Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-20 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 20, 2015 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messr. D. Cybalski, Ms. J. Meader and Ms. P. Kohli. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Ms. C. Musselman, Senior Environmental Planner, Ms. A. Pires, Planner, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held September 15, 2015, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1. A 2015-069 Applicant: Major Wolfe Developments Property Location: 873 Fairway Road North Legal Description: Part Lot 12, Plan 591, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-14724 Appearances: In Support: B. Green M. Wolfe Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a commercial plaza having a front yard setback of 1.5m (4.92’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 7, 2015, advising that the subject property is located on the south side of Fairway Road North, just east of the Lackner Boulevard/Fairway Crescent intersection. The property is presently vacant and is proposed to be developed with a commercial plaza consisting of two one-storey buildings and one two-storey building. The south limit of the property is immediately adjacent to Idlewood Creek and a Provincially Significant Wetland Complex. The Official Plan Designation of the property is Mixed Use Node in the current Official Plan, and proposed as Commercial in the newly adopted Official Plan (presently under appeal). Both the current and proposed Official Plans permit the use of the property as a commercial plaza. The zoning of the property is Arterial Commercial (C-6) which also permits the proposed use of the property as a commercial plaza. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 266 - Submission No.: 1.A 2015-069 (Cont’d) The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow a 1.5 metre front yard setback whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum 6.0 metre front yard setback. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Mixed Use Node designation of the property permits the full range of commercial uses, including retail and office. The designation encourages built form to be pedestrian-oriented and compatible with the surrounding low rise residential areas. Mixed Use Nodes have strong pedestrian linkages with the surrounding residential area, and in some instances it is preferable to orient the building mass closer to the street. The proposed commercial development is intended to provide retail and office uses in a built form of one and two storey buildings that are compatible with the surrounding low rise residential areas. By locating the building mass closer to Fairway Road North, the impact on the Provincially Significant Wetland and Idlewood Creek will be minimized. A ‘limit of development’ has been established along the rear property line to ensure there are no impacts to Idlewood Creek and associated wetlands. The proposed development will provide multiple pedestrian links to Fairway Road North and ultimately the surrounding residential areas. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6) permits the proposed commercial development in conformity with the prescribed regulations. The proposed development is in conformity with all zoning regulations, with the exception of the request for a reduced front yard setback. The reduced front yard setback is favourable for the proposed development to reduce the impact on the adjacent wetland and to provide a pedestrian oriented development. The relatively small scale of the buildings will enhance the public realm while still being able to provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape with landscaping both on site and on the Regional right-of-way. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The reduced front yard setback does not pose any negative impacts on abutting properties and will allow the site to be developed efficiently, while respecting the limit of the adjacent wetland and creek. The one and two storey buildings are in keeping with the character of the surrounding low rise residential neighbourhoods. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The proposed commercial development is located on a primary arterial road and has strong linkages to the surrounding community. The scale of the development is appropriate and will preserve the integrity of the adjacent wetland and creek. The high quality built form along Fairway Road North will create a pedestrian friendly environment while framing the street edge. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated October 5, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated October 13, 2015, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they noted that the subject property is located adjacent to the coldwater stream of Idlewood Creek, and contains portions of the Idlewood Swamp Provincially Significant Wetland Complex, One Zone floodplain, and the associated regulatory allowance adjacent to these features. Consequently, the entire property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Any future development within the regulated area on the subject lands will require prior written approval from the GRCA in the form of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated October 5, 2015, requesting that approval of this application be subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the commercial plaza. 2. That the owner make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the servicing is installed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 267 - Submission No.: 1.A 2015-069 (Cont’d) 3. Driveways will be located so as to provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles, anchoring and street light standards. Mr. B. Green was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. The Chair noted the comments from the GRCA and Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. and requested that conditions be included as part of the Committee’s approval requiring the applicant to obtain any necessary approvals from the GRCA and Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Major Wolfe Developments requesting permission to construct a commercial plaza having a front yard setback of 1.5m (4.92’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’), on Part Lot 12, Plan 591, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-14724, 873 Fairway BE APPROVED Road North, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner shall receive final approval of Site Plan Application SP15/036/F/LT. 2. That the owner shall receive a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), if required. 3. That the owner make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the commercial plaza. 4. That the owner make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the servicing is installed. 5. That the owner shall ensure that the driveways are located a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles, anchors and street light standards. 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 2015-070 Applicant: Alireza Torabi Property Location: 533 Queen Street South Legal Description: Lot 324, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-16727 Appearances: In Support: A. Torabi H. Madan Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert the existing single detached dwelling into a retail/office use having a front yard setback of 24.8m (81.364’) rather than the permitted maximum front yard setback of 8.5m (27.887’); a rear yard setback of 0.6m (1.96’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); and, to allow a parking setback abutting Queen Street South of 3m (9.842’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 268 - Submission No.: 2.A 2015-070 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 9, 2015, advising that the subject property located at 533 Queen Street South is zoned Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-1) in Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Regulations 1R and 518R, and designated Mixed Use Corridor in the City’s Official Plan. The owner is proposing to convert the existing duplex dwelling into a retail showroom and office, and as such are requesting relief from: Section 53.2.1 to legalize the existing rear yard setback of 0.6 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required; Special Regulation 518R c) to legalize the existing front yard setback of 24.8 metres, whereas a maximum of 8.5 metres is permitted; and Section 6.1.1.1 a) v) to allow a parking setback of 3.0 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required. 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 Mixed Use Corridor in the City’s Official Plan. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan, which encourages a broad range of commercial uses, including freestanding office and small retail. The minor changes will facilitate the conversion to a commercial/office use while maintaining the residential character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. As such, the proposed variances conform to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate. The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 0.6 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide separation between the structure and neighbouring property. Because the setback is existing, staff is satisfied the reduction of 6.9 metres from the required 7.5 metres will maintain adequate separation and will not negatively impact the adjacent property. The requested variance to increase the maximum front yard setback from 8.5 metres to 24.8 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the maximum 8.5 metre setback is to promote an active streetscape. Because the setback is existing, staff is satisfied the 16.3 metre increase meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance to reduce the parking setback from 4.5 metres to 3.0 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.5 metre setback is to provide separation between off-street parking and the street line. The reduction will facilitate a larger setback along the easterly side lot line, providing greater separation between the existing adjacent residential uses and proposed parking for the subject lands. As such, staff is satisfied that the proposed 1.5 metre reduction will maintain adequate separation and meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor as the reduced rear yard setback, increased front yard setback, and reduced parking setback will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed retail and office uses are permitted uses in the Zoning By-law. No major changes are proposed to the scale, massing and height of the existing building; therefore, it 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 October 5, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated October 7, 2015, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they noted that a portion of the subject property contains the allowance to the floodplain associated with Schneider Creek. This reach of Schneider Creek floodplain is part of a Tow-Zone Floodplain Policy Area. Consequently, the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Any future development within the regulated area on the subject lands will require prior written approval from the GRCA in the form of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. Messrs. H. Madan and A. Torabi were in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendations. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 269 - Submission No.: 2.A 2015-070 (Cont’d) The Chair noted the comments from the GRCA and requested that a condition be included as part of the Committee’s approval requiring the applicant to obtain any necessary approvals from the GRCA. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Alireza Torabi requesting permission to convert the existing single detached dwelling into a retail/office use having a front yard setback of 24.8m (81.364’) rather than the permitted maximum front yard setback of 8.5m (27.887’); a rear yard setback of 0.6m (1.96’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); and, to allow a parking setback abutting Queen Street South of 3m (9.842’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’), on Part Lots 322-324, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-16727, BE APPROVED 533 Queen Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the Building Division for the proposed conversion. 2. That the owner shall ensure that the reduced rear yard setback applies only to the existing building, as per the Preliminary Site Plan dated September 9, 2015, prepared by Labreche Patterson & Associates Inc. 3. That the owner shall obtain an Occupancy (Zoning) Certificate for the proposed business from the City’s Planning Division. 4. That the owner shall receive a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), if required. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 3. A 2015-071 Applicant: 2249429 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 51 Benton Street Legal Description: Part Lot 39, Plan 394 Appearances: In Support: M. Nasseh F. Hafuth Z. Jaber O. Hasan F. Bahjat A. Hanna Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert the existing building into a medical office having a southerly side yard abutting Church Street of 0.91m (2.985’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); a northerly side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 1.2m (3.93’); having the required off-street parking setback 2.94m (9.645’) from the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 270 - Submission No.: 3.A 2015-071 (Cont’d) street line rather than the required 3m (9.842’); to permit the existing building and a portion of an off-street parking space to be located within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT; and, to have 29 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 62 off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 14, 2015, advising that the subject property located at 51 Benton Street is currently occupied with an existing building. The subject property is listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register. The property is zoned Commercial Residential Three (CR-3) in the Zoning By-law and designated High Density Commercial Residential in the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in the City’s Official Plan. The owner is proposing to repurpose the existing building to a Health Clinic use as permitted in the Zoning By-law. In order to facilitate the development, the owner is requesting approval of the following minor variances: 1. Relief from Section 6.1.2 a) of the Zoning By-law to allow 29 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 62 off-street parking spaces for the proposed Health Clinic use; 2. Relief from Section 46.3 of the Zoning By-law to allow an existing side yard setback abutting a street of 0.91 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres; 3. Relief from Section 46.3 of the Zoning By-law to allow an existing side yard setback of 0 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres; 4. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1 a) iv) of the Zoning By-law to allow a parking space to be setback 2.94 metres from the street line rather than the required 3.0 metres; and 5. Relief from Section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law to allow a portion of the existing building and a portion of a parking space (or motor vehicle) to be located within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT). In addition, the owner submitted a report entitled ‘51 Benton Street, Kitchener – Transportation Parking Study’ prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, September 2015, in support of the request for a parking reduction. The Study identified alternatives for the on-site parking deficiency, including: 1. two internal garage parking spaces located on site for staff use; 2. the availability of parking within public and privately owned parking lots within a 400 metres walking distance from the subject property; 3. the proximity and availability of local current and future transit services; and 4. the availability of on-street parking within a 200 metres walking distance from the subject property. Further, the owner has advised City staff that they will be leasing 15 additional parking spaces from a privately-owned parking lot in close proximity to the subject property. Transportation Services staff have further advised that confirmation of this parking lease agreement will be required prior to final approval of the request for a parking reduction. 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: Relief from Section 6.1.2 a) of the Zoning By-law to allow 29 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 62 off-street parking spaces for the proposed Health Clinic use. Transportation policies in the Official Plan support a reduction of parking requirements for properties within an area where adequate alternative parking facilities are available, or where it can be demonstrated that such reductions will not negatively affect the community. The owner COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 271 - Submission No.: 3.A 2015-071 (Cont’d) has submitted a Transportation Parking Study in support of the parking reduction. Generally, the Study has determined alternative available options (as noted above and in the Transportation staff’s comments section below) which will account for the parking deficiency on site. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the requested variance will not impact the surrounding community and as such, meets the intent of the City’s Official Plan. The intent of Section 6 of the Zoning By-law is to ensure permitted uses have sufficient parking spaces on-site rather than potentially causing traffic impacts on adjacent properties and overall community. The applicant has submitted a Transportation Parking Study which outlines alternatives for parking and travelling to the site (as noted above and in the Transportation staff’s comments section below) that will accommodate the parking shortfall on-site. It is staff’s opinion that the applicant has provided sufficient alternatives for the on-site parking deficiency that will not cause impacts to adjacent properties or overall community. As such, the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variance request for a reduced parking requirement can be considered minor. It is staff’s opinion that the applicant has provided sufficient justification for a parking reduction that will not cause impacts to the surrounding community. The variance request is appropriate for the development and use of the land. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed use is appropriate for its location and proximity to the downtown which offers a range of parking and transit alternatives that will make up for the shortfall of parking spaces on- site. Minor variance requests: Relief from Section 46.3 of the Zoning By-law to allow an existing side yard setback abutting a street of 0.91 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres; and, Relief from Section 46.3 of the Zoning By-law to allow an existing side yard setback of 0 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres. The High Density Commercial Residential designation in the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan is intended to have high density residential uses with a mix of segregated restricted commercial uses including Health Clinics. The owner is requesting minor variances with the intent to successfully facilitate the permitted commercial use. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the proposed repurposing of the building and the requested variances are consistent with the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the side yard setback regulations within the Zoning By-law is to allow sufficient separation between adjacent properties, buildings and public streets. The requested variances recognize an existing situation. It is staff’s opinion that the building and use will continue to function without any impacts to adjacent properties, buildings and public streets and therefore, the variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor. The variance requests recognize an existing situation that has perpetuated for decades. It is staff’s opinion that the site will continue to function successfully despite the change in use. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the lands as they recognize an existing situation that has not caused an impact to the functioning of the site, surrounding properties or public streets. Minor variance requests: Relief from Section 6.1.1.1 a) iv) of the Zoning By-law to allow a parking space to be setback 2.94 metres from the street line rather than the required 3.0 metres; and, Relief from Section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law to allow a portion of the existing building and a portion of a parking space (or motor vehicle) to be located within the driveway visibility triangle (DVT). The High Density Commercial Residential designation in the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan is intended to have high density residential uses with a mix of segregated COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 272 - Submission No.: 3.A 2015-071 (Cont’d) restricted commercial uses including Health Clinics. The owner is requesting minor variances with the intent to successfully facilitate the permitted commercial use. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the proposed repurposing of the building and the requested variances are consistent with the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the parking setback and DVT regulations within the Zoning By-law is to allow vehicles to safely enter and exit the property without encumbrances to other vehicles, pedestrians or the streetscape. Transportation staff has reviewed the requested minor variances and are satisfied that vehicles can continue to enter in and out of the site in a safe forward motion despite the minor intrusions in the DVT. The reduced parking setback is minimal and will not cause any impact to the streetscape, as there is sufficient space for landscaping to buffer the parking space from the street line. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor as Transportation Services staff do not have concerns with minimal reduction of the parking setback nor does staff have concerns with the existing and minor intrusions in the DVT. It is staff’s opinion that the site will continue to function successfully and the variances can be considered minor. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the lands as staff are of the opinion that the requested variances are required for most appropriate design and successful functioning of the site. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services supports the justification for the proposed parking space reduction. The proposed parking reduction has three parts; firstly, the on-site garage can accommodate two internal parking spaces for staff; secondly, the availability of parking (private or City parking lots) within 400 metres of the site can accommodate fifteen spaces for staff; thirdly, based on the walkability to the site, there is existing Grand River Transit service, future Light Rail Transit service (ION) and on-street parking available within 200 metres of the site; it is anticipated the remaining sixteen spaces can be accommodated by the above services. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated October 5, 2015, advising that this property is currently under a Site Plan development application. In response to questions, Mr. D. Seller advised that the walkway located between the two accessible parking spaces is a requirement under the Zoning By-law. He noted that staff have worked to ensure that there is minimal encroachments into the DVT by approving a ‘Type B’ accessibility space which is slightly smaller in width than what is normally required. The Chair expressed concerns with the opposite side of the driveway entrance noting that there is a tree in photo 2 in the staff report that is substantially large in size and appears to impede visibility in the easterly DVT. Mr. M. Nasseh advised that it is not his intention to remove the tree; however, he could ensure that it is pruned to ensure adequate visibility from the driveway access. The Chair requested that Condition 2 of the staff report be amended, requiring the applicant to maintain an off-site parking agreement with the neighbouring property owner in perpetuity. Mr. Nasseh advised that he has already obtained an off-site parking agreement and would not object to the proposed amendment. Ms. J. Meader noted that the Parking Study submitted with the application indicates that there will be bicycle parking on-site as a means of supporting the reduction in off-street parking spaces. She requested the staff recommendation be amended to include a third condition requiring the applicant to provide bicycle parking on-site as referenced in the 51 Benton Street, Kitchener, Transportation Study, dated September 2015, prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 273 - Submission No.: 3.A 2015-071 (Cont’d) Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2249429 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to convert the existing building into a medical office having a side yard setback abutting Church Street of 0.91m (2.985’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); a northerly side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 1.2m (3.93’); having the required off-street parking setback 2.94m (9.645’) from the street line rather than the required 3m (9.842’); to permit the existing building and a portion of an off-street parking space to be located within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT; and, to have 29 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 62 off-street parking spaces, on Part Lot 39, Plan 394, BE APPROVED 51 Benton Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Occupancy (Zoning) Certificate shall be obtained for the Health Clinic use from the City’s Planning Division prior to final approval. 2. That the owner shall provide confirmation that a parking lease agreement in perpetuity has been entered into with the owner of a privately owned parking lot (in close proximity of the subject property) for 15 additional parking spaces, to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Transportation Services. 3. That the owner shall install bicycle parking as referenced in the 51 Benton Street, Kitchener, Transportation Study, dated September 2015, prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited 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 Submission No.: 4. A 2015-072 Applicant: Daphne McCulloch Property Location: 644 Avondale Avenue Legal Description: Part Lots 114 and 115, Plan 350 Appearances: In Support: D. McCulloch Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an accessibility entrance on an existing single detached dwelling having a side yard setback abutting Avondale Avenue of 1.5m (4.921’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); having a rear yard setback of 7.05m (23.129’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); and, to locate the required off- street parking space 4.11m (13.484’) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.685’) setback. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 9, 2015, advising that the subject property located at 644 Avondale Avenue is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The lands are developed with an existing single detached dwelling. The owners are proposing to construct an addition to the entrance of the dwelling and an access ramp, and as such are requesting relief COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 274 - Submission No.: 4.A 2015-072 (Cont’d) from Section 37.2.1 to allow a reduced side yard abutting the street setback of 1.5 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; Section 37.2.1 to legalize the existing rear yard setback of 7.05 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required; and Section 6.1.1.1 b) i) to legalize the location of the existing off-street parking space at 4.11 metres from the street line, whereas 6.0 metres is required. 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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan, which encourages a range of housing forms that achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The minor changes will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variances conform to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate. The requested variance to reduce the side yard setbacks abutting the street from 4.5 metres to 1.5 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.5 metre side yard setback abutting the street setback is to provide separation between the structure and the street line. Given the small size of the proposed addition, staff is satisfied the reduction of 3.0 metres from the required 4.5 metres will maintain adequate separation. The requested variance to legalize the existing rear yard setback of 7.05 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide amenity space in the rear yard. Given that the reduced setback is existing, staff is satisfied the reduction of 0.45 metres will maintain adequate amenity space in the rear yard. The requested variance to legalize the location of the existing off-street parking space at 4.11 metres from the street line, whereas 6.0 metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By- law. The purpose of the 6.0 metre setback is to provide separation between the parking space and the street line. Staff is satisfied the reduction of 1.89 metres will maintain adequate separation between the parking space and the street line. The variances can be considered minor as the reduced side yard setback abutting the street, reduced rear yard setback, and reduced parking space setback will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. No major changes are proposed to the scale, massing and height; therefore, the proposed 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 October 5, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Daphne McCulloch requesting permission to construct an accessibility entrance on an existing single detached dwelling having a side yard setback abutting Avondale Avenue of 1.5m (4.921’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); having a rear yard setback of 7.05m (23.129’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); and, to locate the required off-street parking space 4.11m (13.484’) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.685’) BE setback, on Lot 114 and Part Lot 115, Plan 350, 644 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, APPROVED , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed addition and access ramp by December 31, 2015 from the City’s Building Division 2. That the owner shall ensure that the setback for the reduced side yard abutting the street applies only to the proposed addition, as per the Survey Sketch, dated September 17, 2015, prepared by ACI Surveying Consultants Inc. submitted with the application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 275 - Submission No.: 4.A 2015-072 (Cont’d) 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.: 5. A 2015-073 Applicant: 2328783 Ontario Ltd. Property Location: 237 Lancaster Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Plan 364 Appearances: In Support: R. Cressman Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert the existing commercial dwelling into a 5-unit multi-residential dwelling having a lot width of 4.73m (15.518’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’); a front yard setback of 1.016m (3.33’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); a southerly side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 1.2m (3.93’); a rear yard setback of 5.6m (18.372’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); and, to have 0 off- street parking spaces rather the required 5 off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 13, 2015, advising that the subject property is located at the 3-point intersection of Lancaster Street East, Cedar Street North, and Krug Street, in the Central Frederick Planning Community near the Downtown. The property is a small (205 sq.m.), irregular shaped lot, the rear yard of which terminates at point. The surrounding area contains a diverse mix of low density residential land uses as well as commercial/office uses. The current use of the property is a vacant convenience store and a 4-unit multiple dwelling. The original building containing these uses was constructed in approximately 1880 and covers the majority of the lot. No parking is available on the site because there is not enough area. The property is designated Medium Density Commercial Residential in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan and is zoned Commercial Residential Two (CR-2) with Special Regulation 115R (requires a maximum floor space ratio of 2.33) and Special Use Provision 125U (permits restaurants and prohibits private clubs or lodges). The owner is requesting the following variances in order to allow the internal conversion of an existing building into a 5-dwelling-unit multiple dwelling (the convenience store would be eliminated): 1. relief from Section 6.1.2 to reduce the required parking from 5 spaces to 0 (zero) spaces; 2. a minimum lot width of 4.73 metres rather than 15.0 metres; 3. a minimum front yard of 1.016 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres; 4. a minimum side yard of 0 metres rather than 1.2 metres, and, 5. a minimum rear yard of 5.6 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 276 - Submission No.: 5.A 2015-073 (Cont’d) Upon inspection of the subject property, staff discovered that the building possesses a cantilevered second storey that extends towards the Cedar Street and Lancaster Street frontages. The survey provided with the application does not show this building extension, and staff notes that the requested setback variances are measured from the foundation that is shown on the drawing, not from the nearest part of the building to the front lot line, as required by the Zoning By-law. Normally, this discrepancy would precipitate the deferral of the application at the applicant’s cost in order to modify and re-advertise the application in order to request greater relief than originally sought. Fortunately, since the use of the property as a multiple dwelling is to remain the same, Section 5.15 of the Zoning By-law applies and legalizes the minimum lot width, minimum front yard, minimum side yard, and minimum rear yard. In this regard, Variances 2, 3, 4, and 5, above, are redundant and should be deleted. However, Variance #1, which requests a parking reduction, is still required since 5.15 does not cover parking in this instance due to the increased number of dwelling units. Staff notes that no modification to the application and re-advertising for this variance are necessary, as the parking requirement for multiple dwellings is dependent on the number of dwelling units, not gross floor area. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. Part 2, Section 8.5.2 of the Official Plan 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, Transportation Services has indicated that current tenants of this property use transit, walking or cycling as their modes of transportation. For this reason, and given the fact that the property is near downtown facilities and services, an iXpress route, and future rapid transit, Transportation Services has advised the requested parking reduction is supportable. In addition, it should be noted that the estimated Zoning By-law requirement for the previous use was: 4 parking spaces for the store and 4 spaces for the four-unit multiple dwelling, for a total of 8 spaces. The subject application proposes a five-unit multiple dwelling and the removal of the store, for a total parking requirement of only 5 spaces. In practical terms, this means that the parking demand is expected to be less for the proposed use of the property. The requested variance is minor because no unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties are anticipated since tenants of the property use alternative modes of transportation. The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land because they would allow the continued adaptive re-use of a 135 year-old building and generate less traffic than the previous use. Transportation Services Comments: It was identified to Transportation Services, typical tenants for this property utilize alternative modes of transportation, such as transit, walking or cycling. With zero parking available on-site, the owner/applicant must maintain a tenant base that does not own a vehicle. This site is also within the Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PATRS) boundary, of which alternative modes of transportation are encouraged, which this site is accomplishing. Therefore, based on the existing Transportation Demand Management strategies being utilized for this site, Transportation Services can support the proposed parking reduction being sought. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated October 5, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. R. Cressman was in attendance and noted that he was in support of the staff recommendation and the removal of the redundant variances as outlined in the staff report. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 277 - Submission No.: 5.A 2015-073 (Cont’d) Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2328783 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convert the existing commercial dwelling into a 5-unit multi-residential dwelling having 0 off-street parking spaces rather the required 5 off-street parking spaces, on Part Lot 4, Plan 364, 237 Lancaster Street BE APPROVED East, Kitchener, Ontario, . It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT APPLICATIONS: Submission No.: 1. B 2015-051 Applicant: Adrian and Diana Rosu Property Location: 401 Greenfield Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 212, Plan 254 Appearances: In Support: A., D. and O. Rosu Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 10.935m (35.875’), a depth of 40.234m (132’), and an area of 440.5 sq.m. (4741.503 sq.ft.). The retained land will have a width of 10.948m (36.233’), a depth of 40.234m (132’), and an area of 440.5 sq.m. (4741.503 sq.ft.). The existing single detached dwelling will be demolished and the parcels intended for residential redevelopment. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 9, 2015, advising that the subject property located at 401 Greenfield Avenue is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The lands are currently under construction for a new single detached dwelling. The applicants are requesting consent to sever the subject property into two equal-sized lots, each to be developed with a single detached dwelling. The severed lot would have a frontage of 10.935 metres, a depth of 40.234 metres, and an area of 440.5 square metres, while the retained lot would have a frontage of 10.948 metres, depth of 40.234 metres, and an area of 440.5 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 both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential Four Zone (R-4), the proposed severance conforms to the City’s Official Plan, and the configuration of the proposed lots can be considered appropriate for the use of the lands. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated October 13, 2015, noting the following comments regarding this application: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 278 - Submission No.: 1.B 2015-051 (Cont’d) Water Services: The subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384.3 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 328.1 mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2015. This requirement has been set out in the conditions of consent approval set out below. Source Water Protection: For information, the property is designated Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area 8 on Map 6a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The purpose of this designation and the policies in Chapter 8 of the ROP is to protect the long term interests of the Region’s municipal water supply. The use proposed is keeping with the policies of this chapter. Application Review Fee: The applicants should be advised that pursuant to ss. 69(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, and Region Fee By-law 15-019, there is now a review fee for consent applications where a new lot is being created ($350.00). This fee is applicable to the subject application and has been included as a condition of provisional consent noted below. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, if deemed necessary by the City of Kitchener, the owners enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include water pressure devices for each dwelling unit and include in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale, and/or Rental Agreements a clause identifying the presence of water pressure reducing devices and advising that it not be removed by the purchaser. 2) That prior to final approval, the owners submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. Messrs. A. and O. Rosu and Ms. D. Rosu were in attendance in support of the subject application. Mr. A. Rosu advised that the comments provided by Infrastructure Services note that three trees on the subject property will need to be removed. He indicated that there is no longer the requirement to remove three trees, stating that they will only be removing one tree, the other two trees will be maintained. The Chair noted the comments from Infrastructures Services and requested that ‘Bullet 3’ be included in the Committee’s decision requiring the owners to obtain a certified Arborist to evaluate and recommend as to the appropriate nature and level of compensation due to the City for the loss of any existing mature trees and make suitable compensation to the satisfaction of Director of Operations. In addition, the Chair noted the comments from the Region of Waterloo and requested that both noted Conditions be included in the Committee’s decision. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of the Adrian and Diana Rosu requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 10.935m (35.875’), a depth of 40.234m (132’), and an area of 440.5 BE sq.m. (4741.503 sq.ft.), Part Lot 212, Plan 254, 401 Greenfield Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, GRANTED , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners 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 owners shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 279 - Submission No.: 1.B 2015-051 (Cont’d) 3. That the owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication in the amount of $5,030.10,equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. The owners shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the removal of any redundant service connections and the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property. 5. That the owners shall provide a Servicing Plan and Grading Plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 6. That the owners shall provide Engineering Services with confirmation that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owners would be required pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 7. That the owners shall submit a complete Development and Reconstruction As- Recorded Tracking Form (as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150) together 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 Director of Engineering Services. 8. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed and retained lands which shall include the following: a. That the owners 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 owners shall further agree 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. 9. That the owner shall retain a certified Arborist to evaluate and recommend the appropriate nature and level of compensation due to the City for the loss of any existing mature trees and make suitable compensation for the loss of any trees to the satisfaction of Director of Operations. 10. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include water pressure devices for each dwelling unit, and include in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements, a clause identifying the presence of water pressure reducing devices and advising that it not be removed by the purchaser, if deemed necessary by the City of Kitchener. 11. That, the owners shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 280 - Submission No.: 1.B 2015-051 (Cont’d) 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 October 20, 2017. Carried Submission No.: 2. B 2015-052 Applicant: Ana Bogunovic Property Location: 45 Third Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 51, Plan 254 Appearances: In Support: Z. Bogunovic Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each half of a semi-detached residential development can be dealt with separately. The severed land will have a width of 10.067m (33.028’), a depth of 40.211m (131.925’), and an area of 407.1 sq.m. (4381.988 sq.ft.). The retained land will have a width of 10.067m (33.028’), a depth of 40.204m (131.902’), and an area of 405.1 sq.m. (4360.46 sq.ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 9, 2015, advising that the subject property located at 45 Third Avenue is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The lands are to be developed with a semi-detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots to allow separate ownership of each semi-detached unit. The severed lot would have a frontage of 10.067 metres, a depth of 40.211 metres and an area of 407.1 square metres, while the retained lot would have a frontage of 10.067 metres, depth of 40.204 metres and an area of 405.1 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 both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential Four Zone (R-4). The proposed severance conforms to the City’s Official Plan and the configuration of the proposed lots can be considered appropriate for the use of the lands. The proposed severance is required to create separate semi-detached dwelling units and allow separate ownership of each. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated October 13, 2015, noting the following comments regarding this application: Water Services The subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384.3 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 328.1 mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2015. This requirement has been set out in the conditions of consent approval set out below. Source Water Protection For information, the property is designated Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area 8 on Map 6a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The purpose of this designation and the policies in Chapter 8 of the ROP is to protect the long term interests of the Region’s municipal water supply. The use proposed is keeping with the policies of this chapter. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 281 - Submission No.: 2.B 2015-052 (Cont’d) Road Traffic Noise At this location the proposed development may encounter environmental noise associated with road traffic noise sources as it is located within 500 metres of Highway 8 to the east and Highway 7/8 to the north. To address potential noise issues/concerns a noise study is normally required. However, staff understands the units are under construction so in lieu of the noise study, the Owner will be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for a warning clause to be included in all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements. Details of this warning clause are noted below. Application Review Fee The applicant should be advised that pursuant to ss. 69(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, and Region Fee By-law 15-019, there is now a review fee for consent applications where a new lot is being created ($350.00). This fee is applicable to the subject application and has been included as a condition of provisional consent noted below. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following conditions: , 1. That prior to final approval, if deemed necessary by the City of Kitchener the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include water pressure devices for each dwelling unit and include in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale, and/or Rental Agreements a clause identifying the presence of water pressure reducing devices and advising that it not be removed by the purchaser. 2. That prior to final approval, the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener (for the severed and retained lands) to include the following warning clause in all agreements of purchase and/or rental agreements: “Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Highway 8 and Highway 7/8 may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.” 3. That prior to final approval, the owner submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of the Ana Bogunovic requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each half of a semi-detached residential development can be dealt with separately. The severed land will have a width of 10.067m (33.028’), a depth of 40.211m (131.925’), and an area of 407.1 sq.m. (4381.988 sq.ft.). The retained land will have a width of 10.067m (33.028’), a depth of 40.204m (131.902’), and an area of 405.1 sq.m. (4360.46 sq.ft.), on Lot 51, Plan BE GRANTED 254, 45 Third Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. 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. 4. 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 and retained lands which shall include the following: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 282 - Submission No.: 2.B 2015-052 (Cont’d) 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 shall further agree 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. 5. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication in the amount of $4,634.96 which is required on the severed parcel as a new developable lot will be created by the severance. The parkland dedication is calculated at the residential rate of 5% of the per metre lineal frontage land value for the severed portion. 6. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to the construction of any servicing to the subject lots. 7. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include water pressure devices for each dwelling unit, and include in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements, a clause identifying the presence of water pressure reducing devices and advising that it not be removed by the purchaser, if deemed necessary by the City of Kitchener 8. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, for the severed and retained lands, to include the following warning clause in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements: “Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Highway 8 and Highway 7/8 may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.” 9. That the owner shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 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 October 20, 2017. Carried COMBINED APPLICATIONS: Submission Nos.: 1. B 2015-053, A 2015-074 and A 2015-075 Applicant: Frank and Melinda Ruszer Property Location: 81 Grand Hill Drive Legal Description: Lot 17, Plan 782 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 283 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2015-053, A 2015-074 and A 2015-075 (Cont’d) Appearances: In Support: F. Ruszer S. Kay Contra: A. and M. Van Gastel G. Nicholls J. Gazzola J. Tibbits M. and A. Pruski B. Reinhart D. and J. Butler H. Webb J. Sinclair J. Leat Written Submissions: Grand Hill Neighbourhood Association A. and M. Van Gastel The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on The Crestway of 22.566m (74.035’), a depth of 41.615m (136.532’), and an area of 1,107 sq.m. (11,915.649 sq.ft). The retained land will front onto Grand Hill Drive having a width of 38.115m (125.049’), a depth of 41.532m (136.256’), and an area of 1410.7 sq.m. (15,184.648 sq.ft). Permission is also being requested for a minor variance for the severed land to have a lot width of 22.566m (74.035’) rather than the required 30m (98.425’); and, to allow a lot area of 1,107 sq.m (11,915.649 sq.ft) rather than the required 2,023 sq.m. (21,775.391 sq.ft). In addition, permission is being requested for the retained land to have a lot area of 1,410.70 sq.m. rather than the required 2,023 sq.m. (21,775.391 sq.ft). Both parcels are intended for residential use. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 13, 2015, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 81 Grand Hill Drive and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property is a through lot and has two public street frontages – Grand Hill Drive and The Crestway. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned Residential Two (R-2) with Special Regulation Provision 233R in the City’s Zoning By-law. The designation and zoning allow for low density residential uses and Special Regulation 233R requires lots to have a minimum width of 30.0 metres and a minimum area of 2023 square metres. The applicants are requesting permission to sever the subject lands with the intent to retain the existing dwelling and develop the severed lands with a new residential dwelling as permitted in the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. In order to facilitate this project, the applicant has submitted a consent application (B 2015-053) to sever the lands, along with two minor variances applications: A 2015-074 – requesting relief from Special Regulation Provision 233R to allow the retained lot to have an area of 1410.7 square metres rather than the required 2023 square metres. A 2015-075 – requesting relief from Special Regulation Provision 233R to allow the severed lot to have an area of 1107 square metres rather than the required 2023 square metres; and to allow a lot width of 22.57 metres rather than the required 30 metres. In addition, staff notes that the subject property is currently functioning on private services. City Engineering staff has confirmed that it is not feasible to extend City services for this development. Regional staff advised that the owner has also provided technical documentation entitled, “Scoped Stage 2 Hydrogeological Assessment, Proposed Lot Severance, 81 Grand Hill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario” (Englobe Corp., July 14, 2015) in support of the proposal on private services for the severed lands. This report is satisfactory to Regional staff. Consent Application – B 2015-053: The proposed severed lands will have frontage of 22.57 metres on The Crestway, an approximate depth of 41.62 metres and an area of 1107.0 square metres. The proposed retained COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 284 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2015-053, A 2015-074 and A 2015-075 (Cont’d) lands will have frontage of 38.115 metres on Grand Hill Drive, an approximate depth of 41.53 metres and an area of 1410.7 square metres. The applicants are proposing to sever the lands and develop the newly created lot with a residential dwelling unit as permitted in the R-2 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 configurationof the proposed lots can be considered appropriate for the use of the lands. The original lot is a through lot which allows both the severed and retained lands to have frontage onto established public streets. Due to this significant grade change at approximately the midpoint of the lot, the existing house is not visible from The Crestway street frontage. The owners are proposing to sever the lot at approximately the midpoint where the significant grade change occurs, so that the vacant portion (that fronts onto The Crestway) can be developed with a residential use permitted in the zoning. Regional staff has advised that the owners have provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the use of private water services on the severed parcel will not have detrimental effects on the subject property or surrounding community. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and conforms to the Growth Plan tor the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. Minor Variance Application – A 2015-074: The owners are requesting relief from Special Regulation Provision 233R to allow the retained lot to have an area of 1410.7 square metres rather than the required 2023 square metres. 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 City’s Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation encourages a range of low density housing types to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form. The proposed variance is required to facilitate the creation of a new lot that will be developed with a low rise residential use. The intent of Special Regulation Provision 233R which establishes a minimum lot area was to ensure that the lots created within this Zone were of an appropriate size to accommodate infrastructure for private servicing and to ensure lots created were compatible with the existing lots in the neighbourhood. The owners are requesting approval for a reduced lot area as a result of the proposed severance application (B 2015-053). City Engineering staff does not have concerns with the proposed severance and minor variance applications as it is staff’s opinion that the lot can still function appropriately from a private servicing perspective with a reduced lot area. It is important to note that the requested 1410.7 square metres lot area meets the minimum lot requirement of the parent R-2 zone, where the minimum required lot area for a single detached dwelling is 929.0 square metres. Staff also notes that there are a minimum of 2 or 3 lots within a 150 metres radius of the subject property that have comparable lot areas. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the request for a reduced lot area meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and will be compatible with the existing neighbourhood. The owners are requesting approval for a reduced lot area for the retained lot as a result of the proposed severance application. City Engineering staff do not have concerns with the variance as the reduced lot area will not interrupt the private servicing functionality of the property. Planning staff advise that the variance is consistent with the minimum requirement in the parent R-2 Zone. Staff notes that there are a minimum of 2 or 3 lots within a 150 metres radius of the subject property. It is staff’s opinion that the variance is minor and appropriate for the development use of the lands. Minor Variance Application – A 2015-075: The owners are requesting relief from Special Regulation Provision 233R to allow the severed lot to have an area of 1107 square metres rather than the required 2023 square metres and to allow a lot width of 22.57 metres rather than the required 30 metres. 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 City’s Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation encourages a range of low density housing types to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 285 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2015-053, A 2015-074 and A 2015-075 (Cont’d) The proposed variance is required to facilitate the creation of a new lot that is proposed to be developed with a low rise residential use. The intent of Special Regulation Provision 233R which establishes a minimum lot area and lot width was to ensure that the lots created within this zone were of an appropriate size to accommodate infrastructure for private servicing and compatible with the existing lots in the neighbourhood. The owners are requesting approval for a reduced lot area as a result of the proposed severance application (B 2015-053). City Engineering staff do not have concerns with the proposed severance and minor variance applications as it is staff’s opinion that the lot can still function appropriately from a private servicing perspective with a reduced lot area. It is important to note that the requested 1170.0 square metres lot area meets the minimum lot requirements of the parent R-2 Zone, where the minimum required lot area for a single detached dwelling is 929.0 square metres. It is staff’s opinion that the requested minor variance for the reduced lot width is necessary due to the unique shape of the property. It is also staff’s opinion that the proposed residential building will be appropriately designed and situated on the future severed lot consistent with the existing residential development in the area. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the variances are minor and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated October 13, 2015, noting the following comments regarding this application: Water Services: Pursuant to Policies 5.B.2 and 5.C.3 of the Regional Official Plan, development within the urban area must be proposed on municipal wastewater and water supply services. Regional staff understands City Engineering staff has confirmed that it is not feasible to extend City services for this development. The owners have also provided technical documentation entitled, “Scoped Stage 2 Hydrogeological Assessment, Proposed Lot Severance, 81 Grand Hill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario” (Englobe Corp., July 14, 2015) in support of the proposal on private services. This report is satisfactory to Regional staff. There are no further requirements from the Region’s Hydrogeology and Source Water perspective. The City should ensure the recommendation(s) of the report are implemented. Road Traffic Noise: At this location the proposed development may encounter environmental noise associated with road traffic noise sources as it is located within 500 metres of Highway 8 to the east. To address potential noise issues/concerns a noise study is normally required. However, Regional staff is prepared to waive this requirement provided the owners enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for a warning clause to be included in all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements. Details of this warning clause are noted below. Application Review Fee: The applicants should be advised that pursuant to ss. 69(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, and Region Fee By-law 15-019, there is now a review fee for consent applications where a new lot is being created ($350.00). This fee is applicable to the subject application and has been included as a condition of provisional consent noted below. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to final approval, if deemed necessary by the City of Kitchener, the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include water pressure devices for each dwelling unit and include in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale, and/or Rental Agreements a clause identifying the presence of water pressure reducing devices and advising that it not be removed by the purchaser. 2. That prior to final approval, the owners enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener (for the severed and retained lands) to include the following warning clause in all agreements of purchase and/or rental agreements: “Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Highway 8 may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 286 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2015-053, A 2015-074 and A 2015-075 (Cont’d) as the levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.” 3. That prior to final approval, the owners submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated October 5, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with Applications A 2015-074 and A 2015- 075. The Chair noted two clerical errors within the staff report: the Consent Applicationnumber should be B 2015-053 rather than B 2015-004; and, the Minor Variances are being recommended for approval, as indicated on Page 5 of the staff report. Messrs S. Kay and F. Ruszer were in attendance in support of the subject applications and the staff recommendations. Mr. Kay addressed the Committee in support of the applications, noting that the Planning report clearly outlines that the applications meet the intent of the City’s Official Plan and that the requested variances can be considered minor. He stated that, in his opinion, the lot is unique as it fronts on to two separate streets, noting that with its size and typography, the creation of the second lot would be compatible with the other lots in the neighbourhood. He indicated that although there were a number of neighbours in attendance in opposition to the subject applications, their objections relate to issues not considered relative to the Planning Act. Mr. Kay circulated the Grand Hill Village Plan of Subdivision dated May 17, 1953, and Reference Plan 58R-1119 of the area, stating that this severance application is not the first one to be approved since the initial approval of the Subdivision. He noted that three other lots have been severed since that time. He further advised that although there have been concerns raised regarding the requested minor variances and the proposed size of the two new lots, there are other lots in the area that are comparable in nature. Messrs J. Tibbits and G. Nicholls addressed the Committee on behalf of the Grand Hill Village Association and neighbouring property owners who were in opposition of the subject applications. Mr. Nicholls circulated a Brief, summarizing their concerns with the applications and why, in their opinion, the applications should be refused. Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Tibbits provided an overview of their Brief, expressing concerns that the minor variances requested are not minor and they do not maintain the intent of Zoning By-law Special Regulation 233R. Mr. Nicholls noted that the lot area being proposed is 42% less than what is required by Regulation 233R and a request that large should be considered in contravention of the Zoning By-law. Mr. Tibbits commented that the Grand Hill Village Neighbourhood is unique in size and configuration, and the creation of a new lot would adversely impact their privacy, views, landscaping, character of the neighbourhood and their property values. He stated that the definition of ‘minor’ is subjective; however, a 2005 Ontario Divisional Court decision by Justice Matlaw indicated it was not the size of the variance that would determine whether it was minor, but rather the impact. Mr. Nicholls continued, stating that in his opinion, the impact in this instance would be significant and the variances should be refused. Mr. J. Gazzola advised that he was addressing the Committee as a private citizen and not in his capacity as a member of Council. He noted that he was in attendance on behalf of the Grand Hill Village Neighbourhood Association and the neighbours in opposition to the subject applications. He indicated that consideration should be given number of people in attendance in opposition to the applications and the potential concerns raised about adverse impacts it may have on the neighbourhood. He further advised that this is a unique neighbourhood and it should be protected. Mr. A. Van Gastel addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject applications, noting in his opinion the variances requested are not minor. Mr. Kay stated that although the neighbours indicated the community is unique in nature, it is not a community in isolation and the neighbourhood By-laws should not supersede the Zoning By- law. He noted that the applicants have conducted significant research and completed a number of studies to determine whether the creation of a new lot would be appropriate for the neighbourhood. He noted that one of the reasons why new development in this area is COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 287 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2015-053, A 2015-074 and A 2015-075 (Cont’d) challenging is due to the lack of municipal services. He stated that the applicants have completed a hydrogeological study and it has validated that a regular septic system would be supported on the new lot; however, the applicants have offered to install a more superior tertiary septic system. Ms. D. Butler addressed the Committee in opposition to the applications, noting that she had spoken with City’s Planning Division prior to selling the lot to the applicant to confirm whether severing the lot was possible. She commented that at that time Planning staff indicated that the lot could not be severed because it didn’t meet the minimum lot size requirements. Mr. Nicholls expressed concerns that approving a variance for the lot size is in contravention of the Zoning By-law Special Provision Regulation 233R, stating in his opinion, a variation of this size should be reviewed by Council. In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that whenever a new lot is being proposed without municipal servicing, the Region of Waterloo requires the applicant to complete studies demonstrating that the new lot can support a regular septic system. She indicated that the applicant is proposing to install a tertiary system which is a superior system and requires less land than a conventional septic system. Ms. J. Meader acknowledged concerns raised by the neighbours, noting that although the variance percentage may not seem minor, consideration of whether a variance is minor is beyond sheer percentages. She noted there is more consideration given to the impact on the neighbourhood rather than percentages. She indicated that the majority of the concerns raised by the neighbours regard views, privacy and property values, noting that they are not concerns that can be considered under the Planning Act. She further advised that the Committee must consider each application on a site-by-site basis, stating that the creation of a new lot, once the construction is fully complete, in her opinion would be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Submission No. B 2015-053 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of the Frank and Melinda Ruszer requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on The Crestway of 22.566m (74.035’), an approximate depth of 41.615m (136.532’), and an area of 1,107 sq.m. (11,915.649 sq.ft). The retained land will front onto Grand Hill Drive having a width of 38.115m (125.049’), an approximate depth of 41.532m (136.256’), and an area of 1410.7 sq.m. (15,184.648 sq.ft), on Lot 17, Plan 782, 81 Grand Hill BE GRANTED Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners 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 owners shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication in the amount of $10,380.36, equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That the owners shall submit a Grading Plan showing how stormwater run-off will be handled to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 288 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2015-053, A 2015-074 and A 2015-075 (Cont’d) 5. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include water pressure devices for each dwelling unit, and include in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements, a clause identifying the presence of water pressure reducing devices and advising that it not be removed by the purchaser, if deemed necessary by the City of Kitchener. 6. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, for the severed and retained lands, to include the following warning clause in all agreements of purchase and/or rental agreements: “Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Highway 8 may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.” 7. That the owners shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 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 October 20, 2017. Carried Submission No. A 2015-074 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Frank and Melinda Ruszer requesting permission for the retained portion of the property resulting from Consent Application B 2015-053 to have a lot area of 1,410.70 sq.m. rather than the required 2,023 sq.m. (21,775.391 sq.ft), on Lot 17, Plan 782, 81 BE APPROVED Grand Hill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, . It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 2015-075 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 20, 2015 - 289 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2015-053, A 2015-074 and A 2015-075 (Cont’d) That the application of Frank and Melinda Ruszer requesting permission for the severed portion of the property resulting from Consent Application B 2015-053 to have a lot width of 22.566m (74.035’) rather than the required 30m (98.425’); and, to allow a lot area of 1,107 sq.m (11,915.649 sq.ft) rather than the required 2,023 sq.m. (21,775.391 sq.ft), on Lot 17, Plan BE APPROVED 782, 81 Grand Hill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, . 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 11:20 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20th day of October, 2015. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment