Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2013-07-16 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 10:01 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held June 18 , 2013, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried This meeting temporarily recessed at 10:02 a.m. to consider applications under Chapter 680 (Signs) and Chapter 630 (Fence) of the City of Kitchener’s Municipal Code and reconvened at 10:29 a.m. with all members present. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1. A 2013-033 Applicant: 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 Appearances: In Support: W. Leuschner Contra: K. & S. Townsend Written Submissions: R. & K. Payette A. Hall The Committee considered this application for minor variance in conjunction with application FN 2013-033 under Chapter 630 (Fence) of the City of Kitchener’s Municipal Code. The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to have 3 driveways fronting Hidden Valley Road for a single residential dwelling rather than the permitted maximum of 2 driveways and to locate a fence within a driveway visibility triangle whereas the by-law does not permit any obstruction within a driveway visibility triangle. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 141 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 1. A 2013-033 (Cont’d) 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 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 142 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 1. A 2013-033 (Cont’d) 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 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 143 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 1. A 2013-033 (Cont’d) Moved by Mr. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Werner and Alandra Leuschner requesting permission to have 3 driveways fronting Hidden Valley Road for a single residential dwelling rather than the permitted maximum of 2 driveways and to locate a fence within a driveway visibility triangle whereas the by- law does not permit any obstruction within a driveway visibility triangle, on Lot 8, Plan 1523, being Parts 1 & 2 on Reference Plan 58R-3560 and Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-3752, 645 Hidden BE APPROVED 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 the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 2. A 2013-032 Applicant: Regional Municipality of Waterloo Property Location: 100 Weber Street West Legal Description: Part Lots 8 & 9, Plan 389 Appearances: In Support: R. Vandenberg J. MacDonald Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a public emergency services facility having façade openings on the Weber Street West building façade equal to 37.4% and on the Water Street North building façade equal to 34.5%, rather than the required minimum of 40% for both primary ground floor facades; and for exemption from Section 5.8 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 as it relates to the required minimum 1.0 Floor Space Ratio under the existing MU-2 zoning on the subject property. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 5, 2013, advising that the subject property 100 Weber Street West is currently vacant and located at the intersection of Weber Street West and Water Street North. The lands are zoned Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-2) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Mixed Use Corridor in the City’s Official Plan. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo has acquired the subject lands and is proposing to develop an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) station on the site. The proposed use is a Public Service Use that is permitted under Section 5.8 of the Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant has submitted a site plan application for the proposed development. At this time, Site Plan Approval in Principle has been issued for the proposed development under Site Plan COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 144 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 2. A 2013-032 (Cont’d) Application SP13/041/W/ATP by the City’s Manager of Site Development and Customers Service. Final approval will be subject to the approval of the subsequent minor variance requests. Section 5.8 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 allows the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the purposes of public service, to use any land or erect or use any building in any zone subject to the use or building being in compliance with the most restrictive regulations contained in the pertaining zone. The applicant is not able to meet the minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) requirement and as such is requesting relief from Section 5.8 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to not require compliance with the FSR regulation contained in the existing zone. In addition, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 54.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow 37.4 percent of façade openings for the proposed Weber Street West building façade and 34.5 percent of façade openings for the proposed Water Street North building façade whereas a minimum of 40 percent is required for both ground floor facades. 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 followingcomments: Section 1.1.1.2 of Part 4 of the City’s Official Plan (OP) states that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the purposes of providing public service, can use any land or erect or use any building in any land use district. The OP provides a framework for the creation of a safe and healthy urban environment. It also provides guidance in creating a sustainable community through the promotion of compact urban form to ensure an efficient and effective delivery of services. Staff has reviewed the site plan for the proposed EMS station and recognise that the applicant is committed to creating an attractive urban environment through good quality design and landscaping standards. As such it is staff’s opinion that the requested minor variance to not require compliance with the FSR regulation contained in the MU-2 zone meets the spirit and intent of the OP. It is staff’s opinion that the minor variance request for reduced façade openings for the Weber Street West and Water Street North building facades also meets the intent of the OP. The Mixed Use Corridor designation promotes development that is pedestrian oriented by positioning building mass to the street, limiting vehicular parking between the building façade and the street and requiring specific façade treatments such as window or door opening and minimization of blank walls. Staff has reviewed site plan and preliminary building elevations for the proposed development and concur that the site design is in keeping with the intent of the OP designation. The intent of Section 5.8 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 is to allow a public body such as the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to use any lands in any zone so that an essential public service can be appropriately provided to the community. Section 5.8 further requires the development to comply with the most restrictive regulations within the existing zone so that any development proposed is of an appropriate siting and design for the subject lands and surrounding area. Staff has reviewed the site plan for the proposed development and conclude that the applicant has made great effort to adhere to the intent and requirements of Section 5.8. It is staff’s opinion that the requested minor variance to not require compliance with the FSR regulation will not impede the functioning of the site or negatively affect the surrounding area. As such the requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law 85-1. The intent of the minimum façade openings regulation in the MU-2 zone is to ensure a pedestrian oriented development that will enhance and animate the pedestrian experience by requiring appropriate façade treatments such as windows and door openings to minimize the appearance of blank walls. Staff have reviewed preliminary building elevations and concur that the request for reduced façade openings will continue to provide aesthetically pleasing building facades for an enhanced pedestrian experience adjacent to both Weber and Water Streets. It is staff’s opinion that the minor variance request for reduced façade openings for the Weber Street West and Water Street North building facades meets the intent of the Zoning By-law 85-1. The minor variance request to not require compliance with the FSR regulation in the existing zone can be considered minor. Staff has thoroughly reviewed the proposed site plan which exhibits adequate siting and good quality design of the EMS building that will ensure appropriate COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 145 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 2. A 2013-032 (Cont’d) operation of its services to the community. It is staff’s opinion that the requested variance will not impede the functioning of the proposed development or negatively affect the surrounding area or adjacent properties. The minor variance request for reduced façade opening requirements for both Weber and Water Street building facades can be considered minor. The applicant is proposing a minimal reduction in the required percentage for façade openings (windows and doors). Staff has thoroughly reviewed the preliminary elevation drawings for the proposed EMS building. It is staff’s opinion that the requested variance will continue to provide an enhanced pedestrian experience along the two main facades as the applicant is proposing the minimization of blanks walls with a large display window along the Weber Street building façade and an appropriate amount of windows and entrance door openings along the Water Street building façade. It is staff’s opinion that both minor variance requests are appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The EMS station is considered a public service use that will provide an essential public service to the community. The proposed site plan and building elevations have been reviewed by staff thoroughly and it is staff’s opinion that the building siting and good quality design of the site will accommodate the proposed use well and the requested variances will not impede the functioning of the site or adjacent properties. 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. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo requesting permission to construct a public emergency services facility having façade openings on the Weber Street West building façade equal to 37.4% and on the Water Street North building façade equal to 34.5%, rather than the required minimum of 40% for both primary ground floor facades; and for exemption from Section 5.8 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 as it relates to the required minimum 1.0 Floor Space Ratio under the existing MU-2 zoning on the subject property, on Part Lots 8 & 9, BE APPROVED, Plan 389, 100 Weber Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply only to the development shown on the site plan finally approved under application SP13/041/W/ATP. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested 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 City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 3. A 2013-034 Applicant: Debbie White Property Location: 126 Julia Crescent Legal Description: Lot 79, Plan 1819 Appearances: In Support: D. White Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 146 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 3. A 2013-034 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition having a rear yard setback of 5.74m (18.84’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.61’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2013, advising that the applicant is requesting a minor variance to construct a sunroom addition having a rear yard setback of 5.74 metres (18.84 feet) rather than the required 7.5 metres (24.61 feet). The property is zoned Residential Four (R-4) under By-law 85-1 and is used as a single detached dwelling. 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 for the following reason. The intent of the Low Rise Residential designation is to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The proposed addition is a small portion of the overall use of the land and can be considered to meet this intent. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the 7.5 metres rear yard setback is to ensure that the residents of the building have sufficient outdoor amenity, and also to ensure that a sufficient setback is provided from between neighbouring buildings. The proposed addition is for a sunroom at the rear of the house which will be used for an enclosed amenity area and will still permit the remainder of the backyard to be used by the residents. The variance is minor for the following reason. The sunroom will measure approximately 3 x 4 metres (10 x 13 feet). As shown on the plan submitted with the application, this is a small portion of the overall backyard area. A rear yard of 5.74 metres (18.8 feet) will remain and the deficiency of 1.76 metres (5.77 feet) can be considered minor. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reason. The sunroom increases the enjoyment of the backyard for the residents. As well, it would not negatively affect the neighbouring properties as a sufficient setback will be maintained from the rear and side lot lines. 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. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Debbie White requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition having a rear yard setback of 5.74m (18.84’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.61’), on Lot 79, BE APPROVED Plan 1819, 126 Julia Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, . 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 Submission No.: 4. A 2013-035 Applicant: Reitzel Bros. General Contractors Inc. Property Location: 140 Wellington Street North Legal Description: Part Lot 264, Plan 376 and Part Lot 69, Streets and Lanes Appearances: In Support: B. Reitzel COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 147 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 4. A 2013-035 (Cont’d) Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand an existing legal non-conforming multiple residential use by enclosing the front porch of one unit facing Wellington Street North. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2013, advising that the subject lands are located on Wellington Street North, just west of the Weber Street West / Wellington Street North intersection. The property is 514 square metres in area with 13.4 metres of frontage onto Wellington Street North. A triplex dwelling constructed in the 1940s and detached garage located in the rear yard are situated on the property. The surrounding properties are used for residential purposes. The subject property is designated Low-Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned Residential Five (R-5) with Special Use Provision 129U in the Zoning By-law. The triplex dwelling on the subject property is considered to be a legal non-conforming use, since multiple dwellings are not permitted under the provision. The owner is requesting permission under Section 45(2)(a) of the Planning Act to allow the alteration of a legal non-conforming use through the enclosure of a front porch of one unit of a triplex dwelling. Such enclosure is classified as an extension of the building, thus the previous front yard setback will no longer apply. The enclosed porch is located 1.6 metres from the front lot line of the property. It should be noted that an application to change a legal non-conforming use, in this case by allowing the enclosure of an existing front porch to one unit of a triplex dwelling, does not have to meet the four tests of a minor variance. Case law has determined that in deciding such a permission application, consideration should be based on: 1. Impact on the surrounding area. Does the proposed use create unacceptable adverse impacts upon the abutting properties; and. 2. desirability for development of the property. In considering these tests, Planning staff offers the following comments. Enclosed porches are a characteristic of the residential neighbourhood in which the subject lands are located. Almost all residential dwellings within proximity of the subject lands have enclosed porches. If the front yard remains landscaped and maintained, the enclosed porch should not degrade the aesthetic appeal of the neighbourhood With respect to the desirability of the proposed enclosure of the existing porch, staff acknowledges that the use will be considered as an extension of living space to the existing triplex dwelling. Such enclosure may enhance the appeal of the property in the event that it was to be resold in the future. It is also important to note that enclosing of the porch will have little or no impact on potential future conversion of the triplex into a single-detached dwelling. 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. B. Ritzel requested clarification on why he was required to apply for a minor variance when his application did not have to meet the four Planning Act tests for a variance to be recommended for approval. Ms. von Westerholt advised that the subject property is considered legal non- conforming and is considered under a different section of the Act when being considered by staff for recommendation. She noted that in this case the property does not meet the required front yard setbacks in the Zoning By-law and that is the reason why a variance was required. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 148 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 4. A 2013-035 (Cont’d) Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Reitzel Bros. General Contractors Inc. requesting permission to expand an existing legal non-conforming multiple residential use by enclosing the front porch of one unit facing Wellington Street North, on Part Lot 264, Plan 376 and Part Lot 69, Streets and Lanes, 140 BE APPROVED. Wellington Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, It is the opinion of this Committee that the expansion of the legal non-conforming use by adding a covered front porch is in keeping with the use of the property on the day the by-law prohibiting this use was passed and is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. Carried Submission No.: 5. A 2013-036 Applicant: Paul Dyck Property Location: 188 Weber Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Plan 264 Appearances: In Support: P. Dyck Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to have a home business (health office) conducted by 2 health professionals rather than the permitted maximum of 1 and to allow 3 parking spaces for the home business to be located in the rear of the subject property rather than the permitted maximum of 1 parking space in the rear yard. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2013, advising that the subject property is located at 188 Weber Street East and contains a single detached dwelling. The occupant of the dwelling currently operates a health office (massage therapy) as a home business and would like to allow a second practitioner. Planning staff notes that the section from which the owner is requesting relief was misstated on the application form. The applicant is requesting relief from section 5.13 of the zoning by-law to permit: 1. a home business (health office) to have two practitioners in attendance at any given time, rather than one as permitted by the by-law; and, 2. to have three parking spaces located in the rear yard, rather than one as permitted by the by-law. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The subject site is designated Low Density Commercial Residential in the King Street East Secondary Plan. This designation recognizes the existing scale of mixed commercial residential development. A range of residential uses (which includes accessory home businesses) and commercial uses including health offices are permitted. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. Variance #1 The lands are zoned Commercial-Residential One Zone (CR-1). This zoning category allows for single detached dwellings and home businesses (which may include a health office). Health offices are also permitted as a standalone use in the CR-1 zone. The difference between the two is whether the primary use of the site is residential or commercial, and whether the owner of the business is also an occupant of the dwelling. In this case, as the primary practitioner at the health COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 149 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 5. A 2013-036 (Cont’d) office also resides in the building, and provided the home business does not occupy more than 25% of the building’s gross floor area or 50m2, as per by-law regulations, staff is satisfied that the health office can be classified as a home business. Section 5.13 of the zoning by-law provides regulations for home businesses. Section 5.13.2 a) permits one non-resident employee at a home business, however regulation 5.13.2.q) further clarifies this by stating that a health office shall not have more than one health professional in attendance at one time. The applicant has requested relief from this section to allow two health practitioners in attendance at any one time. The intent of this regulation is to ensure that a home- business does not grow beyond the realm of a home business by providing for multiple employees and practitioners which may have a significant impact on parking and other business operations resulting in the primary use of the site being commercial, rather than residential. Staff is of the opinion that it may be considered appropriate for the home business to employ either a second practitioner or a non-resident employee, but not both, subject to appropriate parking being provided. Staff recommends that a condition be included in this regard. Regulation 5.13.2 i) states that parking regulations for a home business require one space for the dwelling unit, one for the non-resident employee and one for the home business. The parking regulations assume that there will be spaces available for resident of the dwelling (who is also assumed present at the home business), the employee and one for the business. Allowing a second practitioner increases the probability of having more than one client present at any one time – and therefore requiring four spaces. Staff notes that the zoning by-law only requires one space for the home business and permits up to three clients at any one time. While a reduction to the number of spaces is not required and is not being sought, staff is of the opinion that it would be prudent for the owner to provide for 4 parking stalls. Transportation Services staff has reviewed the site and find that three spaces can be accommodated on site. The owner of the property also owns the neighbouring lands at 184 Weber Street East and has noted in the application that they can accommodate an extra parking space on this site. Staff request that this situation be formalized through an off-site parking agreement as a condition of the variance. The intent of the by-law is to ensure both appropriate functioning of the site, as well as to ensure that the operations do not exceed that of a home business. Staff are of the opinion that allowing a second practitioner meets the intent of the by-law as a home business may have an employee, an additional practitioner will not necessarily mean additional clients are attracted to the site beyond that provided for in the by-law, and appropriate parking can be provided through an off- site parking agreement. As suggested above, staff suggests that conditions be included to require an off-site parking agreement and acknowledgement that either a second practitioner or a non-resident employee may be present on the site at any one time, but not both. Staff is of the opinion that the variance is minor and appropriate. While the variance does increase the function of the home business use, it is permissible to have a non-resident employee. As such and given that parking can be accommodated, staff are of the opinion that in this case it is appropriate and a minor for the non-resident employee to be a second practitioner, provided there is not a second practitioner and a non-resident employee. Staff notes that the by- law allows the home business to attract up to three clients to the home at any one time and that it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that they comply with this regulation. Staff consider the variance appropriate for the use of the land, provided four parking spaces are provided, as discussed above, and provided that the home business use does not increase in size beyond the maximum 25% of the home’s gross floor area or 50.0 m2. Variance #2 Regulation 5.13.2.k) specifies that not more than one parking space required for or associated with the home business may be located in the rear yard and assumes that other should be located in the driveway (and may be in tandem). The applicant is proposing that three parking spaces be located in the rear yard. This site is unique from many other residential areas in that there is an existing parking area located behind the building which can accommodate three vehicles. As this site is zoned Commercial Residential (CR-1) it could be used for a variety of uses requiring a parking lot to the rear of the building (ranging from a multiple dwelling to more commercial use such as office or personal services). Rear yard parking lots are typical and required for such properties, whereas for single detached houses located in the more suburban areas, parking lots are neither permitted nor supported by staff and parking is typically located in COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 150 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 5. A 2013-036 (Cont’d) driveways or garages in front of or beside the dwelling. The intent of the by-law is to ensure that sufficient parking is provided in a manner appropriate to the neighbourhood. In this case, staff is of the opinion that the most appropriate way to provide the required parking is to locate it to the rear of the dwelling, rather than in the driveway. This will help maintain an attractive streetscape, ensure that all vehicles can both enter and exit the site to Weber Street in a forward motion (i.e. vehicles will not need to back out onto Weber Street which is a busy road). To ensure that the existing parking lot is laid out in accordance with regulations and site design standards, staff request that the owner prepare a Parking Plan for approval, and that the approved parking stalls are demarcated on the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Planning, no later than September 30, 2013. Staff is of the opinion that the variance is both minor, as the parking lot is already in existence, and appropriate as this is a better location for the required parking and improves the safety for drivers entering and exiting the site. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 5, 2013, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, under a future development application this property would be required to dedicate a 3.048m (10ft) road widening dedication to the Region of Waterloo in accordance with the Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP). The existing road width in this section of Regional Road 08 (Weber Street East) is 20.117m (66ft) and the designated road width is 26.213m (86ft). The applicant advised that he was in support of staffs recommendation and the conditions proposed. The Chair requested clarification on the right-of-way and whether it would be sufficient access for the subject property. Mr. D. Pimentel advised that the access is 2.9m which is sufficient for the current situation. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Paul Dyck requesting permission to have a home business (health office) conducted by 2 health professionals rather than the permitted maximum of 1 and to allow 3 parking spaces for the home business to be located in the rear of the subject property rather than the permitted maximum of 1 parking space in the rear yard, on Part Lot 4, Plan 264, 188 Weber BE APPROVED Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner agrees that only a second practitioner or a non-resident employee, but not both, may be in attendance at any given time, and that a maximum of three clients be in attendance at any given time. Should the owner not be able to abide by the condition, the variance will be considered null and void. 2. That the owner shall enter into an Off-Site Parking Agreement to provide for one additional parking stall at 184 Weber Street East, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, in consultation with the City’s Director of Planning and the City’s Director of Transportation Services, no later than September 30, 2013. 3. That the owner shall prepare a Parking Plan and that the approved parking stalls shall be demarcated on the site, all to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services, no later than September 30, 2013. 4. That the owner shall obtain an updated Certificate of Occupancy documenting the second practitioner, no later than September 30, 2013. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested 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 City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 151 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 6. A 2013-037 Applicant: Hallman Construction Limited Property Location: Groh Drive South Subdivision (Blair Creek Drive / Netherwood Road / Wildflower Street) Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Beasley’s New Survey, being Part 6 on Reference Plan 58R-16325 Appearances: In Support: P. Britton Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a multiple residential development consisting of 40 street townhouse dwelling units having a total of 51 parking spaces rather than the required 70 parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2013, advising that The subject lands, situated in the Doon South Planning Community, are zoned Residential Six (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1, and are designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The subject lands are currently vacant, and are recognized as Block 13, Stage 1 of draft approved plan of subdivision 30T-07203. The subdivision application, as noted, is currently in the draft approval stages. The applicant is proposing for this particular site, a total of forty (40) cluster townhouse dwellings. On June 24, 2013, a site inspection was completed for the subject lands. Planning staff notes that the subject lands are part of a draft approved subdivision. No grading, servicing or construction has commenced for this site. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2(a) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a total of fifty one (51) off-street parking spaces on site, whereas seventy (70) spaces would be required for a cluster townhouse dwelling. The applicant has requested the variance for a parking reduction in order to facilitate the proposed multiple dwelling development. The applicant has indicated that the proposed cluster townhouse dwellings will be designed to function and appear as street townhouse dwellings. In considering the four tests for minor variance 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: It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to permit a parking reduction, meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential Designation in the City’s Official Plan encourages a full range of housing types and forms while achieving an overall low intensity of use. As the subject land covers a vast area, and as the proposed development is part of a larger draft approved subdivision, the proposed multiple dwelling development should not have any impact on the overall intensity, or the adjacent residential areas. By definition of our zoning bylaw, a townhouse is classified as a cluster townhouse dwelling or a street townhouse dwelling. The proposed use of the property, as defined by the City’s Zoning Bylaw, is regarded as a cluster townhouse dwelling, specifically, a multiple dwelling. Each townhouse unit would need individual vehicular access to a street and would have to be designed to be on separate lots, in order to be considered a street townhouse dwelling. In accordance with Section 6.1.2(a) of the Zoning By-law, a parking ratio of 1.75 spaces for each dwelling unit is required for a development with 13 – 60 units. Therefore, 70 parking spaces would be required for the proposed 40 units. The intent of this bylaw is to provide adequate levels of parking space for the homeowner(s), as well as visitors. The applicant has indicated that their proposal will be developed to function and appear as though they are street townhouse dwellings. All of the units will have individual vehicular access to the specific street which they are situated on. The configuration of the block of land that will support the construction of the proposed development does not allow for the units to be on separate lots, thus the proposed dwellings are regarded as cluster townhouse dwellings. The parking requirements for a street townhouse dwelling are calculated at a rate of 1 space per unit, versus the 1.75 spaces for the cluster townhouse dwelling COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 152 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 6. A 2013-037 (Cont’d) (i.e. multiple dwelling). Given that the development will function as street townhouse dwellings, the amount of parking provided both on and off-street would be far in excess of the required amount if the site were considered a street townhouse dwelling. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development meets the intent of the City’s Zoning By-law because: the block/lot configuration does not allow for individual lots; the development has sufficient visitor parking on- site; both a cluster and street townhouse dwelling(s) are a permitted use in a R-6 zone; and, the proposed development will appear and function as a street townhouse dwelling(s). Staff is of the opinion that the proposed parking reduction is considered minor. The proposed surrounding uses of the subdivision consist predominately of low rise residential uses. A total of 51 parking spaces will be accommodated on site, and an additional number of dwellings on the subject lands should be able to support tandem parking. The proposed development will include an 11 space common-element parking lot for visitors, which is proposed to be setback from the roadway and concealed behind the proposed dwellings. Furthermore, the design of the proposed development will be consistent with the low rise form of the surrounding residential neighbourhood. When considering the design, appearance and functionality of the proposed cluster townhouse dwellings which front onto the abutting street(s), staff is of the opinion that the variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance should not impact any of the adjacent lands, the subject property, nor the abutting streets as there should be more than sufficient parking on site if this development was defined as a street townhouse dwelling. There should also be adequate off-street parking within the vicinity of the proposed development. The requested variance should not impact any of the adjacent lands/uses, the subject property, nor the abutting streets 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. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Hallman Construction Limited requesting permission to construct a multiple residential development consisting of 40 street townhouse dwelling units having a total of 51 parking spaces rather than the required 70 parking spaces, on Part Lot 2 and Part Block 10 & 11, Registered Plan 58M-488, Groh Drive South Subdivision (Blair Creek Drive / Netherwood BE APPROVED Road / Wildflower Street), Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Kitchener’s Building Division for the proposed residential dwellings. 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 CONSENT Submission No.: 1. B 2013-030 Applicant: Kenmore Homes (Waterloo Region) Inc. Property Location: 904 Pioneer Grove Court Legal Description: Lot 29, 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 153 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 1. B 2013-030 (Cont’d) 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: J. Mondell Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for give an easement having a width of 0.6m (1.97’) by a depth of 8.498m (27.88’) over Lot 29, Plan 58M-519 in favour of abutting lands (Lot 30) for purpose of maintenance of an existing garage. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 4, 2013, advising that the subject property is located at 904 Pioneer Grove Court located near the intersection of King Street (old Highway 8) and Pioneer Tower Road. 904 Pioneer Grove Court is currently a vacant lot within plan of subdivision 58M-519. This lot has been used as parking for a model home located next door at 900 Pioneer Grove Court as shown in Figure 1 above. The applicant is requesting a consent to create an easement measuring 0.6 metres wide and 8.5 metres long over lands addressed as 904 Pioneer Grove Court (Lot 29, 58M-519). The owner, Kenmore Homes, is proposing to construct a home on the subject lands. The proposed easement is for the owner of 900 Pioneer Grove Court to gain access over 904 Pioneer Grove Court in order to maintain the side of the garage which is located 0.6 metres (2 feet) from the side yard at this location. A minor variance is not warranted because the Institutional zoning (I-1) permits a minimum side yard of 0 metres on one side of the property. With respect to the request, staff does not have any concerns with the application as the easement was a requirement stipulated as part of site plan approval of the model home. The owner is simply fulfilling that obligation now that a single detached dwelling is to be constructed on 904 Pioneer Grove Court. 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 this easement is considered good planning that satisfies the policies of both the City’s Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated June 26, 2013, advising that they have no objection to this application. Ms. D. Saunderson noted that a standard condition for the approval of a consent application would require the applicant to ensure the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges are paid in full and requested that the condition be included in the Committee’s decision. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Kenmore Homes (Waterloo Region) Inc. requesting permission to give an easement having a width of 0.6m (1.97’) by a depth of 8.498m (27.88’) over Lot 29, Plan 58M-519 in favour of abutting lands (Lot 30) for purpose of maintenance of an existing garage, BE on Lot 29, Registered Plan 58M-519, 904 Pioneer Grove Court, Kitchener, Ontario, GRANTED , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide 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 two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 154 -JULY 16, 2013 Submission No.: 1. B 2013-030 (Cont’d) 3. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the access/right-of-way easements are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easements. 4. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easements and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, shall be provided to the City Solicitor. 5. That the City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easements and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being July 16, 2015. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of July, 2013. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment