Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-19 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 19, 2015 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski and B. McColl and Ms. P. Kohli. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic Technologist; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk, City of Kitchener. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:51 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held April 21, 2015, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT Submission No.: 1. B 2015-035 to B 2015-038 Applicants: Country Green Homes Property Location: 50 Burgetz Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Plan 589 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever 4 parcels of land for residential development having frontage on Burgetz Avenue and retain 1 parcel currently zoned as institutional: Application B 2015-035 – Permission sever a parcel of land identified as “Lot 1” on the plan submitted with the application, having a width on Burgetz Avenue of 12.41m (40.715’), an easterly depth of 26.52m (87.008’) and an area of 474.6 sq.m. (5108.552 sq.ft.). The new lot is intended for a residential semi-detached development. Application B 2015-036 – Permission to sever a parcel of land identified as “Lot 2” on the plan submitted with the application, having a width on Burgetz Avenue of 12.55m (41.174’), an easterly depth of 26.53m (87.040’) and an area of 471 sq.m. (5069.802 sq.ft.). The new lot is intended for a residential semi-detached development. Application B 2015-037 – Permission to sever a parcel of land identified as “Lot 3” on the plan submitted with the application, having a lot width on Burgetz Avenue of 11.88m (38.976’), an easterly depth of 26.53m (87.040’) and an area of 481.1 (5177.441 sq.ft.). The new lot is intended for a residential semi-detached development. Application B 2015-038 – Permission to sever a parcel of land identified as “Lot 4” on the plan COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 173 - 1.Submission No.: B 2015-035 to B 2015-038 (Cont’d) submitted with the application, having a lot width on Burgetz Avenue of 15m (49.212’), an northerly depth of 31.45m (103.182’) and an area of 470.2 sq.m. (5061.191 sq.ft.). The new lot is intended for a residential semi-detached development. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 12, 2015, advising that on April 21, 2015, the Committee of Adjustment deferred Applications B 2015-035, B 2015-036, B 2015-037 and B 2015-038 to allow for further review. The Applications propose to sever four residential lots from the subject parcel to allow for the construction of four street-fronting semi-detached dwellings (8 units in total). The retained lands are contemplated to be redeveloped in the future. At the request of the applicant, Planning staff recommended an additional deferral for applications B 2015-035, B 2015-036, B 2015-037 and B 2015-038 until the regularly scheduled June 16, 2015 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to allow for additional discussion on the redevelopment of the site. This meeting recessed at 9:53 a.m. and reconvened at 10:05 a.m. with the following members present: Messrs. D. Cybalski and B. McColl and Ms. P. Kohli. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1. A 2015-035 Applicant: Kanwal and Gurdip Mamak Property Location: 921 Dunblane Court Legal Description: Lot 27, Registered Plan 58M-348 Appearances: In Support: S. Bowen Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 4m (13.123’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 6, 2015, advising that the subject property located at 921 Dunblane Court is zoned Residential Six (R-6) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Regulation 343R and 410R and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The owner is proposing to construct a sunroom addition onto the single detached dwelling that will extend into the rear yard. The owner is requesting relief from Section 40.2.2 of the Zoning By-law to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 4.0 metres to allow for the sunroom addition. 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. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of housing forms that achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance will permit a reduced minimum rear yard for the proposed addition. The minor change will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback is appropriate. The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 4.0 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre setback is to provide adequate amenity COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 174 - 1. Submission No.: A 2015-035 (Cont’d) space in the rear yard. The reduction of 3.5 metres from the required 7.5 metres is minor as the proposed 4.0 metre rear yard setback will continue to provide sufficient amenity space in the rear yard. The variance is considered minor. The proposed addition will not extend the entire width of the house and there will still be ample amenity space in the rear yard. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will provide adequate amenity space and will not negatively affect the adjacent properties or surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing and height of the subject addition will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 30, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Kanwal and Gurdip Mamak requesting permission to construct a sunroom on an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 4m (13.123’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Lot 27, Registered Plan 58M-348, 921 Dunblane BE APPROVED Court, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed addition by August 1, 2015. 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.: 2. A 2015-036 Applicant: Max Becker Enterprises Limited Property Location: 231 Max Becker Drive Legal Description: Block 2, Registered Plan 58M-410 Appearances: In Support: M. Robson Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a townhouse development having a front yard setback of 2.5m (8.202’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); having covered front porches exceeding 0.6m (1.96’) above finished grade with a 1.9m (6.233’) setback from the front lot line rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); and, stairs approaching the front entry porches exceeding 0.6m (1.96’) in height to be located within 3m (9.842’) of the street line whereas the By-law does not permit stairs within the 3m (9.842’) front yard setback. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 8, 2015, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 231 Max Becker Drive, zoned Residential Seven (R-7) in the Zoning By-law, and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The site is currently vacant, but is proposed to be developed with a 6-unit multiple dwelling. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 175 - 2. Submission No.: A 2015-036 (Cont’d) The applicant is requesting relief from Section 41.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to allow a front yard setback of 2.5 metres, rather than the required 4.5 metres; Section 5.6.1(a) to allow stairs greater than 0.6 metres above finished grade to be located within 3.0 metres of the street line; and from Section 5.6A.4(a) and (d) to allow a covered porch greater than 0.6 metres above finished grade to have a setback of 1.9 metres from the front lot line rather than the required 4.5 metres. Staff has been working with the applicant on their site plan for the proposed development. The variances that are required have been brought about through the design process to achieve the best possible development that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and community. 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. The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Low Rise Residential designation permits the use of the property for a multiple dwelling with a maximum floor space ratio of 1.0. The proposed development is in keeping with the designation and is compatible in scale with the surrounding residential development. The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The R-7 Zoning permits a multiple dwelling on the property subject to compliance with regulations. The variances being requested by the applicant are all very minor, which maintains the intent of the R-7 Zoning. By allowing the building, porches and stairs to be located closer to the front lot line on Max Becker Drive, the impact of the development is reduced for the abutting dwellings and will create an enhanced streetscape in the Williamsburg Community. The variances are minor for the following reasons. The reduced front yard setback with covered porches and stairs close to the street will mirror the development proposed on 275 Max Becker Drive, and is in keeping with the multiple dwelling currently under construction across the street from the subject property. The existing semi-detached dwelling west of the site (225 Max Becker Drive) is set back farther from the street than the proposed development; however, there will be a landscaped side yard of 6.8 metres which will create adequate separation between the two properties. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The 6-unit multiple dwelling is a permitted use and is of a scale that is compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood, while framing Max Becker Drive with the building and pedestrian connectivity. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 30, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Max Becker Enterprises Limited requesting permission to construct a townhouse development having a front yard setback of 2.5m (8.202’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); having covered front porches exceeding 0.6m (1.96’) above finished grade with a 1.9m (6.233’) setback from the front lot line rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); and, stairs approaching the front entry porches exceeding 0.6m (1.96’) in height to be located within 3m (9.842’) of the street line whereas the By-law does not permit stairs within the 3m (9.842’) front yard setback, on Block 2, Registered Plan 58M-410, 231 Max Becker Drive, Kitchener, BE APPROVED Ontario,, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain Site Plan Approval of application SP15/042/M/LT by December 31, 2015. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 176 - 2. Submission No.: A 2015-036 (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 Submission No.: 3. A 2015-037 Applicant: Max Becker Enterprises Limited Property Location: 275 Max Becker Drive Legal Description: Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-410 Appearances: In Support: M. Robson Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a townhouse development having an interior side yard setback of 2.1m (6.889’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’); having a side yard abutting Commonwealth Street of 5.7m (18.7’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’); with stairs approaching the front entry porches exceeding 0.6m (1.96’) in height to be located within 3m (9.842’) of the street line where as the By-law does not permit stairs within that 3m (9.842’) setback; and, to have a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.11 rather than the permitted maximum FSR of 1.0. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 8, 2015, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 275 Max Becker Drive, zoned Residential Seven (R-7) in the Zoning By-law, and designated Mixed Use Node in the City’s Official Plan. The site is currently vacant, but is proposed to be developed with a 6-unit multiple dwelling. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 41.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to allow a side yard setback of 2.1 metres, rather than the required 6.0 metres and a side yard abutting a street of 5.7 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres; Section 41.2.1 to allow a Floor Space Ratio of 1.11 rather than the maximum of 1.0; and, Section 5.6.1(a) to allow stairs greater than 0.6 metres above finished grade to be located within 3.0 metres of the street line. Staff has been working with the applicant on their site plan for the proposed development. The variances that are required have been brought about through the design process to achieve the best possible development that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and community. 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. The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Mixed Use Node designation permits the use of the property for a multiple dwelling with a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0. The minor increase in FSR to 1.11 will maintain the intent of the designation as the modest increase will not be visible. The proposed development is in keeping with the designation and is compatible in scale with the surrounding residential development. The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The R-7 Zoning permits a multiple dwelling on the property subject to compliance with regulations. The variances being requested by the applicant are all very minor which maintains the intent of the R-7 Zoning. By allowing the building to have the modest side yard setback reductions and the stairs closer to Max Becker Drive, the impact of the development is reduced for the abutting dwellings and will create an enhanced streetscape in the Williamsburg Community. The variances are minor for the following reasons. The reduced side yard setbacks and stairs in close proximity to Max Becker Drive will not have any negative impact on the abutting residential properties and will create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 177 - 3. Submission No.: A 2015-037 (Cont’d) The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The 6-unit multiple dwelling is a permitted use and is of a scale that is compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood while framing Max Becker Drive with the building and pedestrian connectivity. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 30, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Max Becker Enterprises Limited requesting permission to construct a townhouse development having an interior side yard setback of 2.1m (6.889’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’); having a side yard abutting Commonwealth Street of 5.7m (18.7’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’); with stairs approaching the front entry porches exceeding 0.6m (1.96’) in height to be located within 3m (9.842’) of the street line where as the By-law does not permit stairs within that 3m (9.842’) setback; and, to have a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.11 rather than the permitted maximum FSR of 1.0, on Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-410, 275 BE APPROVED Max Becker Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain Site Plan Approval of application SP15/043/M/LT by December 31, 2015. 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.: 4. A 2015-038 Applicant: 7550332 Canada Inc. Property Location: 80 Mooregate Crescent Legal Description: Lot 10, Plan 1268 Appearances: In Support: S. Berrill Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert a storage room in an existing high rise residential building into a residential dwelling unit having 231 required off-street parking spaces rather than the required 234 off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 13, 2015, advising that the subject property is located in the Victoria Hills Planning Community near the intersection of Victoria Street South and Westmount Avenue West. The property is in a high-density residential area, with multiple dwellings as the predominant land use, and backing onto Westmount Road. The subject property contains a 200 dwelling unit, 15-storey apartment building constructed in 1980. Most of the required parking for the apartment building is located underground while the smaller portion is located above ground. The property is designated High Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Nine (R-9). The applicant is proposing to convert a storage room into a dwelling unit for a total of 201 dwelling COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 178 - 4. Submission No.: A 2015-038 (Cont’d) units. In order to support this conversion, the owner is requesting a parking reduction due to a lack of space for creating an additional parking area. Specifically, the owner is requesting to provide 231 parking spaces for a 201-unit multi-residential dwelling, whereas, 234 spaces are required: under the original approval and R2-DC4 zoning (By-law 4830), the building was calculated at 1.16 spaces / unit: 200 dwelling units x 1.16 spaces/unit = 232 spaces required under the current zoning, parking is based on 1.5 spaces/unit: 1 proposed unit x 1.5 spaces/unit = 1.5 spaces, therefore, 2 spaces are required total parking required for proposed new unit: 232 + 2 spaces = 234 spaces total parking provided: 231 spaces deficiency: 3 spaces It should be noted that it appears that over time one of the required parking spaces has been lost to another purpose, and so the variance seeks to legalize the existing parking layout. 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. The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan (OP) for the following reasons. The OP states: The City may consider reducing parking requirements for properties within an area or areas, where adequate alternative parking facilities are available, or where it can be demonstrated that such reductions will not negatively affect the community. In this case, it should be noted that the subject property is located within a 5-minute walk from the Fischer-Hallman iXpress Route (Route 201) and three regular transit routes (Route numbers 12, 19, and 20). Also, Transportation Services has commented that it supports the proposed variance. The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of setting minimum parking requirements is to ensure that sufficient on-site vehicular parking is provided for tenants, visitors, and service people and to ensure that users of the site do not place significant demand on public on-street parking facilities. In this case, no functional concerns have been identified and no complaints have been made regarding the existing parking situation that has been in place for many years. The requested variance is minor. Staff does not anticipate any unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties as a result of the subject variance. The requested variance is desirable for the appropriate use of the building: a new dwelling unit may be created within the existing building, thereby adding to the housing stock, while not creating negative impacts. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 30, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of 7550332 Canada Inc. requesting permission to convert a storage room for existing high rise residential building having 201 units in total to have 231 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 234 off-street parking spaces, on Lot 10, Plan 1268, 80 BE APPROVED Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, . It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 179 - 4. Submission No.: A 2015-038 (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 Submission No.: 5. A 2015-039 Applicant: Nitin Jain Property Location: 351 Louisa Street Legal Description: Block 425, Plan 1375 Appearances: In Support: N. Jain D. Aston Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a townhouse development having 53 required off-street spaces rather than the required 67 off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 8, 2015, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 190 Century Hill Drive, zoned Residential Six (R- 6) in the Zoning By-law, and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The site is currently vacant, but is proposed to be development with a 38-unit multiple dwelling consisting of four buildings. The applicant is requesting a minor variance from Section 6.1.2 of the Zoning By-law to allow a 38-unit multiple dwelling to provide 53 parking spaces, rather than the required 67 spaces (1.35 spaces/unit rather than 1.75 spaces/unit). Staff has been working with the applicant on their Site Plan for the proposed development. The variance that is being requested has been brought about through the design process to achieve the best possible development that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and community. 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. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Low Rise Residential designation encourages a mix of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The existing neighbourhood contains a mix of single detached, semi-detached, cluster townhouses and apartment buildings. The proposed stacked townhouse multiple dwelling will be in keeping with the overall mix of residential housing forms within the neighbourhood. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The parking requirement in the Zoning By-law is a generalized requirement that does not take into consideration site specifics, such as access to transit and other amenities within a reasonable walking distance. The proposed development is located directly on a major transit route, with access to local amenities within a short waking distance. With the proposed parking at 1.35 spaces per unit, there will be at least one space provided per unit along with onsite visitor and barrier-free parking. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The reduction in parking for the proposed development is considered minor as staff is of the opinion that parking at the rate of 1.35 spaces per unit will provide adequate space for both residents and visitors to the property without impacting adjacent streets with overflow parking. Public transit is available at the site which may encourage residents to not require a car. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 180 - 5. Submission No.: A 2015-039 (Cont’d) The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The property is Zoned for a multiple dwelling and the proposed 38-unit development is of an appropriate scale and density to be a positive addition to the existing neighbourhood. Adequate parking will be maintained on site for both residents and visitors. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 30, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. D. Aston advised that he was in attendance in support of the subject application, noting that he has spoken with staff regarding the proposed Condition and its requirements and are in agreement with the staff recommendation. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Nitin Jain requesting permission to construct a 38-unit multi-residential development consisting of four buildings to have 53 off-street spaces rather than the required 67 off-street parking spaces, on Block 425, Plan 1375, 190 Century Hill Drive, Kitchener, BE APPROVED Ontario,, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall submit parking justification study to the satisfaction of Transportation Services prior to issuance of Site Plan approval for the proposed 38-unit residential development. 2. That the owner shall receive Site Plan approval by May 19, 2016. 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.: 6. A 2015-040 Applicant: Douglas and Elizabeth Fisher Property Location: 201 Doon South Drive Legal Description: Lot 4, Registered Plan 58M-158 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing pool in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling located 0.6m (1.986’) from the rear lot line rather than the required 2.1m (6.889’); to reinstall a hot tub located 0m from the rear lot line rather than the required 2.1m (6.889‘), with a northerly side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 0.6m (1.96’); to reconstruct a deck exceeding 0.6m (1.96’) above grade, having a northerly side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 1.2m (3.937’), with a rear yard setback of 0m rather than the required 4m (13.123’); and, to locate a roof structure and posts 0.5m (1.64’) from the northerly side lot line rather than the required 0.6m (1.96’) setback. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 11, 2015, advising that the subject property is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By-law with Special Use Provision 250U, and designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The site contains a single detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting permission to: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 181 - 6. Submission No.: A 2015-040 (Cont’d) 1. legalize an existing pool located 0.6 metres (1.99 ft) from the rear lot line rather than the required 2.1 metres (6.89 ft); 2. re-install a hot tub to be located 0 metres from the rear lot line rather than the required 2.1 metres (6.89 ft) and to be located 0 m from the (northerly) right side lot line rather than the required 0.6 metres (1.96 ft); 3. re-construct a deck exceeding 0.6 metres (1.96 ft) above grade, to have a (northerly) right side lot line of 0 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres (3.94 ft) and a rear lot line setback of 0 metres rather than the required 4 metres (13.12 ft); and; 4. locate a roof structure and posts 0.5 metres (1.64 ft) from the (northerly) right side lot line rather than the required 0.6 metres (1.96 ft). Planning Comments: Background: The current owners purchased the property in 2007. At that time, they were not aware that the fence at the rear of the property was constructed beyond the westerly rear lot line and northerly side lot line and encroached on City land without permission. They have since requested to legalize the location of the fence through an encroachment agreement that has been presented to Council and approved for the fence, provided it is relocated closer to the subject property and that a building permit is obtained for a new deck. Consequently, minor variance approval is required for the deck that is to be reconstructed and is being requested to also encroach onto City parkland. As well, permission for a hot tub and roofed structure is being requested to be re- installed within the property lines but within reduced setbacks. Subsequent to receiving this application, Planning and Environmental staff met with Legal staff in regards to the background and status on the current fence and deck. As per a Council resolution dated December 2, 2013, the owners have entered into an Encroachment Agreement which permits the replacement of the non-compliant deck to comply with the Building Code (and consequently it must comply with Zoning setbacks or minor variance approval must be obtained). As well, the Encroachment Agreement notes that the rear fence shall be relocated so that it encroaches less than 2.0 metres (6.8 ft) on to Doon Creek Park. In reviewing the application, it is noted that the drawings attached to application for the requested variances show existing locations only. They do not show the final approved location of the fence or proposed re-construction of the deck. The drawings also do not indicate where the hot tub is to be located. In regards to the deck, Legal staff advises that portion of the proposed seating area shown on the application drawing has not been discussed as being supported by staff for the encroachment agreement in past meetings with the applicant. As accurate drawings of the proposed fence, deck and hot tub have not been submitted with this application, staff is recommending deferral of this application in order for Legal and Planning staff to meet with the owner to clarify the drawings and impact of the reduced setbacks on the property and the Encroachment Agreement that has been approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 30, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for July 21, 2015 to allow time for Legal and Planning staff to meet with the owner and clarify the drawings and impact of the reduced setbacks on the property and the Encroachment Agreement that has been approved. Submission No.: 7. A 2015-041 Applicant: 690 King Street Corporation Property Location: 672-692 King Street West and 8, 12 & 18 Louisa Street Legal Description: Part Lots 368 to 371 and Part Lot D, Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: D. Aston COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 182 - 7. Submission No.: A 2015-041 (Cont’d) Contra: S. Keul Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 7-storey multi-residential building and townhouse development having 16 off-street visitor parking spaces rather than the required 25 off-street visitor parking spaces; and, a rear yard setback of 1.2m (3.937’) (which will function more as an easterly side yard for the proposed townhouse development) rather than the required 7.5m (14.763’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 7, 2015, advising that the subject properties are designated Mixed Use Corridor and Low Rise Conservation in the KW Hospital Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in the Official Plan. The subject properties have multiple zoning categories – Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-2), Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone with Holding Provision 6H and Residential Five Zone (R-5). The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings and comprehensively redevelop the properties with a seven-storey multiple dwelling building with a total of 144 residential units and a two-storey townhouse building with 3 units. The proposed development had been issued Approval in Principle (AIP) in November 2014 by the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. One of the conditions of final Site Plan approval was that the subject properties merge on title. As a result, what was previously considered a side yard setback for the proposed development is now considered a rear yard setback. As such, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 for a 1.2 metre rear yard setback rather than the required 7.5 metre setback. Since AIP was issued in November 2014, the design of the building has been further refined to include a slight increase in the number of dwelling units. As a result, the applicant is also seeking relief from Section 6.1.2 b) vi) C) of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to be able to identify, demarcate and reserve only 12.7 percent (16 parking spaces) of the required parking spaces as visitor parking spaces rather that the required 20 percent (25 parking spaces). Transportation Services staff advised that the applicant provided a Transportation Demand Management P.A.R.T.S Checklist (checklist) subsequent to submitting this application. The checklist determined that a reduction in the required parking is possible from 126 to 108 parking spaces. Staff has been advised that the site will maintain the 126 required parking spaces and utilize the reduced number of 108 parking spaces to calculate the visitor parking (which results in 18 visitor parking spaces). As such, Transportation Services staff is in support of a reduction in the required visitor parking spaces from the required 25 parking spaces to a total of 18 visitor parking spaces on-site rather than the applicant’s request for 16 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 offers the followingcomments: Minor variance request for a reduced rear yard setback: The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The portion of the site that requires the minor variance is located in the Low Rise Conservation designation of the KW Hospital Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in the Official Plan. The intent of this designation is to retain the existing low rise, low density residential character of the neighbourhood. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed design and setbacks of the three-unit townhouse building is in keeping with the intent as the scale and the intensity will be compatible with the existing development in the neighbourhood. The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. It is staff’s opinion that even though the setback in question is technically defined as the rear yard setback in the Zoning By- law, it continues to function as the side yard setback for the proposed townhouse building. The side yard setback that is usually required for such developments in the R-5 Zone is 1.2 metres, which happens to be the requested reduction. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the minor variance request for a reduced rear yard setback is appropriate as it will provide sufficient separation and amenity area and will not impact the adjacent lands. The requested variance can be considered minor. As mentioned above, even though the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 183 - 7. Submission No.: A 2015-041 (Cont’d) proposed reduced setback is defined as the rear yard setback in the Zoning By-law, the setback functions like a side yard setback for the proposed multiple dwelling building. It is staff’s opinion that since 1.2 metres is the minimum setback required for a side yard setback for a multiple dwelling in the R-5 Zone, the request for a 1.2 metre setback would be appropriate and can be considered minor. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed townhouse building is appropriately designed and set back from the adjacent lands. As such, the variance request will have no impact on the function of the subject property or adjacent lands. The Official Plan (OP) parking policies are intended to ensure adequate parking standards are in place and enforceable. These same policies allow the City to consider reduced parking requirements for properties within an area where adequate alternative parking facilities are available, or where it can be demonstrated that such reduction will not negatively affect the surrounding neighbourhood. Transportation Services staff have advised that the applicant submitted a Transportation Demand Management P.A.R.T.S Checklist (checklist) which provides support for the request for reduced visitor parking requirements. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of Section 6.1.2 b) vi) C) of the Zoning By-law 85-1 is to ensure that 20% of the required parking for the proposed development (25 parking spaces) is dedicated to visitors. This is to ensure that there is adequate parking provided on-site for visitors without having a negative effect on surrounding properties and streets. Transportation Services staff has advised that the applicant submitted a Transportation Demand Management - Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations Checklist (checklist) which provides support for a reduction of required parking spaces for the proposed development based on criteria set out in the Checklist. Transportation Services staff advised that the Checklist determined that the demand for parking will be lower than what is actually required by the Zoning By-law. As a result, it is Transportation Services staff’s opinion that the reduction in visitor parking spaces from the required 25 parking spaces to 18 parking spaces as determined through the Checklist will not impact the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. The requested variance can be considered minor and appropriate for the development and use of the land. This is supported by the Checklist that determined the demand for parking for the proposed development will not be as high as required by the Zoning By-law. Transportation Services staff supports the visitor parking reduction and advises that there should be no impact on adjacent properties or the surrounding street network as a result. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 30, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Chair noted the written submission from the neighbouring property owner in opposition to the subject application. Mr. D. Aston advised that he is in attendance in support of the subject application and of the staff recommendation. He provided a brief summary of the request, noting that the applicant requires two variances, one for a rear yard setback which previously approved in 2012 through Application A 2012-011 prior to 18 Louisa Street being merged on title with 672-692 King Street East and 8 & 12 Louisa Street. He stated since that time the owner has acquired 18 Louisa Street and it has now merged on title formally and the previously approved rear yard setback needs to be re- established. He stated that the second variance being requested is for a reduction in off-street visitor parking spaces. He indicated that there is sufficient space on-site for all of the required off- street parking for the proposed development. He noted that there will be an underground parking garage for a majority of the off-street parking spaces that are intended for the residential units with a key card access. He indicated that the applicant would prefer to maintain the majority of the visitor parking spaces on the surface lot of the subject property. He noted that the reduction in visitor spaces is 17% rather than the required 20% and the 3% reduction will be re-allocated as permanent residential spaces in the underground garage. Ms. S. Keul addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application, expressing concerns regarding the height of the proposed building height and potential shadowing on the adjacent residential properties on Shanley and Louisa Streets. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 19, 2015 - 184 - 7. Submission No.: A 2015-041 (Cont’d) The Chair advised that the requested variances are very technical in nature. He noted that the Committee can only consider the merits of the application which include the rear yard setback and the reduction in visitor parking spaces. He stated that reduction for the rear yard setback, actually although technically it is a rear yard because the properties have merged on title, it is operating as a side yard setback to the proposed townhome dwelling adjacent to 24 Louisa Street. He further advised that the reduction in parking is not due to insufficient parking on-site, but rather a reallocation of designated visitor parking spaces to permanent residential parking spaces. He stated that, in his opinion, the requests are very technical in nature. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of 690 King Street Corporation requesting permission to construct a 7- storey multi-residential dwelling and townhome development having 18 off-street visitor parking spaces rather than the required 25 off-street visitor parking spaces; and, a rear yard setback of 1.2m (3.937’) (which will function more as an easterly side yard for the proposed townhouse development) rather than the required 7.5m (14.763’), on Part Lots 368 to 371 and Part Lot D, Plan 376, 672-692 King Street West and 8, 12 & 18 Louisa Street, Kitchener, BE APPROVED Ontario,, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall provide an updated Site Plan, Parking Plan and Parkland Dedication Plan to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. 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 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:16 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of May, 2015. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment