Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-18 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 18,201 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs.A. Head and B. McColl and Ms. J. Meader. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner; Mr. B. Cronkite, Transportation Planning Project Manager; Mr. G. Stevenson, Planner; Mr. D. Pimentel, Traffic Technologist; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson,Administrative Clerk. Mr.A. Head,Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:02 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 February 18, 2014, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2014-005 Applicants: Rockway Holdings Limited Property Location: 70 Willowrun Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 117, Plan 591, Part Lot 9, being Parts 3, 4 and 5 on Reference Plan 58R-17541, Block 149, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-10202 Appearances: In Support: L. Kotseff P. Richards B. Montgomery Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a multi- residential townhome development with the balconies on Blocks 8 to 12, being supported by columns on the ground rather than cantilevered; a side yard setback from Fairway Road of 2.Om (6.56') rather than the required 7.5m (24.606'); a front yard setback of 1.7m (5.577') rather than the required 4.5m (14.763'); a side yard setback on the townhomes identified as Block 4 of 1.5m (4.92') rather than the required 2.5m (8.202'); a rear yard setback on the townhomes identified as Block 7 of 3m (9.842') rather than the required 7.5m (24.606'); a drive aisle setback of 1.1m (3.608') rather than the required 3m (9.842'); to locate parking 1.38m (4.527')from the street line rather than the required 3m (9.842'); to provide 116 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 137 off-street parking spaces; and, to provide 25 off-street visitor parking spaces rather than the required 27 off-street visitor parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division,dated March 7,2014, advising that the subject property is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6)with Special Provisions 596R, 597R and 419U in the Zoning By-Law and is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan.The COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -41 - MARCH 18,2014 1. Submission No.: A 2014-005 (Cont'd) property is currently a vacant, unregistered Block in Plan of Subdivision 30T-10202. The applicant is proposing a multiple residential development containing a mixture of residential building forms such as townhouses and stacked townhouse units. This application was deferred at the Committee of Adjustment meeting on February 18, 2014 to allow the applicant to make revisions to the site plan based on transportation and urban design staff's comments. The proposed site plan received Approval in Principle at a Site Plan Review Committee meeting on March 5,2014. As such, in order to facilitate the proposed residential development the applicant is requesting the following minor variances: a) Relief is being sought from Special Regulation Provision 596U to allow a setback of 2.0 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres for Blocks 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 as shown on the proposed site plan; b) Relief is being sought from Section 5.6A.1 a) of the Zoning By-Law to allow the proposed balconies to be supported by columns rather than be cantilevered for Blocks 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 as shown on the proposed site plan; C) Relief is being sought from Section 40.2.6 of the Zoning By-Law to allow a front yard setback of 1.7 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres for Blocks 1 and 12 as shown on the proposed site plan; d) Relief is being sought from Section 40.2.6 of the Zoning By-Law to allow for side yard setback of 1.5 metres rather than the required 2.5 metres for Block 4 as shown on the proposed site plan; e) Relief is being sought from Section 4.02.6 of the Zoning By-Law to allow a rear yard setback of 3.0 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres for Block 7 as shown on the proposed site plan; f) Relief is being sought from Section 6.1.1.1 a) iv) of the Zoning By-Law to allow an aisle giving direct access to abutting parking spaces to be 1.1 metres from the street line rather than the required 3.0 metres as shown on the proposed site plan; g) Relief is being sought from Section 6.1.2 a) of the Zoning By-Law to allow a total of 116 parking spaces rather than the required 137 parking spaces for the proposed development containing 91 residential dwelling units in total;and, h) Relief is being sought from Section 6.1.1.1 a) iv) to allow parking spaces to be setback 1.38 metres from the street line rather than the required 3.0 metres;and further, i) Relief is being sought from Section 6.1.2 b) vi) to allow 25 visitor parking spaces for the proposed multiple dwelling development rather than the required 27 (20% of 137 total required parking spaces)visitor parking spaces. 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 requested minor variances meet the intent of the City's Official Plan. The policies within the Low Rise Residential designation encourage a range of uses and favour the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The proposed variances are required to facilitate the proposed low rise residential development. The requested variances meet the intent of the City's Zoning By-Law: a) The intent of Special Regulation Provision 596U is to ensure a sufficient setback is provided from the Regional Road (Fairway Road North) to the proposed residential buildings as a means of noise attenuation. Regional staff advised that the applicant submitted a Noise Study which provided support for the proposed reduced building setback to the Regional Road (Fairway Road North). As such, City Planning staff is satisfied that the requested variance to allow a setback of 2.0 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres to Fairway Road North is appropriate and meets the intent of the special regulation provision in the Zoning By-Law. b) Section 5.6A.1 a) of the Zoning By-Law states that balconies may extend within any yard provided that they are not enclosed and not supported by the ground. The intent of this Section is to ensure there is no opportunity for the area created below the balcony to be enclosed and become part of the principle residential building that would intrude within any yard. The applicant advised that the intent of the columns is to enhance the aesthetics and COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -42- MARCH 18,2014 1. Submission No.: A 2014-005 (Cont'd) design of the building. The applicant has no intention of creating an enclosed area below the balconies as it will not meet the design criteria for the proposed building product. As such, it is staff's opinion that the requested variance to allow the proposed balconies to be supported by columns rather than cantilevered meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law. c) The intent of Section 40.2.6 of the Zoning By-Law is to allow adequate buffering between the street line and the proposed building for an appealingly streetscape. Due to the irregular shape of the subject property,the proposed building is oriented in such a way that the side fapade is located in the front yard setback.The applicant is committed to providing an enhanced side fapade treatment that will enhance the street presence and provide a focal point at the main entrance into the subdivision from Fairway Road North. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to allow a front yard setback of 1.7 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law. d) The intent of Section 40.2.6 of the Zoning By-Law is to allow for sufficient separation between the proposed building and side lot line for access purposes and to ensure there is no impact to adjacent properties. Due to the irregular shape of the proposed site, a pinch point is created where the side yard setback for one townhouse unit block is proposed at 1.5 metres rather than the required 2.5 metres. It is staffs opinion that access will not be impeded, as there are other avenues that can be taken to maneuver around the site. Staff is also of the opinion that the requested variance for a reduced side yard setback will not impact development on adjacent properties and as such meets the intent of the Zoning By- Law. e) The intent of Section 4.02.6 of the Zoning By-Law to ensure there is a sufficient rear yard setback to allow the opportunity for each dwelling unit to have an appropriate outdoor amenity area and to ensure there is no impact to adjacent properties. Staff is aware that a common amenity area is proposed for the overall development as per requirements of the Zoning By-Law. As such, it is staffs opinion that the minor variance request meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law. f) The intent of Section 6.1.1.1 a) iv) of the Zoning By-Law is to ensure there is an opportunity to provide an adequate buffer between a drive aisle and a street line for an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. As part of the site plan process, City staff is requiring the applicant to erect a screen wall to provide buffering from the drive aisle and the street line. The screen wall will be well-integrated into the development and it is staff's opinion that it will provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape to meet the intent of the Zoning By-Law. g) The intent of Section 6.1.2 a)of the Zoning By-Law is to ensure there are sufficient parking spaces provided for the proposed use on site. Transportation Services staff advised that a Parking Justification Study was conducted which supports the request for a reduced number of required parking spaces. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to allow a total of 116 parking spaces rather than the required 137 parking spaces meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law as parking can still be accommodated on site without any encumbrance to the subject site and adjacent properties. h) The intent of Section 6.1.1.1 a) iv) of the Zoning By-Law is to ensure there is an opportunity to provide an adequate buffer between a parking space and a street line for an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. As part of the site plan process, City staff is requiring the applicant to erect a screen wall to provide buffering from the drive aisle and the street line. The screen wall will be well-integrated into the development and it is staff's opinion that it will provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape to meet the intent of the Zoning By-Law. i) The intent of Section 6.1.2 b) vi)of the Zoning By-Law is to ensure there are sufficient designated visitor parking spaces provided for the proposed residential use on site. Transportation Services staff advised that a Parking Justification Study was conducted which supports the request for a reduced number of required visitor parking spaces. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to allow 25 visitor parking spaces for the proposed multiple dwelling development rather than the required 27 visitor parking spaces meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law as visitor parking can still be accommodated on site without any encumbrance to the subject site and adjacent properties. The variances can be considered minor as the proposed variances continue to maintain a low rise residential development. The site design has been thoroughly reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee and it is staffs opinion that the applicant has provided sufficient support that the minor variances will not impact the subject site or the surrounding properties. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -43- MARCH 18,2014 1. Submission No.: A 2014-005 (Cont'd) The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The design of the site has been thoroughly reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee and it is staffs opinion that the proposed development is required for the area as it will provide different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use that will not impact the subject site or the surrounding properties. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated March 5,2014, advising that although they have no concerns with this application,they noted that it has been confirmed by Novus Environmental (Markus LI, Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Specialist) in an e-mail dated February 4, 2014 that the building off-sets/footprints in the October 2013 Noise Study are consistent with the Site Plan provided for this Minor Variance Application. Mr. L. Kotseff and Mr. B. Montgomery presented a brief overview of their application and stated that they were in support of staffs recommendation. Mr. Montgomery advised that due to the irregular nature of the subject property and the various housing types being proposed to meet the overall density requirements on the site, there are a number of variances required. He further advised that the proposed variance for off-street parking spaces has been determined with City staff, through a survey review of proxy sites that would be similar in nature to what is being proposed through this application. He noted, both staff and the applicant are satisfied with the final recommendation. In response to questions, Mr. Montgomery advised there are 81 units that have two designated parking spaces, one required off-street parking space located in within the garage and a second space in the driveway, located in front of the garage that would accommodate one vehicle. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Rockway Holdings Limited requesting permission to construct a multi- residential townhome development with the balconies on Blocks 8 to 12, being supported by columns on the ground rather than cantilevered; a side yard setback from Fairway Road of 2.Om (6.56') rather than the required 7.5m (24.606'); a front yard setback of 1.7m (5.577') rather than the required 4.5m (14.763'); a side yard setback on the townhomes identified as Block 4 of 1.5m (4.92') rather than the required 2.5m (8.202'); a rear yard setback on the townhomes identified as Block 7 of 3m (9.842') rather than the required 7.5m (24.606'); a drive aisle setback of 1.1m (3.608') rather than the required 3m (9.842'); to locate parking 1.38m (4.527') from the street line rather than the required 3m (9.842'); to provide 116 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 137 off-street parking spaces; and, to provide 25 off- street visitor parking spaces rather than the required 27 off-street visitor parking spaces, on Part Lot 117, Plan 591, Part Lot 9, being Parts 3, 4 and 5 on Reference Plan 58R-17541, Block 149, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-10202, 70 Willowrun Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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 2. Submission No.: A 2014-008 Applicants: Terra View Custom Homes Ltd. Property Location: 225 Tremaine Crescent Legal Description: Lot 242, Registered Plan 58M-393 Appearances: In Support: D. Brix COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -44- MARCH 18,2014 2. Submission No.: A 2014-008 (Cont'd) Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling with a driveway located 7.5m (24.606')from the street lines abutting the corner lot along Tremaine Crescent rather than the required 9m (29.52'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division,dated March 5,2014, advising that the subject property is a corner lot located on the interior of a bend of Tremaine Crescent. The subject lot is vacant and is located in a new subdivision that is currently under construction. Once constructed, the subdivision will contain mainly single detached dwellings. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four(R-4). The owner is proposing to develop the property with a single detached dwelling. The owner is requesting approval to construct an access driveway for the single detached dwelling 7.5 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot,whereas Section 6.1.1.1 b)iv)of the Zoning By-Law requires a minimum setback of 9.0 metres. It should be noted that the proposed driveway is located outside of the 7.5 metre Corner Visibility Triangle. 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 requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law for the following reasons. Part 2, Section 8.3.1.2.of the Official Plan states that: "The City shall design the internal street pattern of new neighbourhoods to ensure efficient and safe vehicular access to all parts of the neighbourhood."The intent of the zoning regulation to prohibit driveways within 9.0 metres of the intersection is to ensure that drivers and pedestrians entering the municipal road system from driveways can see drivers and pedestrians already on the municipal road system, and vice versa, to prevent collisions. It also allows for safe stopping distance for vehicles exiting/entering and using the municipal road system.Transportation Services staff is of the opinion that the requested 1.5 metre reduction will allow adequate visibility and safe stopping distance. The requested variance is minor since it does not create unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties or the municipal road system. As aforementioned, the proposed driveway is located outside of the 7.5 metre Corner Visibility Triangle and Transportation Services staff has commented that they have no concerns. Also, there are no concerns from an aesthetic point of view with locating the driveway as proposed. The variance is appropriate for the desirable development and use of the land since it would allow a single detached dwelling to be constructed with a 2-car garage, providing more functionality than a 1-car garage,while ensuring pedestrian and vehicular safety. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated March 5,2014,advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Terra View Custom Homes Ltd. requesting permission construct a single detached dwelling on a corner lot with a driveway located 7.5m (24.606')from the street lines abutting the corner adjacent Tremaine Crescent rather than the required 9m (29.52'), on Lot 242, Registered Plan 58M-393, 225 Tremaine Crescent, 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -45- MARCH 18,2014 2. Submission No.: A 2014-008 (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 2014-009 Applicants: Chris&Jennifer Funck Property Location: 20 Orchard Mill Crescent Legal Description: Lot 18, Plan 1472 Appearances: In Support: C. &J. Funck Contra: B. Blake Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing single family dwelling having a minimum setback from the street line of 3.98m (13.057')for one required off-street parking space whereas the By-Law requires a minimum setback of 6.Om (19.685')from the street line. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division,dated March 4,2014, advising that the subject property located at 20 Orchard Mill Crescent is zoned Residential three (R-3) with Special Regulation 319U in the Zoning By-Law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The applicant has converted the garage into livable space prior to getting appropriate building permits.As a result of converting the garage into livable space the subject property can no longer meet the requirements of Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-Law. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-Law to allow the one required parking space for the single detached dwelling to be located in the driveway setback 3.98 metres (13.057 feet)from the street line rather than the required 6.0 metres (19.685 feet). 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 property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. This designation permits low density forms of housing such as single family dwellings. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to legalize the location of the one required parking space is permitted. The requested variance to legalize the off-street parking space 3.98 metres (13.057 feet) from street lot line meets the intent of the Zoning Bylaw. The reduction of 2.02 metres (6.62 feet)from the required 6 metres (19.685 feet) is minor. The intent of the 6.0 metre (19.685 feet) required setback is to allow for a vehicle to be safely parked on the driveway without effecting the City right-of-way and surrounding properties. Transportation Services staff support a 2.02 metre (6.62 feet) reduction from the required 6 metre (19.685 feet) parking setback to provide a 3.98 metre (13.057 feet) setback. The proposed variance should not have any impact on the adjacent residential properties. The variance can be considered minor as it is staff's opinion that the required parking space can still be accommodated on site in a safe manner. The reduced setback of 2.02 metres (6.62 feet) will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. The requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the location of the required parking space on the driveway. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -46- MARCH 18,2014 3. Submission No.: A 2014-009 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated March 5,2014,advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. B. Blake addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application. He requested clarification on the definition of a single family dwelling within the Zoning By-Law and what is permitted within that use. Mr. B. Bateman commented that the Zoning By-Law no longer references single family dwellings, that definition was repealed and replaced with single detached dwelling. He noted that the term "single family dwelling" should not have been referenced in the staff report. He further advised the subject property is a single detached dwelling and the City has no authority to regulate who resides or owns a property. Mr. Blake advised that his concerns are related to the density of people living in what is formally known as a single family dwelling. He indicated that a majority of the homes within the vicinity of the subject property are similar in nature, and nothing is preventing the owners of those properties from converting their garages into liveable space. He further advised that he has additional concerns with the number of vehicles that would be permitted to park in the driveway of the subject property. Mr. Bateman stated that the parking requirement for a single detached dwelling is one off- street parking space. He noted that there are many homes that can adequately accommodate more parking in their driveway. In addition, Mr. Blake stated that he has additional concerns with the approval process the applicant has been subject to. He stated that the applicant modified the garage prior to receiving the appropriate approvals and is now receiving a favourable recommendation. Mr. C. Funck advised that they were unaware that they required approvals from the City to convert the garage to living space. He stated that he applied for a building permit for the conversion of the garage and was advised that he would require a variance for the parking setback. In response to questions, Mr. McColl stated that while he sympathizes with the neighbours' concerns regarding the process, the Committee must consider each application on its own merit. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Chris & Jennifer Funck requesting legalization of an existing single detached dwelling having one required off-street parking space located 3.98m (13.057') from the street line, whereas the By-Law requires a minimum setback of 6.Om (19.685'), on Lot 18, Plan 1472, 20 Orchard Mill Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for the conversion of the garage to living space. 2. That the owners shall submit a parking plan to the satisfaction of Transportation Services. 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -47- MARCH 18,2014 4. Submission No.: A 2014-010 Applicants: S Four Inc. Property Location: 30 Westmount Road West Legal Description: Block A, Plan 917, Part Block G, Part Lot 201, Closed Streets and Lanes, Plan 1182 Appearances: In Support: S. Patterson Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of the existing multi- residential dwelling having 21 units to provide 22 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 35; to provide 2 off-street visitor parking spaces rather than the required 5 off-street visitor parking spaces; and, to allow for larger vehicles (such as garbage trucks)to be permitted to ingress/egress in a reverse motion whereas the By-Law requires that all vehicles should be able to ingress/egress to and from a street or lane in a forward motion. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 28,2014, advising that the subject property is located at 30 Westmount Road West. The site contains a 20 unit apartment building constructed in about 1969. The site currently has 22 parking spaces which, while not compliant with zoning By-Law regulation, is an historic situation. The owner is proposing to add one additional residential unit having a floor area of less than 51 m2 in the basement of the building. Under the current zoning By-Law regulations, the additional unit only requires 0.165 parking spaces — which does not increase the parking requirement for the site. However, the existing parking situation must be legalized in order for a building permit to be issued for the proposed unit.The applicant is seeking variances as follows: 1. To permit 22 parking spaces for a building containing 21 units rather than 35 spaces, 2. To permit 2 visitor parking spaces whereas 5 are required by the By-Law, 3. To permit large vehicles (e.g. garbage truck)to enter or exit the site in a backward motion, whereas the By-Law requires that all vehicles enter and exit in a forward motion. 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: Planning Analysis: With respect to the number of parking spaces and operation of parking lots, the intent of the Official Plan is to ensure that parking is provided at levels and rates that are appropriate for the use. Policies support the establishment of parking standards which result in supplies consistent with the needs of development and which encourage the use of alternate means of transportation. Policies allow the consideration of reduced parking requirements for properties where it can be demonstrated that such reductions will not negatively affect the community. Policies specifically state that "the City shall seek to ensure that the parking standards for residential uses are reasonable and based on expected automobile ownership and parking demand." Similarly, the intent of the zoning By-Law regulations are to provide for an appropriate number of resident and visitor parking spaces for the use and to ensure the proper and safe functioning of the parking lot. Variance 1 —reduce number of overall required parking spaces from 35 to 22 (for 21 units): In support of the subject application, the applicant has provided a parking justification study. The study finds that over one day in January, the highest level of parking occupied on the site was 10 spaces.At the time Planning staff conducted a site visit 12 spaces were occupied. Transportation Planning staff have reviewed this study and have carried out an independent site investigation. Their findings show a maximum of 10 spaces were occupied at any given time. Planning and Transportation Planning staff find that the numbers reported in the Parking Justification Study are consistent with what was observed by staff and there appears to consistently be parking available in the existing parking lot. Based on experience, staff are of the opinion that this should not be significantly impacted by the addition of one bachelor size unit. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -48- MARCH 18,2014 4. Submission No.: A 2014-010 (Cont'd) The study also provides research into automobile ownership levels in apartment buildings in the vicinity of the site and finds an average auto ownership rate of 0.82 vehicles/apartment. This would produce a maximum requirement of 17 spaces for the site. Transportation Planning staff agree with this assessment. The Parking Study considers a number of Transportation Demand Management measures which help to encourage the use of alternative means of transportation. The site is located within close proximity of a number of transit routes, and is within walking distance of many shops and services on Highland Road. In addition, through a future site plan process is required before a building permit may be issued for the proposed unit,the owner will be required to install secure bike racks for 4 bicycles. The owner is also encouraged to consider parking demand management measures such as providing unbundled parking (i.e. not providing free parking for each unit). Staff are of the opinion that the Iocational factors and demand management measures will help to keep parking rates low on the subject site. Staff are of the opinion that legalizing the existing 22 parking spaces will result in a parking supply that meets the needs of the multiple residential dwelling of this site, and is reasonable for this site based on expected automobile ownership and parking demand demonstrated through the parking study and staff observations. Furthermore, Iocational and demand management measures encourage the use of alternative means of transportation. Therefore, based on the foregoing, staff are of the opinion that the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law are maintained. The existing multiple dwelling was constructed in 1969 with about 22 parking spaces.At the time, Site Plan Approval was not required, and permits may have been issued without a full review of the parking situation.While 22 spaces cannot be considered legal non-conforming for the existing 20 units, the parking situation has existed for 45 years without staff knowledge of concerns or complaints. Based on the parking study and staff observations, the parking lot is not operating at full capacity and can accommodate the creation of one additional unit. Therefore, staff are of the opinion that the proposed parking reduction from 35 to 22 spaces for 21 units, including the addition of one bachelor sized unit, is both minor and appropriate for the development and use of the land. Variance 2—reduce required number of visitor parking spaces from 5 to 2: The applicant is proposing to reduce the number of required visitor parking spaces from 5 (15% of 35 required spaces)to 2. Transportation Planning staff are of the opinion that while 22 spaces may be appropriate for 21 dwelling units, as per the previous discussion, visitor parking spaces should not be significantly reduced. It is their experience that while residents may choose alternative modes of transportation,that visitor parking usage rates are consistent with Zoning By- Law requirements. It is also noted that there is no opportunity for on-street parking on Westmount Road West to accommodate visitor's vehicles.As such,Transportation Planning staff recommend that 4 visitor parking spaces be provided, and should be signed as visitor spaces, together with one Barrier Free parking space. The proposed barrier free space could be used either by visitors or tenants who may require barrier free parking. Staff note that the current lack of Barrier Free parking is a legal non-conforming situation and the introduction of any barrier free spaces is an improvement to the site. Planning staff support the opinion of Transportation Planning staff and agree that the proposed reduction to visitor parking spaces may have an impact on the community, as visitors may attempt to park in inappropriate locations such as nearby private parking lots. This may cause a negative impact on the community and therefore is not in keeping with the intent of Official Plan policy. Therefore, staff are of the opinion that a reduction in visitor parking from 5 to 2 spaces should be refused, but that a variance from 5 parking spaces to 4 parking spaces be approved subject the condition that one barrier free parking space be installed which may be available to visitor's or tenants. Staff are of the opinion that the revised condition will meet the intent of both of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-Law. The provision of 4 visitor spaces and 1 barrier free space will essentially achieve the visitor parking requirement of the Zoning By-Law, and staff feel that it can be appropriate for the barrier free space to be used by either a visitor or tenant. Therefore, depending on the demand for the barrier free parking, which does not exist today, there could be 5 spaces available for visitors. In this situation, there will still be 17 spaces exclusively available for residents, which is in keeping COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -49- MARCH 18,2014 4. Submission No.: A 2014-010 (Cont'd) with the average automobile ownership rates in the vicinity of the site, and in excess of demonstrated rates. Based on the foregoing, staff are of the opinion that the revised variance is minor and is appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Variance 3—permit vehicles to enter or exit the site in a backward motion: The intent of Official Plan policy and zoning By-Law regulations are to ensure the safe functioning of parking lots. In new developments this requires all vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward motion. However, on the subject site,while passenger automobiles are able to enter and exit the site in a forward motion, it is not possible for large vehicles (e.g. garbage truck)to do so. This is an existing situation, and staff are not aware history of concern with respect to a vehicle backing into or out of the site. Visibility is generally good from the driveway out to the street, and there are gaps in traffic on Westmount Road due to the stoplights both at Highland Road and Queen's Boulevard.Therefore, staff are of the opinion that a vehicle can safely back into or out of the site,and the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law are maintained. This site has functioned as a multiple dwelling since 1969 with the same configuration of the parking lot, with no known history of concerns or complaints. Staff are of the opinion that legalization of the existing situation is appropriate for the ongoing use of the lands and that the variance is minor. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated March 5,2014,advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. S. Patterson addressed the Committee in support of the proposed variance application. In addition, he referenced Condition 2 in staff's recommendation and stated that currently the Plan required as part of the Deemed not Development Site Plan shall include 22 parking spaces; 4 visitor parking spaces; 1 barrier free parking space having a minimum width of 3.4 metres, 4 secure bicycle parking spaces (i.e. bike racks). He requested that the wording be amended to indicate that the plan shall consist of 22 parking spaces, including the various parking space types. Mr. Bateman advised that staff would support the amendment to Condition 2 of the staff recommendation and noted that the approval is a legalization of the existing condition. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of S Four Inc. requesting legalization of the existing multi-residential dwelling having 21 units having 22 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 35; having 4 off-street visitor parking spaces rather than the required 5 off-street visitor parking spaces; and, to allow for larger vehicles (such as garbage trucks) to be permitted to ingress / egress in a reverse motion whereas the By-Law requires that all vehicles should be able to ingress / egress to and from a street or lane in a forward motion, on Block A, Plan 917, Part Block G, Part Lot 201, Closed Streets and Lanes, Plan 1182, 30 Westmount Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain the required building permits from the City's Building Division for the additional dwelling unit. The additional unit shall not have a gross floor area greater than 51 sq.m. 2. That a Deemed not Development Site Plan Approval shall be approved by the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the additional dwelling unit. The plan shall contain the following: a. 22 parking spaces, including: i. 4 visitor parking spaces; ii. 1 barrier free parking space having a minimum width of 3.4 metres; and, iii. 4 secure bicycle parking spaces (i.e. bike racks). It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -50- MARCH 18,2014 4. Submission No.: A 2014-010 (Cont'd) 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 5. Submission No.: A 2014-011 Applicants: Perimeter Development Corporation Property Location: 25 Breithaupt Street Legal Description: Lots 206 &207, Part Lots 204, 205 &208, Plan 376, being Parts 2 to 5, Registered Plan 58R-17207, Part Lot 33, Streets and Lanes Appearances: In Support: C. Beattie Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a three storey addition on an existing industrial building with a front yard setback of Om rather than the required 6m (19.685'); a side yard abutting Breithaupt Street of Om rather than the required 6m (19.685'); a side yard setback of Om for an elevated walkway to the adjacent building where as the By-Law requires 7.5m (24.606'); and, to provide 322 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 516 off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division,dated March 9,2014, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 25 Breithaupt Street and is currently developed with a vacant industrial building that was previously used for manufacturing uses. On December 14, 2010, the Committee of Adjustment approved consent application B 2010-049 to sever the parcel now addressed as 25 Breithaupt Street from the larger parcel which is addressed as 51 Breithaupt Street. Coupled with that application, minor variance application A 2010-070 legalized the setbacks for all existing buildings and minor variance application A2010-070 was approved to permit 305 off-street parking spaces for the redevelopment of the existing buildings. The owner is now proposing to build a three storey addition on top of the existing two storey building located at 25 Breithaupt Street. The proposed change to the existing building requires the re-legalization of the yard setbacks and the increase in the gross floor area also requires a second off-street parking variance. The subject property is designated General Industrial in the City's Official Plan and zoned General Industrial (M-2) with special use provision 36U in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law 85-1. Special Use Provision 36U permits the vulcanizing of rubber or rubber products and was applied to the lands in 1987 when the property was used for industrial purposes by a previous owner. To facilitate the redevelopment of the existing building at 25 Breithaupt Street as proposed, the following minor variances are required and are requested with this application: i. Relief from Section 6.2.1.a of Zoning By-Law 85-1 to provide 322 off-street parking spaces whereas 516 spaces are required; ii. Relief from Section 20.3.1 and Section 5.6.1 and Section 5.6.2 of Zoning By-Law 85-1 to provide a front yard setback of 0.0 metres whereas 6.0 metres is required; and, iii. Relief from Section 20.3.1 and Section 5.6.1 and Section 5.6.2 of Zoning By-Law 85-1 to provide a side yard abutting a street setback of 0.0 metres whereas 6.0 metres is required, and further, iv. Relief from Section 20.3.1 to provide a yard yard setback of 0.0 metres for an elevated walkway to the adjacent building whereas 7.5 metres is required. Encroachment agreements may be required for access ramps and entrance steps within the public right-of-way and will be resolved through the site planning process. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -51 - MARCH 18,2014 5. Submission No.: A 2014-011 (Cont'd) Planning Comments: A) Front, Side Abutting a Street, and Rear Yard Variances: In considering the four tests for minor variances for the four requested yard setbacks as outlined in Section 45(1)of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments: The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. Lands that are designated as General Industrial act as a buffer or transition area between more intensive industrial uses and residential uses. They may also function as mixed industrial residential areas which could provide Iocational opportunities for small "incubator" industries. The redevelopment of the property with a new commercial office use within the existing building and proposed addition will act as a transition area between the adjacent residential neighbourhood and the rail right-of-way, a Primary Arterial Road (Victoria Street North), and the downtown. The redevelopment of the property within the existing built form maintains employment lands in close proximity to a residential neighbourhood and the downtown. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law as the intent of front, side, and rear yards is to allow for buffering as well as amenity and landscaping areas. The existing buildings have been legally built with a 0.0 metres setback from the street and the rail right-of-way. The building is bound by streets on two sides, a rail corridor on one side, and by an internal access road. An overhead skywalk to the building at 51 Breithaupt Street is proposed. The existing building occupies a majority of the property. The redevelopment of the property will create interior and exterior rooftop areas for private and public amenity areas such as courtyards and patio areas. The variance is considered minor as the intent of the yard variances are to legalize an existing situation. The front, side abutting the street and rear yards will lose their legal non-conforming status with the proposed addition building floor area. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the intent of the variance is to legalize an existing situation within an established neighbourhood and no adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the variance. B) Parking Variance: In considering the four tests for minor variances for the reduction in off-street parking from the required 516 to 322 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 requested variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. As part of the first phase of redevelopment for this project, an off-site parking facility was constructed across the street at 20- 24 Breithaupt Street. The City's Official Plan makes provisions to recognize an existing use, where a site specific zone change will incorporate specific and appropriate regulations for the use. In order for the parking lot to be compatible with the Official Plan, the owner has received approval of a zone change application to change the zoning by adding "Commercial Parking Facility" as a permitted use for this property. The owner has previously entered into an off-site parking agreement to legally bind the parking lot with the buildings at 25 and 51 Breithaupt Street. An updated off-site parking agreement will be required as part of the site planning process. The intent of the parking regulations is to ensure that adequate off-street parking to accommodate the parking needs of the use is provided. Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed reduction in parking requirements, as Transportation Planning has worked extensively with the applicant to maximize the number of parking stalls on site. Located on the fringe of the downtown, and being well serviced by both traditional Transit, and the future Rapid Transit line, Transportation Services is confident that the modal split for this facility will be similar to that of a traditional downtown office building. If this building were within the downtown boundary, then the parking supply requirements would be 337 spaces,where 322 is proposed. The variance is minor because the applicant has agreed to a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as discussed in the Transportation Services Comments section of this report. By employing the TDM measures about, the Developer is able to mitigate any deficiencies that may arise as a result of the parking variance. The owner has agreed to reviewing the TDM program at full occupancy of the building, and resolving known issues, if any. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -52- MARCH 18,2014 5. Submission No.: A 2014-011 (Cont'd) The variance is considered desirable and appropriate for the development and the use of the land. Off-street parking lots have been developed on two underutilized properties across Breithaupt Street. The two new parking lots, in conjunction with the TDM measures, will be able to accommodate all of the parking requirements of the commercial office buildings, without demolishing any residential buildings or any non-residential buildings that are currently in use. Heritage Comments: The subject property is Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non-Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. It would appear that the subject minor variance application is related to a proposal to further develop and adaptively re-use the "Breithaupt Block" for office use. In this regard, the proponent has submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment(HIA)to the City for review and comment in support of an anticipated Site Plan Application for such work, to include alteration of the exterior design of the existing building; construction of a roof top addition; and construction of an elevated walkway to connect the subject building to 51 Breithaupt Street. The HIA and proposed alterations have been discussed with members of Heritage Kitchener and no concerns were identified. Heritage Planning Staff have also reviewed the HIA and do not have any concerns at this point in time. Formal approval of the HIA is pending subject to the submission and review of the Site Plan Application. Heritage Planning Staff do not have any concerns with the proposed variances, and believe that they are consistent with the proposal that was outlined in the Heritage Impact Assessment that has been favorably reviewed. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permits for the proposed development are obtained. Staff understand encroachment agreements will be applied for any facade and stair encroachments. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed reduction in parking requirements as Transportation Services has worked extensively with the applicant to maximize the number of parking stalls on site and to develop an extensive TDM plan. Located on the fringe of the downtown, and being well serviced by both traditional Transit, and the future Rapid Transit line, Transportation Services is confident that the modal split for this facility will be similar to and exceed that of a traditional downtown office building. If this building were within the downtown boundary, then the parking supply requirements would be 337 spaces, where 322 is proposed. In order to facilitate the parking reduction, the applicant has agreed to a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program in a letter dated February 10, 2014. As a condition of approval, Transportation Services requires an amended letter whereby the owner agrees to a Transportation Demand Management(TDM)program which includes the following: a. Some form of Car Sharing on site (1 parking stall should be dedicated within the parking structure to Car Share and shown on the site plan); b. Employee showers located in the building for those wishing to run,walk or cycle to work; C. Bicycle parking provided both externally and internally to the site; d. Unbundled parking that will be oversold by 15% to maximize the efficiency of the parking lot(s). e. Dedicated carpool parking spaces (4 parking stalls should be dedicated to carpool spaces and shown on the site plan); f. A subsidized GIRT Transit pass for employees within the building; and, g. Enrollment into the Travelwise program; and further, h. A review, when fully occupied, of parking occupancy rates to ensure success of the TDM program and additions/modifications of the TDM program if necessary to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services. In conclusion, given the aforementioned condition of approval, Transportation Services is prepared to recommend approval of the proposed parking variance. The actual number of approved spaces may differ from the spaces indicated. Therefore Transportation Services COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -53- MARCH 18,2014 5. Submission No.: A 2014-011 (Cont'd) recommends that the variance be granted for 312 parking spaces rather than 322, so that changes as a result of site plan will not result in the site being in contravention of the variance. The resultant rate is 1 parking space per 74.5 square meters. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated March 5,2014,advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered correspondence from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated March 7, 2014, noting that Ontario Regulation 22/04 establishes safety standards for power lines and legislates minimum clearances between power lines and signs, buildings or any other objects. The Electrical Safety Authority has the authority to order the removal of any sign, building or any other object that is placed closer than the prescribed clearances. The horizontal and vertical clearances include allowances that vary slightly with the design of the line and must be determined by the power utility.They added that the Occupational Health and Safety Act prohibits any worker, scaffolding or hoisting from approaching within 3.0 metres of a high voltage wire in a power line. Furthermore, the applicant is responsible for obeying this legislation and may want to adjust the location of the addition to maintain these clearances and allow for construction and maintenance. Mr. C. Beattie was in attendance in support of the proposed application and staffs' recommendation. In response to questions, Mr. D. Pimentel advised that the applicant has applied for Site Plan approval which includes a review of a proposed parking structure. He stated that due to the stage in which the applicant is currently in with regards to that approval, staff have recommended that the variance for off-street parking spaces be reduced from the 322 requested by the applicant to 312 off-street parking spaces. He further advised that changes to the site and proposed structures are often made through the Site Plan approval process and staff do not want the applicant to have to reapply to the Committee for a further parking reduction if there are changes to the proposed off-street parking spaces due to Site Plan approval. In response to questions, Mr. B. Cronkite advised that, as part of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, staff has recommended that the applicant over-sell parking to the various tenants leasing space within the building by 15% to help with the reduction in off- street parking. He stated typically there is unused parking in facilities of this nature due to employee vacation and sick time, the unused parking is approximately 15%. He further advised that unbundling parking and overselling the lots would maximize the efficiency of the proposed parking provided for the site. In response to questions, Mr. Cronkite advised that Condition 1 requiring the applicant to submit an amended letter agreeing to the TDM program is an act of good faith on behalf of the City and stated that for the purpose of this application, the City is satisfied with the acceptance letter. He added that once the building has achieved full occupancy the City will complete a full-scale parking analysis to finalize the TDM measures including, but not limited to off-street parking agreements. He commented that the applicant will need complete the Site Plan process and further TDM measures can be dealt with through that approval process. In addition, he stated there are a number of temporary parking measures currently in place that will assist with any overflow parking during the construction phase. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2184647 Ontario Limited and Breithaupt Block Inc. c/o Perimeter Development Corporation requesting permission to construct a three storey addition on an existing industrial building having a front yard setback of Om rather than the required 6m (19.685'); a side yard abutting Breithaupt Street of Om rather than the required 6m (19.685'); a rear yard setback of Om for an elevated walkway to the adjacent building where as the By-Law requires 7.5m (24.606'); and, to provide 312 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 516 off-street parking spaces, on Lots 206 & 207, Part Lots 204, 205 & 208, Plan 376, being Parts 2 to 5, Registered Plan 58R-17207, Part Lot 33, Streets and Lanes, 25 Breithaupt Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -54- MARCH 18,2014 5. Submission No.: A 2014-011 (Cont'd) 1. That the owner shall provide to the City of Kitchener, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Services, an amended letter whereby the owner agrees to a Transportation Demand Management(TDM) program which includes the following: A. Some form of Car Sharing on site (1 parking stall should be dedicated within the parking structure to Car Share and shown on the site plan). B. Employee showers located in the building for those wishing to run, walk or cycle to work. C. Bicycle parking provided both externally and internally to the site. D. Unbundled parking that will be oversold by 15% to maximize the efficiency of the parking lot(s). E. Dedicated carpool parking spaces (4 parking stalls should be dedicated to carpool spaces and shown on the site plan). F. A subsidized GIRT Transit pass for employees within the building. G. Enrollment into the Travelwise program. H. A review, when fully occupied, of parking occupancy rates to ensure success of the TDM program and additions/modifications of the TDM program if necessary to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services. 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 CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2014-015 Applicant: 2404786 Ontario Inc. Property Locations: 95 Mt. Hope Street Legal Description: Lot 12 and Part Lot 11, Registered Plan 287 Appearances: In Support: T. Rakic Contra: None Written Submissions: I &L. McDonald The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Mt. Hope Street of 9.13m (29.954') a depth of 27.43m (89.99') and an area of 250 sq.m. (2696 sq.ft). The retained land will have a width on Mt. Hope Street of 9.12m (29.92') a depth of 27.43m (89.99')and an area of 250 sq.m (2696 sq.ft). Both parcels will continue to be used as residential. The existing home will be demolished. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division,dated March 9,2014, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 95 Mt. Hope Street. The property is currently developed with a single detached dwelling. The owner is proposing to demolish the existing house and sever the property to create two lots. The retained lands are proposed to be redeveloped with a single detached or duplex dwelling and the severed lands are proposed to be redeveloped with a single detached or duplex dwelling. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned as Residential Five (R-5) in the Zoning By-law. Single detached, duplex, semi-detached, and three unit multiple dwellings are permitted uses in the R-5 Zone. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -55- MARCH 18,2014 1. Submission No.: B 2014-015 (Cont'd) The application proposes to sever a lot with a width of 9.13 metres, a depth of 27.43 metres, and a lot area of approximately 250 square metres. The retained lands are proposed to have a lot width of 9.12 metres, a depth of 27.43 metres, and an area of approximately 250 square metres. Both the retained and severed lots meet the zoning regulations for single detached and duplex dwellings in the R-5 Zone. 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 is of the opinion that the proposed severance conforms to the City's Official Plan and that the configuration of the proposed lots can be considered appropriate for the use of the lands. Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,2006. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated March 6,2014, advising that they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered a written submission from a neighbouring property owner that expressed opposition to the proposed application. A further letter was received and considered by the Committee from the same neighbouring property owner withdrawing his objection to the proposed application. Mr. T. Rakic addressed the Committee in support of the proposed application. He questioned whether Condition 4 in the staff report would require full Site Plan approval in order to clear the Condition. Mr. B. Bateman requested that the staff recommendation be amended to move Condition 4 requiring the applicant to submit a site plan to be Clause C of Condition 9. He indicated that making this condition part of an agreement registered on title will ensure that if the owner chooses to sell one or both of the lots,that the new owner will be subject to the same Condition. In response to questions, Mr. Bateman advised that Condition 4 is intended to ensure that the proposed development would be consistent with the urban design standards and ensure that the property is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Mr. Rakic expressed concerns with the proposed Condition, stating that design standards are subjective with no mechanism for appeal if staff does not agree with the proposed design. He stated that it is his intention to construct a duplexed single detached dwelling on both parcels, noting that he would like the development to have a front door for both units. He stated that he is apprehensive that the City would not approve two front doors as part of this Condition. Mr. Bateman advised that staff will work with the applicant as much as possible to seek a design that is acceptable to both the City and the developer. He noted that there are urban design standards to offer some guidance when reviewing the proposed development. In response to questions, Mr. G. Stevenson advised that Condition 4 was requested due to concerns received from the neighbours regarding the massing of the proposed development. He noted that residential properties are not eligible for the Site Plan Approval process. Ms. J. Meader suggested that Condition 4 of staffs' recommendation be amended to require the applicant to complete a concept plan rather than a Site Plan to acknowledge that Site Plan approval is not required to clear the Condition. Mr. Bateman requested that staffs' recommendation receive a further amendment to add a condition requiring the applicant to receive permission to demolish the single detached dwelling to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms.J. Meader That the application of 2404786 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Mt. Hope Street of 9.13m (29.954') a depth of 27.43m (89.99') and an area of 250 sq.m. (2696 sq.ft.), on Lot 12 and Part Lot 11, Registered Plan 287, 95 Mt. Hope Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -56- MARCH 18,2014 1. Submission No.: B 2014-015 (Cont'd) 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 Agn (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. 3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5%of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That the owner shall obtain approval to demolish the existing single detached dwelling to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements for the installation of all new service connections to the (severed lands and/or retained) lands, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services 6. That the owner shall make financial arrangements for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the (severed lands and/or retained) lands, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services 7. That the owner make financial arrangements for the removal of any redundant service connections to the (severed lands and/or retained) lands, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 8. That as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted along with a digital submission of all AutoCad drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.)with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. 9. 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 severed lands which shall include the following: a) That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. b) The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. c) That the owner shall submit a concept plan showing the location of the proposed single detached dwelling on the lot and elevation drawings, illustrating that the proposed dwelling will be compatible with the neighbourhood in terms of massing, scale and design, and that the drawings be approved prior to the issuance of any building permit, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-Law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -57- MARCH 18,2014 1. Submission No.: B 2014-015 (Cont'd) 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 March 18,2016. Carried 2. Submission No.: B 2014-016 Applicant: Genstar Titleco Limited Property Locations: 38 Stillwater Street Legal Description: Lot 54, Registered Plan 58M-566 Appearances: In Support: B. Flewwelling Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a triangular shape having a width of 0.548m (23.62')a southerly depth of 39.169m (32.94') and an area of 10.6 sq.m. (114.097 sq.ft.)to be conveyed as a lot addition to 34 Stillwater Street. The severed and retained land will continue to be used as residential. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 20,2014, advising that the subject properties are located on Stillwater Street. The properties are irregular shaped lots with intersecting side yards. Each property will contain a single detached dwelling. The subject properties are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and are zoned Residential Four(R-4)in the City's Zoning By-Law. The owner is proposing to sever a portion of the side yard of 34 Stillwater Street (an area measuring 0.55 metres by 39.17 metres, totalling 10.6 square metres) and add it to the side yard of 38 Stillwater Street. The retained lot (34 Stillwater Street)will continue to be developed with a single detached dwelling, and have 10.67 metres of frontage on Stillwater Street, a lot depth of 39.10 metres and a new lot area of 513.3 square metres. With the addition of lands to 38 Stillwater Street, the lot will continue to be developed with a single detached dwelling and have 11.06 metres of frontage on Stillwater Street, a lot depth of 39.10 metres and a new lot area of 523.9 square metres. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24)of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lot is appropriate and suitable for the existing and proposed use, the lands front on an established public street, and adequate utilities and municipal services are available.Also, the resulting lot addition to 38 Stillwater Street will create a lot size that will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The retained lot at 34 Stillwater Street will be compatible in size with the adjacent lots along Stillwater Street. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated March 6,2014,advising that they have no objections to this application. Mr. B. Flewwelling advised that he is in attendance in support of the subject application. He indicated that there is a clerical error in the report noting that the municipal addresses have been used in reverse throughout the report and in staffs' recommendation. Mr. B. Bateman noted that error and stated that the recommendation should reflect the lot addition being conveyed from 38 Stillwater Street and being added to 34 Stillwater Street rather than what has been cited. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -58- MARCH 18,2014 2. Submission No.: B 2014-016 (Cont'd) Moved by Ms.J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Genstar Titleco Limited requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a triangular shape having a width of 0.548m (23.62') a southerly depth of 39.169m (32.94') and an area of 10.6 sq.m. (114.097 sq.ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 34 Stillwater Street, on Lot 54, Registered Plan 58M-566, 38 Stillwater Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE 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 Agn (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. 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: 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 March 18,2016. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion,the meeting adjourned at 10:51 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 18th day of March, 2014. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment