be some shadow effect in the morning as the sun rises, but appears that there would be less shadow on the neighbouring properties in the evening when the sun sets. The fence/pergola structure is located a minimum of 15 metres (49.2 ft) from the nearest neighbouring building and does not extend across the complete side yard but has a total length of 5.11 metres (16.8 ft). Staff is of the opinion that the impact of the fence would be minimal. However, it is recommended that the variance be only for the structure as shown in the submitted drawings to ensure that a longer and/or higher fence is not constructed. In regards to fence height, it is clarified that the height is measured from the highest ground level where the fence posts are embedded to the top of the posts. The highest grade abutting the fence is on the interior side of the fence of the subject property. Therefore, the view of the fence/pergola structure from the exterior side facing the neighbours is 0.46 metres (1.5 ft) higher. The bricks of the fence wall are lower than the posts that hold the pergola and the effect of the structure would be softened by this feature. As well, the separation distance of at least 15 metres (49 ft) from the nearest abutting residential building would minimize the impact of the proposed fence and pergola structure. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 10, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered a written submission from the neighbour in opposition to this application. Mr. A. McCorkell expressed concerns with the size of the proposed fence, advising that he is the owner of 209 Forsyth Drive, Waterloo, which is directly adjacent to the proposed fence. He indicated that he only received the staff report on Friday prior to the meeting and had not yet had an opportunity to seek a professional opinion regarding the requested variance. He noted that he has additional concerns with the measurements provided in the staff report and has not yet had an opportunity to substantiate his evidence. He requested a one month deferral to allow him to seek additional information and report back at the Committee's March meeting prior to the request being considered. Mr. D. Van Dam advised that the requested variance is to permit a brick fence that would support a pergola structure over an existing spa in the rear of the subject property. He stated that the height of the brick wall itself is in compliance with the By-law; however, the posts supporting the pergola structure extend beyond the maximum permitted height by 0.46m (1.5'). He indicated that the increase in height is to provide safe clearance from the underside of the pergola structure for entry into the spa. He further advised that he had contacted the neighbours regarding the design prior to today's meeting and they declined the invitation. Mr. McCorkell advised that he had spoken with the applicant only after the By-law Enforcement office put a stop work on the project. He stated that the construction of the fence had already been underway for two months prior to being contacted by the neighbour. He further advised that the variance requested, in his opinion, is not minor and the measurements provided in the staff report do not reflect the actual size of the fence. He stated that from the measurements he took from his property, the fence is approximately 10.8 feet in height, with the posts holding the pergola structure making the height closer to an approximate 12.4 feet. He noted that the grading on his property is significantly lower and, in his sight, the fence from his property is COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Submission No. FN 2012-001 (Cont'd FEBRUARY 21, 2012 likely closer to 14 feet in height. In addition, Mr. McCorkell advised that the applicants have stated a need for privacy as another reason for constructing the fence; however, there is an existing wooden fence that blocks all views of the spa; and, in his opinion, the need for an additional fence of this size is unnecessary. In response to questions regarding a deferral, Mr. Van Dam advised that he was unsure what a one month delay would accomplish. He noted that the measurements provided with the application are from grade at the bottom of the fence to the top of the posts. He further advised that the project has been on-going for several years and the applicant has already made several design modifications to be sensitive to the area. The Chair referenced the drawing provided in the staff report, noting that there is an existing approximately 8-foot high wooden fence behind the partially constructed fence/pergola. He further advised that from the drawing, there appeared to be significant landscaping with cedar trees that would likely grow to obstruct the views of the brick fence from the adjacent property. He stated that, in his opinion, the variance requested is minor; the fence structure is completely contained on the subject property and there is significant landscaping to deter the view from the neighbouring properties. Mr. McCorkell questioned the procedures of the Committee and whether he could provide additional information to the Members regarding their decision following the meeting. In response, the Chair advised that the Committee's decision is a recommendation to Council and any additional information he would like to be considered would need to be provided to Council when the recommendation is considered. Mr. B. McColl stated that, in his opinion, the variance is minor and a one month deferral would be on the basis of being a good neighbour. He questioned the applicant as to whether he would be willing to take a deferral or whether he would like the Committee to make a recommendation this date. Mr. Van Dam requested that the Committee proceed with making a recommendation this date. He stated that the brick fence itself complies with the By-law; the only portion of the fence/pergola structure is the posts that are beyond the permitted height. He noted that the requested variance is specifically for the columns, and there will be no portion of the brick fence constructed between the columns. Mr. A. Lise requested further clarification from the neighbour regarding his concerns and whether potential shade was his only objection, noting that the direction of the sun would likely only cast shade onto his property in the morning. Mr. McCorkell advised the proposed brick fence will be a total of 16 feet in length and is significantly higher than the variance requested. He stated that it was the only thing that he was able to see out of his living room widow due to its height. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Peter Hodson & Vicki Gohl requesting legalization of a brick fence under construction be used to support a pergola structure, having a height of 2.9m (9.51`) rather than the permitted 2.44m (8.0'), as shown in the drawings provided with this application, on Lot 1, Plan 977, 2 Westgate Walk, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variances approved in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal code is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21st day of February, 2012. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment FEBRUARY 21, 2012