Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-18 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 18, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski and A. Head Ms. J. Meader. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Barry Cronkite, Interim Manager, Transportation Planning; Mr. S. Ryder, Traffic Technologist; Mr. G. Stevenson, Planner; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held March 21, 2017, as circulated to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2017-022 Applicants: Cook Homes Limited Property Location: 489 Rivertrail Avenue Legal Description: Lot 99, Registered Plan 58M-597 Appearances: In Support: T. Allensen Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a street-fronting townhouse having an easterly side yard setback of 1.6m rather than the required 2.5m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 14, 2017, advising the subject property subject property is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6), with special regulation provision 597R. It is designated Low Rise Residential in the current Official Plan, and Low Rise Residential in the new Official Plan. The applicant is requesting permission to construct a street-fronting townhouse as part of a block of 6 townhouse dwellings (SP17/018/R/ES). The applicant is requesting relief from Section 40.2.5 of the Zoning By-law to allow for a side yard setback of 1.6 metres, rather than the required setback of 2.5 metres. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and 1994 Official Plan. A significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal; however, the appealed policies do not affect this report. The Residential designation in the 2014 Official Plan places emphasis on compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale and design in order to support the successful integration of different COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 54 - 1. Submission No.: A 2017-022 (Cont’d) housing types. It also places emphasis on the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas. Staff is of the opinion the requested variance will not compromise any of the aforementioned points of emphasis, and therefore meets the intent of the Official Plan. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of Section 40.2.6 is allow for sufficient separation between the proposed building and side lot line for access purposes and to ensure there is no impact to adjacent properties. As the shape of the lot is an irregular inverse pie-shaped lot, a pinch point is created where the back corner of the building is proposed to be located 1.6 metres from the side lot line rather than the 2.5 metres required. Staff is of the opinion the access will not be impeded, as there are other potential ways to maneuver around the site. It is also in staff’s opinion the requested variance for a side yard setback will not impact development of adjacent properties and therefore meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The proposed variance is considered appropriate for the development and use of the lands based on the reasons noted above. In addition, the subject property abuts an access entrance for a future development site. As such, the proposed building will be located next to a driveway entrance and will abut an area of the adjacent property in which no buildings will be located. This will further ensure there will not be a significant impact to the adjacent property and is therefore considered appropriate for the surrounding neighbourhood. The variance is considered minor as staff is of the opinion the reduction in setback from 2.5 metres to 1.6 metres will continue to provide an adequate distance between the proposed building and the side property line and will provide sufficient space for residents to access the rear yard. Based on the above comments, staff is of the opinion the variance requested is minor, meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, and is appropriate for the lot and surrounding neighbourhood The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 12, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. T. Allensen was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Cook Homes Limited requesting permission to construct a street- fronting townhouse having an easterly side yard setback of 1.6m rather than the required 2.5m, on Lot 99, Registered Plan 58M-597, 489 Rivertrail Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City’s Building Division for the proposed dwelling. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 55 - 2. Submission No.: A 2017-023 Applicant: Cook Homes Limited Property Location: 545 Rivertrail Avenue Legal Description: Lot 71, Registered Plan 58M-597 Appearances: In Support: T. Allensen Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a street-fronting townhouse having a northerly side yard setback of 2.8m rather than the required 4.5m; and, a driveway located 7.3m from the intersection of Grand Flats Trail and Rivertrail Avenue rather than the required 9m setback. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2017, advising the subject property is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6), with special regulation provision 597R. It is designated Low Rise Residential in both the current Official Plan, and the new Official Plan (in effect). The applicant is requesting permission to construct a street-fronting townhouse as part of a block of 4 townhouse dwellings. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 40.2.5 of the Zoning By- law to allow for a setback of 2.8 metres for a side yard abutting a street, rather than the required setback of 4.5 metres. The applicant is also requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1.c.iii of the Zoning By-law to place a driveway 7.3 metres from the intersection of street lines abutting the lot rather than the required setback of 9 metres. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and 1994 Official Plan. A significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal; however, the appealed policies do not affect this report. The Residential designation in the 2014 Official Plan places emphasis on compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale and design in order to support the successful integration of different housing types. It also places emphasis on the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas. Staff is of the opinion the requested variance will not compromise any of the aforementioned points of emphasis, and therefore meets the intent of the Official Plan. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the Zoning regulation that requires a 4.5 metre exterior side yard setback is to ensure there is adequate separation distance between buildings and the street line and to promote street uniformity. Staff is of the opinion the portion of the building proposed to be closest to the exterior lot line is a covered front porch, which generates a lesser impact than the actual dwelling structure. Thus, the separation distance between the covered front porch and the street line can be considered sufficient. Furthermore, given the compact nature of street townhouse dwellings, the proposed reduced setback is able to maintain street uniformity on Rivertrail Avenue and the intersecting Grand Flats Trail and therefore meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the zoning regulation that requires a 9-metre setback for driveways from the intersection of street lines is to ensure that cars parked in a driveway do not create a visibility concern for vehicle ingress/egress of the property. However, there is a large 9-metre boulevard area between the exterior side property line and the curb, which provides additional separation in this case. The addition of the setback provides a total of 16.3 metres between the driveway and the street. This distance is adequate in maintaining visibility and therefore meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The proposed variance for reduction in exterior side yard setback is considered appropriate for the development and use of the lands based on the following reasons: the Urban Design Manual suggests promoting ‘eyes on the street’ by minimizing front yard setbacks and providing porches facing the public street. In addition, the Suburban Design Brief recommends reinforcing residential streetscapes by locating buildings close to the street and encourages providing porches with at least 1.5 metres of depth, especially on priority lots such as this one. The reduction in driveway setback is considered appropriate for the development due to the large boulevard that provides an adequate setback for a driveway on a corner lot. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 56 - 2. Submission No.: A 2017-023 (Cont’d) The variances are considered minor as staff is of the opinion that the reduction in setback from 4.5 metres to 2.8 metres will still provide an adequate separation distance between the proposed building and the exterior side property line. The reduction in driveway setback from 9 metres to 7.3 metres can be considered minor, particularly when taking the substantial width of the boulevard into consideration. Based on the above comments, staff is of the opinion that the variance requested is minor, meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, and is appropriate for the lot and surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 12, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. T. Allensen was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Cook Homes Limited requesting permission to construct a street- fronting townhouse having a northerly side yard setback of 2.8m rather than the required 4.5m; and, a driveway located 7.3m from the intersection of Grand Flats Trail and Rivertrail Avenue rather than the required 9m setback, on Lot 71, Registered Plan 58M-597, 545 Rivertrail Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City’s Building Division for the proposed dwelling. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried 3. Submission Nos.: A 2017-024 Applicants: Paul and Colleen Hamann Property Location: 227 Sheldon Avenue North Legal Description: Part Lot 174, Plan 651 Appearances: In Support: P. & C. Hamann Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to renovate a single detached dwelling having existing driveway accesses located 9m from the nearest intersection of the street line at Sheldon Avenue North and Fairmount Road which encroach into the 12m setback but do not encroach into the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT); and, to legalize the required off-street parking space located 3.7m from the street line rather than the required 6m. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 57 - 3. Submission No.: A 2017-024 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 6, 2017, advising the subject property located at 227 Sheldon Avenue North is a corner lot with a through-driveway that provides access to Sheldon Avenue North and Fairmont Road. 227 Sheldon Avenue North is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The owners are requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b iv) of the Zoning By-law to legalize the existing driveway that encroaches into the 12.0 metre by 9.0 metre setback. Furthermore, the owner is requesting additional relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b) i) of the Zoning By- law to legalize the off-street parking space for the single detached dwelling to be located in the driveway setback 3.7 metres from a street line rather than the required 6.0 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 offer the following comments. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and 1994 Official Plan. A significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal; however, the appealed policies do not affect this report. The Low Rise Residential designation permits low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The proposed variances conform to the designation and it is the opinion of staff the requested variances to legalize the location of the through-drivewayand the required parking space is permitted. The requested variance to reduce the off-street parking space from 6.0 metres to 3.7 metres from street lot line meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The reduction of 2.3 metres from the required 6.0 metres is minor. The intent of the 6.0 metre required setback is to allow for a vehicle to be safely parked on the driveway without affecting the City right-of-way and surrounding properties. Transportation Services staff supports a 2.3 metre reduction from the required 6.0 metre parking setback. The requested variance to legalize the existing through-driveway that encroaches into the 12.0 metre by 9.0 metre setback meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the regulation is to restrict driveway widenings and accesses within 9.0 metres of the street line. Both existing accesses and the through-driveway are located outside of the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT) and the accesses are setback 9.0 metres from the intersection of the street lines. However, a portion of the angled through-driveway encroaches into the 9.0 metre by 12.0 metre setback. The encroachment into the setback is minor and Transportation Services staff support legalizing the existing through-driveway and parking space as in their opinion, there are no safety concerns. The requested variances to legalize the through-driveway and parking space location are existing and the proposed variances are not anticipated to have any impact on the adjacent residential properties. The variances can be considered minor as it is staff’s opinion the required parking space is accommodated on-site in a safe manner. Legalizing the existing parking space setback of 3.7 metres to a street line and permitting the through-driveway to encroach into the 12.0 metre by 9.0 metre setback will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variances should not negatively impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood, as the condition is not changing and has existed on the subject lands without incident for several years. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 12, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. P. and Ms. C. Hamann were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Questions were raised regarding Conditions 2 and 3 as outlined in the staff report, specifically concerning maintenance and location of the apple and pear trees located on the subject property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 58 - 3. Submission No.: A 2017-024 (Cont’d) Mr. B. Cronkite advised Transportation Services staff would need to complete an on-site inspection to determine whether either of the trees may cause concerns for visibility. He noted it may be possible for the trees to remain, adding some pruning may be required to ensure they do not impede visibility into the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT) or Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT). Ms. J. Meader suggested a possible amendment to Conditions 2 and 3 as outlined in the staff recommendation, noting the conditions could reference that the shrubs and vegetation be removed and/or pruned to ensure visibility. Staff noted they had no objections to the proposed amendment, stating the conditions should be to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services and Director of Planning. The applicants noted they were in support of the proposed amendments. In response to questions, Ms. Hamann advised the driveway existed on the subject property prior to their purchase of the property in 1992. Ms. von Westerholt advised staff have no record as to when the driveway was installed and whether it was installed legally. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Paul and Colleen Hamann requesting permission to renovate a single detached dwelling having existing driveway accesses located 9m from the nearest intersection of the street line at Sheldon Avenue North and Fairmount Road which encroach into the 12m setback but do not encroach into the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT); and, to legalize the required off-street parking space located 3.7m from the street line rather than the required 6m, on Part Lot 174, Plan 651, 227 Sheldon Avenue North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall submit a parking plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation by October 1, 2017. 2. That the owners shall ensure all shrubs and vegetation located in the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT) and the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) is removed and/or pruned to ensure visibility, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Director of Transportation Services by October 1, 2017. 3. That the owners shall ensure the fence, all shrubs and vegetation located on City of Kitchener land along Fairmont Road and Sheldon Avenue North is removed and/or pruned to ensure visibility, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Director of Transportation Services by October 1, 2017. 4. That the owners shall ensure the asphalt parking pad located along Fairmont Road is removed by October 1, 2017 and replaced with landscape material. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 59 - 4. Submission Nos.: A 2017-025 Applicant: 2495513 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 169 Lancaster Street West Legal Description: Part Park Lot 551, Plan 378 and Part Lot 119, Streets and Lanes, being Parts 1 & 2 on Registered Plan 58R-3605 Appearances: In Support: F. Lahouti B. McCulloch Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct an 18-unit multiple dwelling and legalize an existing 4-storey multiple dwelling proposed to contain 21 dwelling units (currently contains 20 units) having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for multiple dwellings of 0.85, whereas the By-Law permits a maximum FSR of 0.6; the required non-visitor off-street parking spaces to be located between the front façade of the existing multiple dwelling and the front lot line, whereas the By-Law does not permit off-street parking spaces to be located in this area; to provide 45 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 49; to provide 6 visitor off-street parking spaces rather than the required 10; a building height of 11.0 metres for the proposed multiple dwelling, whereas the By-Law permits a maximum building height of 10.5m; and, to legalize the existing multiple dwelling having a building height of 11.3m, whereas the By- Law permits a maximum building height of 10.5m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2017, advising the subject property is located on the west side of Lancaster Street West, south of Guelph Street. The property abuts Lips Park to the north. Surrounding properties are composed of low density residential land uses, such as single detached dwellings and triplexes. The property contains a 4- storey, 20-unit multiple dwelling constructed in approximately 1960. The majority of the existing parking is located along the north side of the driveway, including between the building and the street. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the current and new Official Plans. The property is split-zoned with the majority of the site being zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) and a small portion of the site near the southwest corner being zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5), with Special Regulation Provision 129U. In early 2014, the previous owner of the property applied for Site Plan Approval (Application SP14/009/L/AP) to construct an 18-unit multiple dwelling to the rear (west) of the existing multiple dwelling, and to intensify the existing 20-unit multiple dwelling with one unit through an internal renovation, for a total of 39 units. The Site Plan received Approved in Principle in March 2014 and included several conditions, including the need for several Minor Variances. Accordingly, the previous owner submitted Minor Variance Application (A 2014-019) which was heard at the April 2014 Committee Meeting, and requested: 1. A maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.85, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 for multiple dwellings (Section 40.2.6), 2. A maximum building height of 11.3 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law allows a maximum building height of 10.5 metres, for an existing multiple dwelling (Section 40.2.6), 3. A maximum building height of 11.0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law allows a maximum building height of 10.5 metres, to allow a proposed multiple dwelling (Section 40.2.6), and 4. Non-visitor off-street parking spaces to be located between the facade of an existing multiple dwelling and the front lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires that no non- visitor off-street parking spaces are to be located between the façade of an existing multiple dwelling and the front lot line \[Section 6.1.1.1.d)i)\]. At that time, the Committee approved the variances, subject to several conditions, including: ‘That the owner shall obtain final approval of Site Plan Application SP14/009/L/AP and shall obtain the required applicable building permits by April 15, 2015.’ COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 60 - 4. Submission No.: A 2017-025 (Cont’d) Unfortunately, the above condition was not fulfilled by the deadline and, consequently, the variance approval lapsed. Since that time, the property was purchased by the current owners and the Site Plan Application was reactivated. The lapsed Minor Variance approval was identified though the review of the reactivated Site Plan Application. Consequently, in June 2016, the new owners re-applied for all of the above noted variances through application A 2016-044. Unfortunately, this Minor Variance also lapsed since the conditions were not fulfilled by the December 31, 2016 deadline. It should be noted that this deadline coincided with the expiration of a Zoning By-law regulation that originated from an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) settlement that applied to this and nine other properties and allowed a significantly reduced parking rate. In this case, the regulation required that only 29 parking spaces be provided for the proposed 39 dwelling units (under the regular parking requirements 49 spaces are required). Since the Building Permit was not issued by the expiry date, the regulation for reduced parking also expired. In light of the above noted lapse of approval and expiry of the reduced parking regulation, in order to facilitate the proposed development, Planning staff suggested the owner consider seeking to justify a reduced parking rate through a parking study. The applicant followed through with the suggestion and retained LMM Engineering Inc. to conduct a Study, which was submitted with the subject Minor Variance Application. The Study accommodates an additional 5 parallel parking spaces along the south side of the property and one additional space within the main row of parking. The subject application requests the four variances noted above as well as the following: 5. Requesting to provide 45 parking spaces (1.15 spaces/unit) for multiple dwellings totalling 39 units, whereas 49 spaces are required (1.25 spaces/unit), and 6. Requesting to provide 6 visitor parking spaces (12% of required parking), whereas 10 visitor parking spaces (20% of required) are required. The City’s Transportation Services staff has reviewed the parking study, clarified the visitor parking reduction justification rationale, and has found the study acceptable. Transportation Services is, therefore, able to support the requested parking variances. 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. Regarding Variance 1 for Floor Space Ratio (FSR), Planning staff received notification in March 2017 (after the parking study for the subject application had been completed) that some of the policies of the new Official Plan are in effect, including Policy 15.D.3.11., which relates to the Low Rise Residential land use designation and states that ‘An Official Plan Amendment will be required to consider an increase in the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) greater than 0.75.’ Since the same 0.85 FSR Minor Variance request was approved two times previously and since Site Plan Approval in Principle for the proposed development was granted in March 2014, Planning staff is of the opinion that this case is different than approving a request for a new variance that had not received such approvals. On this basis, staff is satisfied that the intent of the aforementioned Official Plan policy is maintained. The intent of the FSR policy is ensure multiple dwellings are constructed at a low density. The general intent of FSR requirements is to regulate the massing and scale of a development. It should be noted that the proposed massing increase would not be visible from the street. In addition, the massing of the proposed building would mostly impact the property to the north, which is a City park. Since the grade of the park is higher than that of the subject property (estimated 2 metres grade difference), the impact on the park is negligible. Variance 1 is minor as it does not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties for the above noted reasons and since adequate setbacks are maintained to adjacent low density residential properties. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 61 - 4. Submission No.: A 2017-025 (Cont’d) Variances 2 and 3 meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The current Official Plan states that ‘Low Rise Residential Districts shall accommodate a full range of housing types. In these districts the City favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use.’ The current Official Plan also states ‘A maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 shall be applied to multiple dwellings and no residential building shall exceed three stories in height at street elevation.’ The proposed multiple dwelling is 3-storeys in height at street elevation. It should also be noted that the proposed building may not even be visible from the street, given the great distance between the building and the street and the fact that the existing multiple dwelling blocks its view. The existing multiple dwelling has been in existence for over half a century. Variances 2 and 3 meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the maximum building height regulation is to implement the maximum 3-storey policy of the Official Plan in order to ensure compatible, low rise buildings in this designation. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested building height variances maintain the intent of the Official Plan, as aforementioned. Variances 2 and 3 are minor as they do not cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. It should be noted that the proposed buildings abut Lips Park to the north, not residential development. The existing and proposed buildings maintain an adequate setback from adjacent low density residential land uses to the west and south. Variance 4 meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The Official Plan seeks to ensure appropriate urban design. This often involves creating a streetscape that locates buildings close to the street while locating parking in a less visible location, usually behind buildings. In this case, the lot orientation/shape does not allow for a building to be constructed close to the street. The existing parking lot is proposed to remain. However, the parking lot would be improved via the Site Plan Application, through the removal of parking from the northeasterly Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) and the installation of landscaping close to Lancaster Street. In this regard, the front yard would be improved through safety measures and through streetscape improvements. Variance 4 is minor as it does not cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The existing parking area in front of the existing building would be improved and would be made safer (see above). Variances 5 and 6 meet the intent of the Official Plan which is to ensure adequate regular and visitor parking is provided on-site. Transportation Services has reviewed the parking study prepared by LMM Engineering Inc., dated March 2, 2017 and has commented that the proposed regular and visitor parking rates are acceptable. In this regard, these requests are minor because they will not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Variances 1 through 6 are desirable for the appropriate development of the land since they would allow the construction of a unique form of housing, one not found in the surrounding neighbourhood, thereby adding to the mix of housing. In addition, the variances are desirable since they conform to an Official Plan policy which states ‘New additions and modifications to existing buildings are to be directed to the rear yard and are to be discouraged in the front yard and side yard abutting a street, except where it can be demonstrated that the addition and/or modification is compatible in scale, massing, design and character of adjacent properties and is in keeping with the character of the streetscape.’ The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 12, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Messrs. F. Lahouti and B. McCulloch were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. In response to questions, Mr. McCulloch advised Minor Variance applications for the subject property were previously considered and approved by the Committee in 2014 and 2016; however, the applications lapsed prior to the conditions being completed. He indicated the subject application remains unchanged, except for the addition of two variances COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 62 - 4. Submission No.: A 2017-025 (Cont’d) related to a parking reduction. He noted the subject property had a reduced parking regulation that has also since lapsed since the application was initially considered, adding the variances to reduce parking have been included in the subject application. He indicated a parking justification report has been submitted to Transportation Services in support of the proposed parking reduction. Mr. B. Cronkite advised Transportation Services staff have reviewed the parking study report and have no objections to the proposed parking reduction variance. He indicated there may be some issue with regards to visitor parking as there is no on-street parking on Lancaster Street West, adding he can confirm the number of parking spaces provided, 1.5 spaces/per unit, should be sufficient for the residential units. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2495513 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct an 18-unit multiple dwelling and legalize an existing 4-storey multiple dwelling proposed to contain 21 dwelling units (currently contains 20 units) having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for multiple dwellings of 0.85, whereas the By-Law permits a maximum FSR of 0.6; the required non-visitor off-street parking spaces to be located between the front façade of the existing multiple dwelling and the front lot line, whereas the By-Law does not permit off-street parking spaces to be located in this area; to provide 45 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 49; to provide 6 visitor off-street parking spaces rather than the required 10; a building height of 11.0 metres for the proposed multiple dwelling, whereas the By-Law permits a maximum building height of 10.5m; and, to legalize the existing multiple dwelling having a building height of 11.3m, whereas the By-Law permits a maximum building height of 10.5m, on Part Park Lot 551, Plan 378 and Part Lot 119, Streets and Lanes, being Parts 1 & 2 on Registered Plan 58R- 3605, 169 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain final approval of Site Plan Application SP14/009/L/AP by April 18, 2018 and that the Site Plan be modified to be in general conformity with the plan submitted with Minor Variance Application A 2017-025, to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning. 2. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate to legalize the existing 4- storey multiple dwelling proposed to contain a total of 21 units. Note that an Occupancy Certificate for the proposed new building will be required as part of the Site Plan Approval process. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 63 - 5. Submission Nos.: A 2017-026 Applicant: Wesley Dyck and Shirley Grove Property Location: 25 Shanley Street Legal Description: Part Lot 404, Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: W. Dyck Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to remove and reconstruct the staircase on an existing porch of a single detached dwelling. The stairs will have a height of 1.2m to be located within 3.0m from the street line, whereas the By-law does not permit stairs to exceed 0.6m in height within 3.0m of the street line; to permit an encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT; and, to permit the porch to be located 2.6m from the front lot line, rather than the required 4.5m setback. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 10, 2017, advising the subject property located at 25 Shanley Street is designated Low Rise Conservation in the K-W Hospital Secondary Plan and zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1. A single detached dwelling currently exists on the property. To accommodate the re-construction of the existing front porch, the owner is requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a reduced front yard setback of 2.6 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required. The owner is proposing to shift the steps from their current location on the side of the porch to the front, which requires relief from Section 5.6.1 a) of the Zoning By-law to allow steps 1.2 metres in height to be located within 3.0 metres of a street line, whereas the By-law only allows steps up to 0.6 metres in height to be located within 3.0 metres of a street line. Furthermore, the re-constructed front porch and set of steps are located within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) and as such, relief is required from Section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law to permit an obstruction higher than 0.9 metres to be located within a DVT. 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 Conservation in the K-W Hospital Secondary Plan. This designation aims to retain the existing low rise, low density character of the neighbourhood. The change to the step height within 3.0 metres of a street line, the front yard setback, and the permitted obstructions within a DVT 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 legalize the front yard setback for the subject property at 2.6 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the front yard setback is to allow adequate space between the front of the dwelling unit and the front lot line and to establish a build-to line along the street. This reduction in front yard setback continues to meet this intent as many homes in the area have front porches along this street and this is consistent with development patterns in the area. The front porch is being re-constructed in the same location, and this variance seeks to legalize the reduced front yard setback. Staff is of the opinion that this variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance to legalize steps 1.2 metres in height to be located within 3.0 metres of a street line, whereas the By-law allows steps up to 0.6 metres in height to be located within 3.0 metres of a street line, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of this regulation is to allow steps to be located within 3.0 metres of a street line, while restricting the height to minimize overall aesthetic impacts to the front yard and to ensure sight lines remain unobstructed when exiting a driveway. The proposed steps will be 1.2 metres in height, and it is the opinion of staff that steps of this height within 3.0 of the front lot line will not result in any adverse impacts to the neighbourhood as the character is maintained and it does not obstruct visibility. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 64 - 5. Submission No.: A 2017-026 (Cont’d) The requested variance to allow an object higher than 0.9 metres to be located within a visibility triangle, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of not allowing objects higher than 0.9 metres to be located within a visibility triangle is to ensure that vehicles exiting driveways are able to view pedestrians on the sidewalk, and other vehicles on the road. The porch and the front steps are proposed to be the objects encroaching into the DVT. The porch location is a pre- existing condition, and Staff is satisfied that by allowing the porch and front steps to encroach into the DVT, there is sufficient room to view pedestrians and oncoming vehicles when exiting the driveway of the subject property. Staff request a condition be added to ensure the railing on the front steps will be installed using non-obstructive materials (i.e. spindles, glass, etc.). The variances can be considered minor as the reduced front yard setback, altered step height within 3.0 metres of a street line, and encroachment into a DVT will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The variances are appropriate development for the property and surrounding area. The proposed variances will not impact the character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. Most properties in the surrounding neighbourhood currently have steps located in front of porches. By shifting the steps from the side of the porch to the front for the subject property, this is further in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 12, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. W. Dyck attended in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. He requested clarification on the proposed railings for the front porch and whether staff had any concerns related to visibility. Mr. B. Cronkite advised Transportation Services staff have no objections as long as the rails do not impede visibility. Ms. J. Meader questioned whether Condition 1 could be revised to add further clarification to the property owner. Ms. J. von Westerholt suggested a possible amendment state that the railing be constructed using non-obstructive materials in order to maintain driveway visibility generally in accordance with the Plan submitted with the application, to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services and Director of Planning. Moved by Ms. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. head That the application of Wesley Dyck and Shirley Grove requesting permission to remove and reconstruct the staircase on an existing porch of a single detached dwelling. The stairs will have a height of 1.2m to be located within 3.0m from the street line, whereas the By-law does not permit stairs to exceed 0.6m in height within 3.0m of the street line; to permit an encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT; and, to permit the porch to be located 2.6m from the front lot line, rather than the required 4.5m setback, on Part Lot 404, Plan 376, 25 Shanley Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall ensure the proposed railing be constructed using non-obstructive materials, generally as per the plans submitted with the application, in order to maintain driveway visibility. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 65 - 5. Submission No.: A 2017-026 (Cont’d) Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried 6. Submission Nos.: A 2017-027 Applicant: Citified Property Initiative inc. Property Location: 48 Martin Street Legal Description: Part Lot 11, Registered Plan 280 and Part Lot 235, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-2152 Appearances: In Support: S. O’Neill Contra: M. Allen Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to legalize a single detached dwelling under construction to have a rear yard setback of 7.27m rather than the required 7.5m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 10, 2017, advising the subject property located at 48 Martin Street is designated Low Rise Conservation in the Mill Courtland-Woodside Park Secondary Plan and zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) in Zoning By- law 85-1. There is a recently constructed single detached dwelling on the subject property. The owner is requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 7.27 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required. The purpose of the variance is to correct an error that occurred during the construction of the dwelling, which resulted in the foundation being located within the required rear 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 offers the followingcomments. The subject property is designated Low Rise Conservation in the Mill Courtland-Woodside Park Secondary Plan. This designation aims to retain the existing low rise, low density character of the neighbourhood, while allowing a slight density increase. The minor change to the rear yard setback 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 is appropriate. The requested variance to legalize the rear yard setback at 7.27 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed rear yard setback of 7.27 metres will continue to allow for an adequate amenity space and will not negatively impact adjacent properties. The variance can be considered minor as the reduced rear yard setback will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. The subject dwelling would encroach only 0.23 metres into the required rear yard setback, maintaining a sufficient outdoor amenity space that is just slightly smaller than the required rear yard. The proposed reduced rear yard will likely not appear smaller at first glance. The variance is appropriate development for the property and surrounding area. The scale, massing and height of the subject dwelling is appropriate and consistent with the existing single detached dwellings in the neighbourhood. The proposed variance will not impact the character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 66 - 6. Submission No.: A 2017-027 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 12, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. S. O’Neill noted he was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Ms. M. Allen addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application. She noted there is a lack of clarity on what is being constructed on the subject property and she has concerns with the future use of the dwelling. In response to questions, Mr. O’Neill advised the dwelling under construction is intended to be a duplex. Ms. J. von Westerholt noted there was some lack of clarity on what the applicant was proposing on site, whether it was a single detached dwelling or a duplex. She requested clarity from the Committee when rendering the decision that the reduced rear yard is for a duplex, rather than a single detached dwelling. Questions were raised regarding the dwelling and whether it was built as per the plans submitted to the City when obtaining the necessary approvals. Mr. O’Neill the dwelling under construction is an accurate reflection of what was proposed in the approved Building Permits. He noted there was an error when the foundation was poured, which has slightly reduced the rear yard. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Citified Property Initiative Inc. requesting permission to legalize a duplex under construction to have a rear yard setback of 7.27m rather than the required 7.5m, on Part Lot 11, Registered Plan 280 and Part Lot 235, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-18816, 48 Martin Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried 7. Submission Nos.: A 2017-028 Applicant: 270 Spadina Kitchener Inc. Property Location: 270 Spadina Road East Legal Description: Lots 36-38, 41, 54 & 55 and Part lots 56-58, Registered Plan 224, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: P. Chauvin S. Litt Contra: D. Drnovscek Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 67 - 7. Submission No.: A 2017-028 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to renovate an existing multi- residential dwelling currently having 57 units to increase the number of existing apartment units to 103 having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.15 whereas the By-law permits a maximum FSR of 1.0; to have an existing front yard setback of 4.61m rather than the required 9.75m; and, to legalize the size of the parking spaces within the existing parking garage to be 2.81m wide and 5.46m in length rather than the required 3.04m wide and 5.49m in length. There are no changes to the proposed footprint of the building as a result of the proposal. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 10, 2017, advising the subject property is currently developed with a 6-storey residential building consisting of 57 dwelling units with one level of interior parking. The property is designated as Low Density Multiple Residential in the Mill Courtland Secondary Plan and zoned as Residential Seven (R-7). The proposed minor variances are being sought to legalize the existing building’s front yard setback, the overall Floor Space Ratio (FSR), and the interior parking stall sizes. The requests include; legalizing the existing FSR of 1.15, legalizing an existing front yard setback of 4.61 metres, and legalizing the size of the existing interior (garage) parking stall sizes. The existing building is proposed to be renovated. As part of the renovations, an additional 46 dwelling units are being added to the building, for a total of 103 dwelling units. The exterior parking areas are proposed to be redeveloped in accordance with current standards as part of the site plan process. 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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the Low Density Multiple Residential designation is to recognize existing multiple dwellings and permit the development and integration of higher density multiple residential uses while maintaining the overall low rise characteristics of the neighbourhood. Developments with a density greater than 100 units per hectare are permitted where the building has a FSR of less than 1.0. In this case, the size of the building is not changing. The additional units are being accommodated within the existing built form, resulting in no changes to the character of the community. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the front yard setback, maximum FSR, and vehicle parking space dimensions in the By-law is to ensure that new development is compatible with the existing community and can adequately function. The building was constructed without step-backs from the Spadina streetline, resulting in a non- compliance regarding the front setback regulation. The FSR calculation was completed using only existing building floor area, and no new floor area is proposed. The interior parking spaces, including barrier-free spaces, are currently undersized in depth. However, the width and supply of barrier-free spaces meet the current standard and have been located within the parking garage, allowing barrier-free access to the building’s elevator. The requested variances are minor. The variances will legalize the existing building envelope to allow for the renovation of the building. There will be no changes to the overall size of the building. Exterior changes will include improvements to the parking area, improved drainage and storm water management, as well as upgrades to the exterior finishes of the building. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variances will allow for the renovation of the building and additional density without impacting the character of the neighbourhood and without adding any additional building floor area. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 12, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Messrs. P. Chauvin and S. Litt attended in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Mr. Chauvin advised the subject property and proposed development has received Site Plan Approval in Principle and the purpose of the subject application is to legalize the building in its existing condition. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 2017 - 68 - 7. Submission No.: A 2017-028 (Cont’d) Mr. D. Drnovscek addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application. He noted he owns a neighbouring six-plex dwelling and expressed concerns with overflow parking from the subject property onto his property, creating issues for his tenants. He indicated in his opinion, the subject property does not have adequate parking on-site and expressed concerns with the increased units causing issues related to parking and sewage capacity. Mr. Chauvin indicated the applicant is not in attendance seeking a variance related to a reduction in on-site parking. He noted they are providing the required number of spaces as outlined in the By-law, including the required 20% in visitor spaces and an additional 10% in bicycle parking. He stated the current number of residential units on site is 57, adding the applicant is proposing to increase the number of units to 103. Ms. J. Meader stated the Committee does not have the authorization to address the concerns raised regarding parking, as the applicant is not requesting any variation of the parking requirements. Mr. Drnovscek noted he is not a resident of the City of Kitchener, adding this was the first opportunity he was aware of to provide feedback related to the area, and he wished to raise his concerns. He further advised he is willing to work with the applicant to find a suitable solution, recognizing they have newly acquired the property. He expressed further concerns related to the parking and questioned whether City services were sufficient in the area to manage the increased number of residential units. Ms. J. von Westerholt noted the subject property was required to obtain Site Plan approval, a process that involves a number of City departments reviewing various development proposals. She indicated through this process, if it was determined the City services were not sufficient to service the proposed development, the applicant would be required to upgrade at their cost. Mr. A. Head suggested Mr. Drnovscek may wish to contact the City’s By-law Enforcement office to obtain ‘Private Property’ signs and obtain the authority to issue parking tickets. He noted he has experienced issues with overflow parking on his property, and issuing tickets has managed the overflow problem he was experiencing. In response to questions regarding the variance for the size of the parking stalls, Mr. Cronkite indicated the loss of 5cm would not adversely impact the use of the spaces. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of 270 Spadina Kitchener Inc. requesting permission to renovate an existing multi-residential dwelling currently having 57 units to increase the number of existing apartment units to 103 having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.15 whereas the By-law permits a maximum FSR of 1.0; to have an existing front yard setback of 4.61m rather than the required 9.75m; and, to legalize the size of the parking spaces within the existing parking garage to be 2.81m wide and 5.46m in length rather than the required 3.04m wide and 5.49m in length. There are no changes to the proposed footprint of the building as a result of the proposal, on Lots 36-38, 41, 54 & 55 and Part lots 56-58, Registered Plan 224, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract, 270 Spadina Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Permit prior to occupancy of the proposed renovated building from the Director of Planning for the 103-unit multiple dwelling building. 2. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City’s Chief Building Official for the interior renovation work. 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 APRIL 18, 2017 - 69 - 7. Submission No.: A 2017-028 (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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:44 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 18th day of April, 2017. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment