Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2013-07-16 - FN COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 16, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski, B. McColl and Ms. J. Meader. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic Planning Analyst; Mr. D. Pimentel, Traffic Technologist; Ms. J. Billett, Committee Administrator, Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider applications regarding a variance to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law. The Committee will not make a decision on this application 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, August 26, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. NEW BUSINESS Submission No.: 1. FN 2013-002 Applicants: Cory and Natalie Piron Property Location: 58 Pioneer Tower Road Legal Description: Lot 7, Registered Plan 58M-519 Mr. B. McColl declared a pecuniary interest in this application as he is a Board member of the Pinegrove Community Neighbourhood Association and did not participate in any discussion or voting concerning this application. Mr. B. McColl left the meeting during consideration of this application and, pursuant to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support: C. & N. Piron Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 1.8m (5.91’) high wooden privacy fence having a setback from an exterior side lot line of 0.6m (1.97’) rather than the required 1.5m (4.93’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 5, 2013, advising that the subject property is located in the Pioneer Tower West Planning Community. The property is a corner lot located at the intersection of Pioneer Grove Court and Pioneer Tower Road and contains a newly constructed single detached dwelling. The owner is requesting permission to construct a 1.8 metre high wooden fence within the exterior side yard of a corner lot with a setback of 0.6 metres from the exterior side lot line (abutting Pioneer Grove Court), whereas the City’s Fence By-law requires that fences of such height be set back at least 1.5 metres. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 16, 2013 5 Submission No.: 1. FN 2013-002 (Cont’d) In considering the requested variance, Planning staff offers the following comments. The proposed variance request meets the intent of the Fence By-law. The 1.5 metre setback requirement is required to maintain pedestrian and vehicular safety. In addition, the setback is intended to protect neighbourhood aesthetics by prohibiting large fences from being built in close proximity to the exterior side lot line and public sidewalk, creating a closed corridor environment. The proposed 0.6 metre setback to the exterior side lot line will allow enough area to install plantings/landscaping other than sod. The additional sodded area between the lot line and the sidewalk together, along with the 0.6 metre setback, will provide an adequate buffer between the fence and the public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the request is appropriate for the development of the property and the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 5, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. C. Piron advised that he was in support of staffs recommendation but noted that the date to fulfill the condition is prior to the Committee’s meeting and requested that it be amended. He noted that it would be his preference if the condition deadline would be sometime after receiving Council’s final decision. The Chair questioned whether September 30, 2013 would be sufficient time for the fence and landscaping to be installed. Both the applicant and staff were in agreement to the condition deadline being September 30, 2013. Ms. J. Meader questioned whether there would be any potential safety concerns with the rear yard due to the fact that there will only be a partial fence installed. Mr. Piron advised that the proposed fence is to prevent his children access to the road, behind his property is a park and he would like to maintain access to that green space. Moved by Mr. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Cory and Natalie Piron requesting permission to construct a 1.8m (5.91’) high wooden privacy fence having a setback from an exterior side lot line of 0.6m (1.97’) rather than the required 1.5m (4.93’), on Lot 7, Registered Plan 58M-519, 58 Pioneer Tower Road, BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall submit and obtain approval of a landscape plan from the City’s Director of Planning. The landscape plan shall show landscaping to be installed between the fence and the exterior side lot line abutting Pioneer Grove Court. All landscaping shall be completed by September 30, 2013 and shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance approved in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 2. FN 2013-003 Applicants: Werner and Alandra Leuschner Property Location: 645 Hidden Valley Road Legal Description: Lot 8, Plan 1523, being Parts 1 & 2 on Reference Plan 58R-3560 and Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-3752 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 16, 2013 6 Submission No.: 2. FN 2013-003 (Cont’d) Appearances: In Support: W. Leuschner Contra: K. & S. Townsend Written Submissions: R. & K. Payette A. Hall The Committee considered this application for a fence variance under Chapter 630 (Fence) of the City of Kitchener’s Municipal Code in conjunction with minor variance application A 2013- 033. The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a metal and brick privacy fence with gates located 0.91m (2.99’) from the front lot line having varying heights ranging from 1.83 m (6.01’) to 3.05m (10.01’) rather than the permitted maximum height of 0.91m (2.99’); and to allow a fence having a height of 3.05m (10.01’) within a driveway visibility triangle rather than the permitted maximum height of 0.91m (2.99’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 5, 2013, advising that the subject property is zoned Residential One Zone (R-1) in the Zoning By-law and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The owner is currently building a new single detached dwelling on the subject lands. The owner is proposing an iron and stone fence with three entrances from Hidden Valley Road. The main entrance is located at the northeast of the property while the second and third entrances are located at the southeast of the property. The owner is also proposing three gates at each of the entrances. The primary gate located at the northeastern gate is proposed to be located 0.5m within the driveway visibility triangle (DVT) while the second and third gates are proposed to be located wholly within the DVT. The owner is requesting the following minor variances: 1. Relief from Section 5.3 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law to allow the proposed gates and fence within the driveway visibility triangle; and, 2. Relief from Section 6.1.1.b.iii,b of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law to allow a maximum of 3 driveways on a lot with a minimum lot width of 30m, rather than 2 driveways. The owner is also requesting the following fence minor variances: 1. Relief from Section 630.3.1.b of the City of Kitchener Fence By-law to allow a fence to be built that would obstruct the clear visibility of normal approaching pedestrian and vehicular traffic; and, 2. Relief from Section 630.4.1.a of the City of Kitchener Fence By-law to allow a fence to be built in a front yard at a height of 1.83m to 3.05m rather than 0.91m. 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 variances: Hidden Valley Drive is listed as a road presently under study for potential designation as a Scenic Heritage Road. Section 8.3.3 of the Official Plan requires Scenic Heritage Roads to have regard for unique structural, topographic and visual features compared to most other roads in the municipality. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed iron and stone gate will enhance the rural visual characteristics of Hidden Valley Drive. Furthermore, the Transportation Policies of the Official Plan require points of ingress and egress to be designed, constructed, and maintained for the safe and efficient movement of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 16, 2013 7 Submission No.: 2. FN 2013-003 (Cont’d) vehicles and pedestrians on site. Given the nature and intended use of the site, Transportation Planning staff has advised that they can support the proposed three driveways, fence and gates. The Urban Design policies of the Official Plan encourage a high standard of urban design. It is the opinion of staff that the request for an additional driveway, iron and stone fence and gates meets the intent of the Official Plan. The purpose of maintaining a maximum of two driveways is to limit the ingress and egress points of access on a property and to allow sufficient space for on-street temporary parking. The subject property has a frontage of 93.97 metres, thus allowing sufficient space for a third driveway along Hidden Valley Road. The purpose of maintaining a driveway visibility triangle (DVT) clear of obstacles is to ensure safe ingress and egress to and from a property. The primary entrance (located to the northeast of the property) is proposed to have a gate and fence that will encroach into the driveway visibility triangle by approximately 0.5 metres. The requested reduced DVT at the primary entrance will continue to allow the safe ingress and egress from the subject property for the owners and their visitors. The other entrances (located to the southeast of the property) will be for maintenance access and will have limited use. Transportation staff has advised they support the proposed location of the fence and gates. It is the opinion of staff that the request for an additional driveway, iron and stone fence and gates meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The proposed variances are considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances will provide adequate and safe access to the subject property while not negatively affecting the adjacent properties or surrounding community. The proposed variances are appropriate as the proposed variances will allow the owner to safely access the property. The requested minor variances are appropriate and consistent with the Residential One (R1) zone. The proposed variance will not impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding community. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 5, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated July 5, 2013, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they noted that the property contains steep slopes and an erosion hazard as well as the allowances adjacent to these features. Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Any future development within the regulated area on the subject lands will require the prior issuance of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. The Committee considered written submissions from neighbours in opposition to this application. Messrs. S. & K. Townsend requested clarification on the height of the fence, noting that if the proposed fence was going to be 10 feet in height, they were in opposition to this application. Mr. W. Leuschner advised that he is in support of staffs recommendation and added for clarification that the stone pillars are the only portion of the fence that will exceed 6 feet in height. He stated that two stone pillars on the main gate will be 10 feet in height and the secondary entrance gates will have pillars between 6 and 8 feet in height. He further advised that the fencing will be aluminium and will be no taller than 6 feet. The Chair addressed the comments regarding the road widening included in the written submission from the neighbour and requested clarification on the current width of Hidden Valley Road and what has been identified as the ultimate road width. Ms. von Westerholt advised that the ultimate road width for Hidden Valley Road is 20m. She stated that currently COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 16, 2013 8 Submission No.: 2. FN 2013-003 (Cont’d) the City is undergoing a review of the Official Plan which could change the expansion of the road. She further advised that the installation of the fence would not have any impact on the potential road widening. Mr. S. Townsend commented that he was under the impression that if the City was going to do a road widening on Hidden Valley Road, that the widening would only be taken from the one side of the street which contains the subject property. In response, Mr. J. Lewis advised that he could not confirm in this instance but the normal course of procedure when doing a road widening would be to widen the road on both sides of the street. Mr. B. McColl requested clarification on the variance for the fence to be located within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) and whether a potential road widening would create a potential safety concern due to the fences location. Mr. Lewis advised that the DVT will have minimal impacts due to a potential widening and will continue to allow the safe ingress and egress from the subject property. Ms. J. Meader questioned whether the recommendation should be amended to include a condition that the applicant shall install the fence in accordance with the Tree Preservation Plan. Mr. Leuschner advised that he purchased the property due to the vegetation and he did not object to the condition being included. Ms. Meader expressed concerns that the plan provided with the application did not clearly identify the height of the fence and the pillars. She suggested that an additional condition be included to require the applicant to provide a new plan clearly stating the height of the fence and the pillars, to ensure that the applicant builds the fence as per the plans submitted with the application. Mr. Leuschner stated that he had no objections to submitting a more detailed plan. Moved by Mr. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Werner and Alandra Leuschner requesting permission to construct a metal and brick privacy fence with gates located 0.91m (2.99’) from the front lot line having varying heights ranging from 1.83 m (6.01’) to 3.05m (10.01’) rather than the permitted maximum height of 0.91m (2.99’); and to allow a fence having a height of 3.05m (10.01’) within a driveway visibility triangle rather than the permitted maximum height of 0.91m (2.99’), on Lot 8, Plan 1523, being Parts 1 & 2 on Reference Plan 58R-3560 and Part 1 on Reference Plan BE APPROVED 58R-3752, 645 Hidden Valley Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall install the fence in accordance with the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan (2010) approved for the property, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 2. That the owner shall revise the site plan submitted with Fence Variance application, Submission No. FN 2013-003, to clearly identify the height of the fence and pillars proposed along the perimeter of the property and the owner agrees to construct the fence in accordance with the revised plan to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. 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 Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 16, 2013 9 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:28 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of July, 2013. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment