Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-18 CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 18, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. D. Cybalski, Ms. J. Meader and Ms. P. Kohli. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst; Mr. A. Pinnell, Planner; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:00 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 June 20, 2017, as circulated to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE: 1. Submission No.: A 2017-064 Applicant: 2141789 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 17 Raitar Avenue Legal Description: Lots 6 & 7, Registered Plan 866, Part Lot 24, Subdivision of Lot 4, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: A. Faikovski Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to have a westerly side yard setback of 1.38m rather than the required 2.5m setback; and, to allow 2 visitor parking spaces to be located 2.7m from the front lot line rather than the required 4.5m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated July 5, 2017, advising the subject property is located at 17 Raitar Avenue and is designated Low Rise Residential in both the 1994 and 2014 Official Plans and zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is currently developed as a multiple residential building containing 12 units. The owner has submitted a Site Plan Application (Application #SP17/048/R/CD - Stamp Plan B) to add a barrier-free parking space, and to relocate two visitor parking spaces on the existing lot. In order to facilitate the above noted Site Plan Application, the applicant is proposing minor variances to legalize two visitor parking spaces in the front yard as a result of relocating the spaces, and to legalize the existing building’s side yard setback. As such, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1(d)(ii) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to legalize two visitor parking R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and 1994 Official Plan. Although a significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal, it should be noted that certain policies do apply, such as those policies within the Parking Section. In this case, both plans are being relied upon to determine whether the subject variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan, which encourages a full range of housing types that achieve an overall low density neighbourhood through Low Rise Residential Policy 3.1.2.1 of the 1994 Official Plan. The applicant is requesting these minor variances with the intent to continue the successful functioning of the residential use. The variance to legalize the front yard setback for the visitor parking, and the side yard setback for the existing building, will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood, as well as maintain safe and efficient movement of all users, on the site, and at points of ingress and egress related to the site. 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 legalize the 2.7 metre visitor parking setback meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of not permitting visitor parking within the front yard is to provide visual separation between the property and the street, as well as to provide an area for landscape buffering. Given that the variance is to legalize the visitor parking spaces and the 2.7 metre setback from Raitar Avenue, staff is satisfied the requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance to legalize the side yard setback at 1.38 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a side yard setback of 2.5 metres is to provide adequate separation from neighbouring properties, to allow property owners enough space to maintain any exterior walls along the side lot line, and to provide enough room to access the rear yard. It is the opinion of staff that a 1.12 metre reduction in the side yard setback will still allow for adequate separation between neighbouring properties, maintenance of the exterior walls, and rear yard access given that the side yard setback will not present any significant impacts that do not already exist. The variances can be considered minor. The intent of the parking setback and Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) regulations in the Zoning By-law is to allow vehicles to safely enter and exit the property without encumbrances to other vehicles, pedestrians or the streetscape. Since the visitor parking spaces are positioned parallel to the building, they are located outside of the required 4.5 metre DVT, and allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward motion. Staff is satisfied that the requested variance will not present any significant impacts to other vehicles, pedestrians, or the streetscape. Additionally, given that the purpose of the application is to also recognize the existing side yard setback with no changes proposed to the building at this time, staff is satisfied that the requested variance will not present any significant impacts on adjacent properties that do not already exist. The variance for visitor parking can be considered minor as Transportation staff does not have concerns with the minimal reduction of the visitor parking setback. It is staff’s opinion that there is an appropriate buffer between the street and the proposed parking spaces for the site to continue to function successfully. The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the existing use is permitted in the Zoning By-law. The application is to legalize setbacks; therefore the proposed variance will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. Based on the above comments, staff is of the opinion that the variances requested are minor, meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, and are appropriate for the lot and surrounding neighbourhood. they have no concerns with this application. Mr. A. Faikovski was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2141789 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to have a westerly side yard setback of 1.38m rather than the required 2.5m setback; and, to allow 2 visitor parking spaces to be located 2.7m from the front lot line rather than the required 4.5m., on Lots 6 & 7, Registered Plan 866, Part Lot 24, Subdivision of Lot 4, German Company Tract, 17 Raitar Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. 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 2. Submission No.: A 2017-065 Applicant: Kimberly and Michael Pereira Property Location: 70 Mount Hope Street Legal Description: Part Lots 12 & 13, Registered Plan 438 Appearances: In Support: K. & M. Pereira Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to reconstruct a sunroom on the front of an existing single detached dwelling having a front yard setback of 3.43m rather than the required 4.5m; a southerly side yard setback of 0.89m rather than the required 1.2m; a northerly side yard setback of 2.1m whereas 3m is required when the driveway is located in the side yard; to legalize the existing driveway width of 2.1m rather than the required 2.6m; and, to permit a 1.14m encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not allow encroachments into the DVT. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated July 10, 2017, advising the subject property is designated Low Rise Conservation in the City’s K-W Hospital Secondary Plan and zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Use Provision 129U, which prohibits multiple dwellings. The lands are developed with an existing single detached dwelling. The owners are proposing to reconstruct the existing sunroom addition attached to the front of the dwelling, and as such are requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 to permit a reduced front yard setback of 3.43 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; Section 39.2.1 to legalize the existing driveway width of 2.1 metres, whereas a minimum width of 2.6 metres is required; and Section 5.3 to permit a 1.14 metre encroachment into the 4.57 metre DVT, whereas no encroachments are permitted. 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 City’s K-W Hospital Secondary Plan. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Secondary Plan, which intends to retain the existing low rise, low density residential character of the 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 permit a reduced front yard setback of 3.43 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.5 metre front yard setback is to provide separation between the structure and the street line. As the setback is existing, staff is satisfied the reduction of 1.07 metres will maintain adequate separation and meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance to legalize the southerly side yard setback of 0.89 metres, whereas 1.2 metres is required meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 1.2 metre side yard setback is to ensure there is adequate separation between neighbouring properties and to provide access to the rear yard. As the setback is existing, staff is satisfied the 0.89 metre setback will continue to provide adequate separation and access to the rear yard. Rear yard access is also provided on the opposite side of the house, through the existing 2.1 metre side yard. The requested variances to legalize the reduced northerly side yard setback of 2.1 metres, whereas 3 metres is required where the driveway is located in the side yard, and the requested variance to legalize the existing driveway width of 2.1 metres, whereas a minimum width of 2.6 metres is required, meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the 3 metre side yard setback is to ensure there is adequate separation between the vehicle and dwelling to accommodate the vehicle’s door swing. The purpose of the minimum 2.6 metre driveway width is to ensure there is adequate space in the driveway to accommodate a parked vehicle. Staff notes that there is a registered right-of-way over 66 Mt. Hope Street in favour of the subject property to accommodate the shared access. As such, staff is satisfied the variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law as both the reduced side yard setback and driveway width are existing. The requested variance to allow the sunroom addition to encroach 1.14 metres into the DVT meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.57 metre DVT is to provide visibility for vehicles exiting the driveway and pedestrians. The sunroom as it exists encroaches into the DVT and the proposed re-built sunroom will be constructed using the same footprint. As such, staff is satisfied the requested variance will not exasperate the existing non-complying situation, therefore the requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor as the reduced front and side yard setbacks, reduced driveway width, and encroachment into the DVT will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The purpose of these variances is to legalize existing conditions in order to facilitate the reconstruction of the existing sunroom. As such, there will be no impact. 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 of the subject 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 requested variances as the proposed sunroom is replacing an existing structure, and staff have received no concerns to date. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Kimberly and Michael Pereira requesting permission to reconstruct a sunroom on the front of an existing single detached dwelling having a front yard setback of 3.43m rather than the required 4.5m; a southerly side yard setback of 0.89m rather than the required 1.2m; a northerly side yard setback of 2.1m whereas 3m is required when the driveway is located in the side yard; to legalize the existing driveway width of 2.1m rather than the required 2.6m; and, to permit a 1.14m encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not allow encroachments into the DVT, on Part Lots 12 & 13, Registered Plan 438, 70 Mt. Hope Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owners shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division. 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 No.: A 2017-066 Applicant: Stephen and Lauren Lake Property Location: 32 Ahrens Street West Legal Description: Part Lot 184, Registered Plan 374 Appearances: In Support: S. Lake Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to allow construction of 2 additional storeys on an existing 1-storey single detached dwelling having a height of 11.43m rather than the required 10.5m; and, a westerly side yard setback of 2.71m rather than the required 3.0m to allow access to a parking space. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated June 30, 2017, advising the subject property located at 32 Ahrens Street West is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Multiple Residential in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. The owner is proposing to demolish the existing single detached dwelling and replace it with a new single detached dwelling located on the subject lands and has requested two variances. The owner is requesting relief from Section R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The subject property is designated Low Rise Multiple Residential in the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. The Low Rise Multiple Residential designation allows for integrated redevelopment to take place such as the redevelopment of single detached dwellings. It is Planning staff’s opinion that 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 requested variances are appropriate and continue to maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood, which is characterized by a variety of lot sizes and built form options. The proposed variances conform to the designation and it is the further opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance to increase the building height to 11.43 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 10.5 metre building height requirement is to ensure the height is at a scale complimentary to the low rise residential nature of the City’s residential neighbourhoods. An increase of 0.93 metres is considered minor and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. As such, staff is satisfied the requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law The variance to recognize the existing side yard setback leading to a parking space meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 3.0 metre setback is to provide adequate distance separation between the dwelling and side yard to ensure there is enough space for a vehicle to access a parking space located in the rear. The driveway and setback are existing and provides sufficient access for a vehicle. Staff is satisfied the requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor as the increased building height and reduced side yard setback leading to a parking space will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The purpose of these variances is to legalize an existing condition and to allow the building height to be slightly increased to allow redevelopment of a single detached dwelling on the subject lands. The proposed development is compatible with the Civic Centre Neighbourhood and Heritage Planning staff have no concerns with the proposed redevelopment or variances as the impact of these variances will be negligible. 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. The new single detached dwelling will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or the surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 4, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. S. Lake was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. In response to questions, he noted demolition and building permits have already been obtained. Mr. B. Bateman requested an additional condition be added to the Committee’s decision this date requiring a Tree Management Plan be submitted subject to approval by the City’s Director of Planning. Mr. Lake stated the trees have already been removed. The Chair proposed a condition requiring a Tree Management Plan would be included to the Committee’s decision, noting that should not be onerous for the owner to clear. He indicated the decision would also include conditions requiring relevant demolition and building permits. Mr. Lake agreed with the Committee’s decision. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Ms. J. Meader of 2 additional storeys on an existing 1-storey single detached dwelling having a height of 11.43m rather than the required 10.5m; and, a westerly side yard setback of 2.71m rather than the required 3.0m to allow access to a parking space, on Part Lot 184, Registered Plan 374, 32 Ahrens Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall prepare a Tree Management Plan 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 issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped areas and vegetation to be preserved. 2. That the owners shall obtain a demolition permit from the City’s Building Division. 3. That the owners shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division. 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 4. Submission No.: A 2017-067 Applicant: Kris Deyarmond Property Location: 80-96 Sydney Street North Legal Description: Lots 8, 9, 10 & 11, Registered Plan 719 Appearances: In Support: H. Holbrook P. Tolton L. Kieswetter E. Ceric Contra: D. Herlick C. Gildea T. Swigart L. Belair D. Lafreniere V. Cryne Written Submissions: D. Herlick E. VanDam K. Young S. and S. Fereiro L. Belair T. Swigart J. Hilborn H. Sheard V. Cryne P. Becker The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct two 3.5 storey multi-residential dwellings on the subject property. For the purpose of this development currently under Site Plan review, the development will require variances for porches to be located 3.3m from the front lot line rather than the required 6.0m; an easterly side yard setback of 3.6m rather than the required 6.0m.; a rear yard setback of 4.9m rather than the required 7.5m; a visual barrier 1.5m in height abutting a residential zone rather than the required 1.8m; to provide 51 off- street parking spaces (1.15 per unit) rather than the required 55 off-street parking spaces (1.25 per unit); to provide 7 (13%) visitor off-street parking spaces rather than the required 11 visitor off- street parking spaces (20%); and, to permit the visitor parking spaces to be located 5.8m from the front lot line whereas the By-law does not permit visitor parking spaces to be located within the required front yard. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated July 10, 2017, advising the four subject properties are located on the northwest side of Sydney Street North, between Rosedale Avenue and Weber Street East, in the King Street East Planning Community. The subject properties are in individual ownership and currently contain existing low rise residential development: • 80 Sydney St N: single detached dwelling constructed in 1952; • 86 Sydney St N: duplex dwelling constructed in 1951; • 92 Sydney St N: duplex constructed in 1952; and • 96 Sydney St N: single detached dwelling constructed in 1952. The surrounding area is composed of a mix of land uses. A 6-unit multiple dwelling is located immediately to the west. The properties fronting onto Rosedale Avenue (to the southwest) contain mainly single detached dwellings. The properties on the opposite side of Sydney Street contain mainly single detached dwellings. A triplex is located immediately to the east, while mainly single detached dwelling are located to the northeast which front onto Weber Street. A religious institution is located immediately behind the subject properties, to the north. The subject properties are designated Low Density Multiple Residential in the King Street East Secondary Plan with Special Policy Area 58 (within the 1994 City’s Official Plan). Special Policy Area 58 relates to properties within Major Transit Station Areas. The subject properties are zoned Residential Seven (R-7). Last year, the applicant submitted a Site Plan Application (SP16/036/S/AP) to construct a two multiple dwellings on the lands: one fronting Sydney Street with 24 units, and one behind (to the north) with 20 units. The multiple dwellings are in the form of stacked townhouses. The Site Plan received Approval in Principle in May 2017 subject to conditions, including that the owners obtain final approval of a minor variance application. Consequently, the owner is now requesting the following minor variances in order to facilitate the development proposed through the above noted Site Plan Application: 1. Requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow parking at a rate of 1.15 spaces per unit (total of 51 spaces for 44 units), rather than the required 1.25 spaces per unit (total of 55 spaces for 44 units); 2. Requesting relief from Section 6.1.2b)vi)B) of the Zoning By-law to permit required visitor parking at a rate of 13% (total of 7 spaces for 44 units) of required parking rather than the required 20% (total of 11 spaces for 44 units); 3. Requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1d)ii)1 of the Zoning By-law to permit visitor parking located 5.8 metres from the front lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law does not permit located 3.3 metres from the front lot line, rather than the required 6.0 metre front yard setback of the R-7 Zone; 5. Requesting relief from Section 41.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to permit a minimum east side yard of 3.6 metres, rather than the required 6.0 metres; 6. Requesting relief from Section 5.11 of the Zoning By-law to permit a visual barrier 1.5 metres in height abutting a residential zone, rather than the required 1.8 metres; and, 7. Requesting relief from Section 41.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to permit a rear yard of 4.9 metres, rather than the required 7.5 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. Special Policy Area 58 provides the interim policy direction for how development applications will be evaluated until such time as the City completes the Planning Around Rapid Transit Areas Study (PARTS) implementation process. The subject site is not part of the Focus Area for intensification and is part of the established neighbourhood. As such, the associated policies inform, in part, the intent of the Official Plan to which, in this case, is to support and maintain the existing character and planned function of the stable low rise residential area. Planning staff is of the opinion that Variances 1 and 2, which relate to parking relief, meet the intent of the King Street East Secondary Plan (within the 1994 Official Plan), applicable 2014 Official Plan policies, and the Zoning By-law. The 2014 Official Plan states: 13.C.8.2. The City may consider adjustments to parking requirements for properties within an area or areas, where the City is satisfied that adequate alternative parking facilities are available, where developments adopt transportation demand management (TDM) measures or where sufficient transit exists or is to be provided. and, 4.C.1.8. Where…minor variances are requested, proposed or required to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to ensure, that: e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. In this regard, the City’s Transportation Services has confirmed support for the parking relief, subject to minor re-labeling of proposed parking spaces, based on the pedestrian opportunities and transit-supportive nature of the site/proposed development: There are several existing GRT bus routes in close proximity to the site, the site is walkable and errands can be accomplished on foot. Also, there is a future ION stop near Charles Street and Ottawa Street. Therefore, based on the walkability, existing GRT bus routes and future ION stop and the reallocation of visitor parking, Transportation Services supports the proposed parking reductions. Variances 1 and 2 are minor since they are not anticipated to cause any unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. It should be noted the City’s Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBy) proposes a rate of 1.1 spaces per unit for this context, subject to certain Transportation Demand Measures, which is less than the parking ratio proposed as part of the subject variance application. residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to ensure, that: a) Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. b) Where front yard setback reductions are proposed for new buildings in established neighbourhoods, the requested front yard setback should be similar to adjacent properties and supports and maintain the character of the streetscape and the neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion that the requested setback reductions are compatible with adjacent development and the related development is of an appropriate massing and scale. Variances 3, 4, 5, and 7 will not cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties or on the Sydney Street right-of-way. Planning staff is of the opinion that Variance 6, which relates to the height reduction of the visual barrier around the parking area, meets the intent of the applicable 2014 Official Plan policies, and the Zoning By-law. This variance would slightly reduce the height of a proposed visual barrier (i.e., fence) on top of a retaining wall and any visual encroachment impacts that might be related with it, while ensuring that headlight glare from vehicles in the proposed parking area is mitigated. The 2014 Official Plan states: d) New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. All requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The Low Density Multiple Residential policies of the King Street East Secondary Plan (within the 1994 Official Plan) state that: Permitted uses are restricted to single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi- detached dwellings, multiple dwellings, small and large residential care facilities, lodging houses, home businesses, and private home day care. Opportunities for residential development are provided to a maximum density of 100 units per hectare. The Maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 1.0, that is, the above grade building floor area shall not exceed 1.0 times the lot area. Multiple dwellings may be permitted to exceed 100 units per hectare on an individual site provided the Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 is not exceeded. (emphasis added) The requested variances would facilitate the development of multiple dwellings (stacked townhouses) that are compatible and in character with the surrounding low density residential development at a FSR of 1.0 and maximum height of 11.1 metres. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 4, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered a petition on behalf of neighbourhood property owners who were not in support of the subject application, dated July 14, 2017. Ms. H. Holbrook, Ms. P. Tolton and Messrs. L. Kieswetter and E. Ceric were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Ms. Holbrook provided a brief summary of the application, stating it was submitted to facilitate a Site Plan which has Approval in Principal. She acknowledged the comments from Transportation Services regarding barrier-free parking spaces, noting the applicant has no objections to a revision of the Site Plan. She expressed concerns with Condition 2 as noted in the staff report related to obtaining building permits and agreed to remove Condition 2 as outlined in the staff recommendation. Ms. J. Meader questioned whether it would be more appropriate to amend Condition 1 to remove the reference of redistribution of parking, making the condition more generic by simply requiring the applicant to obtain full Site Plan Approval. Mr. A. Pinnell advised, in speaking with area residents, it has been identified that there may be some issues related to drainage and a retaining wall on the subject property that should be reviewed in further detail, which could be completed through the Site Plan Approval process. The Chair noted it may be more appropriate to address the concerns regarding drainage in a separate condition. Mr. D. Hurley was in attendance on behalf of neighbouring property owners, noting he was not in opposition of the subject application; however, he expressed concerns with various items related to the proposed development, including: drainage; the retaining wall/fence height; hydro; parking; and, snow removal. He acknowledged staff have addressed the concerns related to drainage. He questioned whether consideration could be given to increasing the height of the fence located between the subject property and the adjacent property owners to 7 or 8 feet in height. The Chair noted any concerns related to hydro must be addressed by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., as they are not under the Committee’s jurisdiction. Ms. T. Swigart, Mr. L. Belair and Ms. C. Gildea were in attendance in opposition of the subject application, and expressed further concerns related to insufficient parking located on site and on- street, as well as snow removal. In response to questions, Mr. D. Seller advised Transportation Services staff have no objections to the requested parking variance. He indicated the existing parking should be sufficient for the proposed development. He further advised the City is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBY) and the parking proposed by the applicant is greater than what would be proposed through the future Zoning By-law. With regards to winter/on-street parking concerns, the Chair advised there has been a decline in parking demand where public transportation is readily available. He further advised snow removal would be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process, adding if there were further concerns related to snow storage, the owners would be required to make arrangements for snow removal from the subject property. Questions were raised regarding the visual barrier/fence height and what is permitted in the Zoning/Fence By-laws. Mr. A. Pinnell advised the maximum permitted height of a fence is 2.4m. The Chair noted the Committee could consider adding a condition for a fence to be permitted to the maximum height allowed by the By-law, indicating anything greater than 2.4m in height would need a separate variance that would require Council approval. A motion was brought forward by Ms. J. Meader to approve the subject application with the following three conditions, being: that the applicant obtain Site Plan Approval by July 18, 2018; that the applicant shall address any issues related to drainage to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering; and, to construct a fence/visual barrier between the subject property and the neighbouring properties to the maximum height as outlined in the By-law. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli Developments requesting permission to construct two 3.5 storey multi-residential dwellings on the subject properties for the purpose of the development outlined in Site Plan Application SP16/036/S/AP. The development will require variances for porches to be located 3.3m from the front lot line rather than the required 6.0m; an easterly side yard setback of 3.6m rather than the required 6.0m.; a rear yard setback of 4.9m rather than the required 7.5m; a visual barrier 1.5m in height abutting a residential zone rather than the required 1.8m; to provide 51 off-street parking spaces (1.15 per unit) rather than the required 55 off-street parking spaces (1.25 per unit); to provide 7 (13%) visitor off-street parking spaces rather than the required 11 visitor off-street parking spaces (20%); and, to permit the visitor parking spaces to be located 5.8m from the front lot line whereas the By-law does not permit visitor parking spaces to be located within the required front yard, on Lots 8, 9, 10 & 11, Registered Plan 719, 80-96 Sydney Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain approval of a revision to Site Plan Application SP16/036/S/AP from the City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service, in consultation with the City’s Director of Transportation Planning, prior to July 18, 2018. 2. That, through the review of Site Plan Application SP16/036/S/AP, the owner shall ensure proper drainage flows, including consideration for drainage from neighbouring properties onto the subject site, to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Engineering Services. 3. That the owner shall install a visual barrier (wood, board-on-board fence) in accordance with the Zoning By-law to the maximum height permitted in the Fence By-law (i.e., 2.4 metres), to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning. 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 5. Submission No.: A 2017-068 Applicant: SMRF Ontario Ltd. Property Location: 450 Frederick Street Legal Description: Part Lots 1 & 2, Plan 724, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-1442 Appearances: In Support: J. Gagne S. Bhatty Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission for an existing multi-use office building to permit 39 off-street parking spaces in an existing plaza complex rather than the required 41 spaces to accommodate a new tenant operating a medical practice. parking spaces in an existing plaza complex rather than the required 41 spaces to accommodate a new tenant operating a medical practice. 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 Node in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in both the 1994 and 2014 Official Plans (portions of the 2014 plan under appeal). The intent of the designation is for properties to serve an inter-neighbourhood function and allow for intensive, transit supportive development in a compact form. The nodes provide a balanced distribution of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed variance for parking that is based on the uses in the building meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a full range of commercial and institutional uses. The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor. The intent of the parking regulations is to ensure sufficient parking for employees and clients to the premises. The building was originally constructed in approximately 1976 as a multiple tenant office building and the parking requirement complied under a previous By-law. In 1987, Committee of Adjustment decision A 584/97 granted permission for the building to be used by one business office only with a parking reduction under the previous By-law. At some point between 1987 and the present, the building was converted back to a multiple tenant office building and a parking deficiency resulted in the current By-law. The new owner would like to legalize the parking deficiency before he renovates the upper floor for his use. The building has operated as a multi-tenant building for many years without complaints received about parking. As noted by the applicant, the owner/new tenant will be able to operate his use on the third floor with a low-patient load and is able to control the number of patients seen per hour. The parking reduction is for two spaces which can be considered minor based on the minimum 41 spaces required. Staff is of the opinion that there is minimal to no impact on the use of the building and therefore parking would not be negatively impacted. It is also noted that Transportation Services are in support of the proposed parking variance. The variances are appropriate development for the property and surrounding streetscape. As noted above, there would be minimal impact on the parking to acknowledge the multiple tenant uses in the building which have existed for many years. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 4, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Messrs. S. Bhatty and J. Gagne were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of SMRF Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to for an existing multi-use office building to permit 39 off-street parking spaces in an existing plaza complex rather than the required 41 spaces to accommodate a new tenant operating a medical practice, on Part Lots 1 & 2, Plan 724, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-1442, 450 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning division. 2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the proposed renovations. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 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 CONSENT APPLICATIONS: 1. Submission No.: B 2017-017 Applicant: 2469440 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 1792 Glasgow Street Legal Description: Part Lot 38, German Company Tract, being Part 5 on Reference Plan 58R-6375 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever an 'L' shaped parcel of land having a width of 28.1m, a southerly depth of 138m and an area of 5062.4 sq.m. The retained land will have a width of 28.1m, a depth of 90m and an area of 2,209.6 sq.m. The proposed use for the severed and retained lands is residential and general industrial. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated July 11, 2017, advising the subject property is located at 1792 Glasgow Street in an industrial area. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the parcel into two lots. This property was the subject of consent application B 2015-040 which was submitted by a previous owner and was approved by the Committee on June 16, 2015. The previous owner did not fulfill the conditions within the one year time-frame and as such, the consent approval lapsed. The subject consent is being proposed by a new owner, and reflects identical lot sizes and configurations as the 2015 application. However since consideration of the 2015 application a new Regional Official Plan (ROP) and City’s Official Plan (OP) have come into effect (June 18, 2015 and September 23, 2015 respectively). The subject lands are located in an area of the City which is not serviced by the municipal sanitary system and a private septic system is proposed. New policies of the ROP and the OP are more restrictive than previous policies with respect severances and development on unserviced lands. The applicant has requested that the subject application be deferred to the August 2017 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow time for further discussions with Regional and City staff with respect to the proposed consent application. A motion was brought forward by Ms. J. Meader to defer consideration of the subject application to the August 15, 2017 Committee of Adjustment meeting. Ms. P. Kohli seconded the motion. COMBINED APPLICATIONS: 1. Submission Nos.: B 2017-018, A 2017-069 and A 2017-070 Applicants: Gateway Village Homes Property Location: 34 & 36 Raitar Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 24, Subdivision of Part Lot 4, German Company Tract, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-18128 Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised 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 on Raiter Avenue of 8.8m, a depth of 14.6m and an area of 153.2 sq.m. The retained land will have a width on Raitar Avenue of 12.1m, a depth of 14.6 m and an area of 176.8 sq.m. Permission is also being requested for the severed land to have a lot area of 153.2 sq.m. rather than the required 235 sq.m; and, to legalize an existing encroachment of 2.48m into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT. In addition, permission is also being requested for the retained land to have a lot area of 176.8 sq.m. rather than the required 235 sq.m; and, to legalize an existing encroachment of 2.47m into the DVT, whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated June 12, 2017, advising the subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s 2014 Official Plan and zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Regulation 422R, which applies special regulations for multiple dwellings and street townhouse dwellings. The lands are currently developed with an existing semi-detached house. The existing development of the neighbourhood consists of a mix of single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, and low rise multiple dwellings. Lot sizes vary in width, depth, and area. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots to allow separate ownership of each semi-detached dwelling unit (B 2017-018). The severed lot would have a lot width of 8.824 metres, a depth ranging between 14.622 and 14.990 metres, and an area of 153.2 square metres. The retained lot would have a lot width of 12.093 metres, a depth of 14.622 metres, and an area of 176.8 square metres. In addition, the owner has submitted two minor variance applications: A 2017-069 (retained lands) - requesting relief from Section 40.2.3 to permit a reduced lot area of 153.2 square metres, whereas 235 square metres is required and Section 5.3 to legalize the existing 2.48 metre encroachment into the 4.57 metre DVT, whereas no encroachments are permitted. A 2016-070 (severed lands) - requesting relief from Section 40.2.3 to permit a reduced lot area of 176.8 square metres, whereas 235 square metres is required and Section 5.3 to legalize the existing 2.47 metre encroachment into the 4.57 metre DVT, whereas no encroachments are permitted. The property was previously subject to applications B 2013-055 and A 2013-056. The purpose of these applications was to sever the subject property from 87 Ellis Avenue and to permit reductions to the front, rear, and off-street parking setbacks for the semi-detached dwelling proposed at that time for the now subject property. These applications were approved by the Committee on December 30, 2013. Consent Application - B 2017-018: 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 meet the intent of Zoning By-law 85-1. Minor variances to permit reduced lot areas and to legalize the existing DVT encroachments for the semi-detached dwelling units have been requested. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential Six Zone (R-6), subject to approval of the concurrent minor variance applications. The proposed severance conforms to the City’s 2014 Official Plan and the configuration of the proposed lots can be considered appropriate for the use of the lands. requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots to allow separate ownership of each semi-detached dwelling, be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the Recommendation section of this report. Minor Variance Applications - A 2017-069 and A 2017-070: 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 both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and 1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect; however, a significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal and therefore are not being relied upon for this report. Instead Low Rise Residential Policy 3.1.2.1 from the 1994 Official Plan which allows for low density forms of housing such as semi-detached dwellings is being relied upon to determine whether the proposed variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan, which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The minor change to the lot areas and driveway visibility encroachments will continue to maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood, which is characterized by a variety of lot sizes and built form options. The proposed variances conform to the designation and it is the further opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. The requested variances to permit a reduced lot area of 153.2 square metres (retained lands) and 176.8 square metres (severed lands), whereas 235 square metres is required, meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the minimum lot area is to ensure that each semi- detached house can be fully accommodated on a property, including required parking and amenity space. In this case, the lots are wide enough that amenity space can be provided in the side yards. The overall size of the proposed semi-detached dwellings will be consistent with the existing single detached, duplex, and multiple dwellings in this neighbourhood. The requested variances to allow the semi-detached house to encroach 2.48 metres (retained lands) and 2.47 metres (severed lands) into the DVT meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.57 metre DVT is to provide visibility for vehicles exiting the driveway and for pedestrians walking on the sidewalk. Staff notes the reduced front yard and off-street parking setbacks were previously approved by the Committee in 2013, permitting the building to be constructed in its current location, and the exclusion of the required variance to permit the DVT encroachment was likely an oversight at the time. As the building is fully constructed and now existing, staff is satisfied the requested variance to legalize the existing non-complying situation will not create any negative impacts that do not already exist. The variance can be considered minor as the reduced lot areas and DVT encroachments will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood that do not already exist. The purpose of these variances is to recognize existing conditions in order to facilitate the severance to allow separate ownership of each unit. The requested variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The redevelopment of these properties will be sympathetic to the surrounding area and bring a new context-appropriate unit type to the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated July 4, 2017, advising they have no objection to Application B 2017- 018. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 4, 2017, advising they have no concerns with Applications A 2017-069 and A 2017-070. The Committee considered comments from the City of Waterloo, dated June 28, 2017, advising they have no concerns with these applications. requiring the applicant to make satisfactory arrangements for street trees located within the boulevard right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Operations. A motion was brought forward by Ms. J. Meader to approve Application B 2017-018 with the addition of a condition regarding street trees located within the boulevard right-of-way. Submission No.: B 2017-018 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Gateway Village Homes requesting permission to sever a parcel of land for a semi-detached dwelling having a width of 8.8m, a depth of 14.6m and an area of 153.2 sq.m., on Part Lot 24, Subdivision of Part Lot 4, German Company Tract, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-18128, 34 & 36 Raitar Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City’s Revenue Division. 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 Minor Variance Application A 2017-069 shall receive final approval. 4. That Minor Variance Application A 2017-070 shall receive final approval. 5. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements for street trees located within the boulevard right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Operations. 6. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal in the amount of $4,048.00 which is required on the severed parcel as a new developable lot will be created by the severance. The park land dedication is calculated at the residential rate of 5% of the per metre lineal frontage land value for the severed portion. 7. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Division for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands. 8. That the owner shall obtain a certificate of approval for sewage works from the Ministry of Environment in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act for the extension of the municipal sewer, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 9. That the storm sewer shall be extended at the owner’s expense to achieve a positive outlet for the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 10. That the owner shall provide a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 11. That the owner 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, elevation can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to 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. 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 Section 53 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 Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being July 18, 2019. Carried Submission No.: A 2017-069 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Gateway Village Homes requesting permission for the severed land to have a lot area of 153.2 sq.m. rather than the required 235 sq.m; and, to legalize an existing encroachment of 2.48m into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT, on Part Lot 24, Subdivision of Part Lot 4. German Company Tract, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-18128, 34 Raitar Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario,BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. 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 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Gateway Village Homes requesting permission for the retained land to have a lot area of 176.8 sq.m. rather than the required 235 sq.m; and, to legalize an existing encroachment of 2.47m into the DVT, whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT, on Part Lot 24, Subdivision of Part Lot 4. German Company Tract, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-18128, 36 Raitar Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. 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 2. Submission Nos.: B 2017-019 and A 2017-071 Applicant: peopleCare Inc. Property Location: 369 Frederick Street Legal Description: Part Lot 9, Subdivision of Lots 2 & 3, German Company Tract, being Part of Park Lot X, Registered Plan 414 Appearances: In Support: A. Stellings P. Puopolo R. Dyck J. Brownlee Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land. The severed land will have a width on Frederick Street of 82.874m, a depth of 73.819m and an area of 6342.5 sq.m. The retained land will be ‘L’ shaped having a width on Frederick Street of 15m, a depth of 165.808m and an area of 10681.7 sq.m. Permission is being requested to grant easements on the severed lands over Parts 2, 3 and 4 on the plan submitted with the application in favour of the retained land for the purpose of servicing, parking and driveway access. Permission is also being requested to grant an easement on the retained land over Part 5 on the plan submitted with the application in favour of severed land for the purpose of servicing, parking and driveway access. In addition, permission is being requested for variances on the severed land to have a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.715 rather than the permitted FSR maximum of 1.0; a building height of 19.3m rather than the permitted 15.3m; a westerly side yard setback of 3.0m rather than the required 9.65m; a front yard setback for ground-supported canopies of 3.4m rather than the required 6.0m; and, a rear yard setback of 5.6m rather than the required 7.5m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated July 10, 2017, advising the property that is closest to Frederick Street is undeveloped and landscaped. The property possesses approximately 97.9 metres of frontage on Frederick Street, a depth of 165.8 metres, and an area of 1.7 hectares. The abutting properties to the southwest have frontage onto East Avenue and contain mainly single detached dwellings, with some other residential uses, such as low-rise apartments, located at the corner of Frederick Street/East Avenue. Frederick Mall is located directly to the northeast and associated mall parking is located directly to the southeast. The opposite side of Frederick Street contains Dunham Street, a single detached dwelling, a low-rise office use, and Weber Park. The subject property is designated Mixed Use Node in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan (within the City’s 1994 Official Plan) and is zoned Community Institutional (I-2 Earlier this year, the applicant submitted two Site Plan Applications to construct a significant addition onto the existing LTCH (SP17/041/F/AP) and to construct a new, 5-storey Retirement Home (RH; SP17/040/F/AP) on the undeveloped portion of the property. The RH includes some characteristics that require approval of a Minor Variance application. For funding purposes, the owner is proposing separate ownership of each building: the RH would be located on its own lot fronting Frederick Street; and, the LTCH would be located on a flag-shaped lot with a narrow access to Frederick Street located southwest of the RH. Easements would be established between the two properties for access, parking, and servicing. Both Site Plans received Approval in Principle at Site Plan Review Committee in May 2017. Approval of a Minor Variance application is required as a condition of Site Plan Approval for the RH. As a condition of Site Plan Approval for the RH and LTCH, approval of a Consent application is required to create a new lot as well as to establish easements. Specifically, in order to facilitate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting the following: 1. The creation of a new lot via Consent Application B 2017-019 - The Severed Parcel (Parcel B) would contain the RH and would possess approximately 82.9 metres of frontage on Frederick Street, a depth of 73.8 metres, and an area of 6,342.5 m2. The Retained Parcel (Parcel A) would contain the LTCH (including the proposed addition) and would possess approximately 15.0 metres of frontage on Frederick Street, a depth of 165.8 metres, and an area of 10,681.7 m2. 2. The establishment of easements via Consent Application B 2017-019 - i. Part 2 - Easement over the Severed Parcel (Parcel B) for servicing and right-of- way/parking in favour of the Retained Parcel (Parcel A); ii. Part 3 - Easement over the Severed Parcel (Parcel B) for servicing in favour of the Retained Parcel (Parcel A); iii. Part 4 - Easement over the Severed Parcel (Parcel B) for servicing in favour of the Retained Parcel (Parcel A); and iv. Part 5 - Easement over the Retained Parcel (Parcel A) for servicing and right-of- way/parking in favour of the Severed Parcel (Parcel B). 3. The following variances for the proposed Retirement Home on the Severed Lands (Parcel B only) via Minor Variance Application A 2017-071: A. Requesting a Maximum Floor Space Ratio of 1.715 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a maximum of 1.0; B. Requesting a Maximum Building Height of 19.3 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 15.3 metres; C. Requesting a Minimum Side Yard (west) of 3.0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 9.65 metres; D. Requesting a Minimum Front Yard of 3.4 metres (for ground supported canopies), 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, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing and proposed uses, the lands front onto an established public street, and the severed and retained parcels are able to be serviced with adequate municipal services. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed conveyance is in the public interest. Furthermore, the proposed easements for servicing, and right-of-way/parking are appropriate as they allow for mutually beneficial rights and will allow the resultant parcels to function in an orderly manner following the severance. 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. With respect to Variances A and B the requests to increase the FSR to 1.715 and the height to 19.3 metres meet the intent of the Central Frederick Secondary Plan (within the City’s 1994 Official Plan) and Zoning By-law. The Secondary Plan states: New development shall be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods and will be of an appropriate height and density in relation to adjacent low rise residential development. In locations that immediately abut low rise residential land uses, new development shall be permitted having a maximum Floor Space Ratio ranging between 0.6 and 2.0. The requested FSR is less than the maximum of 2.0 outlined in the Official Plan. The increase in height of 4 metres is appropriate given there is no immediately abutting low rise residential land uses (the RH is proposed to be set back 18 metres from the rear yards of nearby residential land uses). The proposed development will be compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood with respect to height and massing, and will not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. With respect to Variance D, the request to reduce the minimum front yard to 3.4 metres meets the intent of the Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law. The Secondary Plan states: Mixed Use Nodes generally have strong pedestrian linkages with the surrounding residential neighbourhoods. To strengthen these linkages, new development may be required to orient a portion of the building mass to the street, provide for integration of cycling facilities, provide on-site pedestrian facilities, and provide pedestrian connections to abutting developments or off-site transit facilities. To achieve this objective, the City of Kitchener may also impose maximum front yard setbacks, limit vehicular parking between the building façade and the street, and will require specific façade treatments such as window or door openings and minimization of blank walls.(Emphasis added) The proposed ground supported canopies that are located closer to the street support a pedestrian-friendly interface. The location of the proposed RH close to Frederick Street also means that parking will be located to the side and to the rear of the building, not in front of it. This variance does not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties, especially given the generous distance between the proposed building and those on the opposite side of Frederick Street (>30 metres). With respect to Variances C and E, the requests for side and rear yard reductions meet the intent of the Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law since the abutting Retained Lot seamlessly integrates with these yards and mitigates impacts to adjacent low rise residential properties. These variances do not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Variances A, B, C, D, and E are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The Mixed Use Node policies of the Central Frederick Secondary Plan (within the City’s 1994 Official Plan) state that: intensive, transit supportive development in a compact form. It is intended that the Mixed Use Nodes will intensify and provide a balanced distribution of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses….The full range of institutional uses as well as medium and high rise residential uses shall also be permitted. The requested variances will facilitate development that is intensive, transit supportive, and compact, since the proposal would allow the existing property to be intensified and would support the construction of a building that is transit-oriented (e.g., oriented to the street, attractive, etc.). The variances would also increase the amount of institutional use in the area. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated July 7, 2017, advising they have no objection to Application B 2017- 019 subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to final approval, the applicant/owner shall obtain a Regional Road Access Permit for the mutual access onto Regional Road No. 6 (Frederick Street) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo, including a Mutual Access Agreement for the severed and retained lots. A draft Reference Plan, prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), describing the mutual access location and a draft Mutual Access Agreement must be submitted to Corridor Planning for review and approval. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 4, 2017, advising they have no concerns with Application A 2017-071. Ms. A. Stellings and Messrs. P. Puopolo, R. Dyck and J. Brownlee were in attendance in support of the subject applications and staff recommendations. The Chair noted the condition requested by the Region of Waterloo would be added to the Committee’s decision. It was noted, and the Committee agreed, that Condition 3 of the staff recommendation for Application A 2017-071 was redundant and would be removed from the Committee’s decision. Submission No.: B 2017-019 Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of peopleCare Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Frederick Street of 82.874m, a depth of 73.819m and an area of 6342.5 sq.m. The retained land will be ‘L’ shaped having a width on Frederick Street of 15m, a depth of 165.808m and an area of 10681.7 sq.m. Permission is being requested to grant easements on the severed lands over Parts 2, 3 and 4 on the plan submitted with the application in favour of the retained land for the purpose of servicing, parking and driveway access. Permission is also being requested to grant an easement on the retained land over Part 5 on the plan submitted with the application in favour of severed land for the purpose of servicing, parking and driveway access, on Part Lot 9, Subdivision of Lots 2 & 3, German Company Tract, being Part of Park Lot X, Registered Plan 414, 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City’s Revenue Division. 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 Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to both the severed and retained lands, if deemed necessary by the City’s Engineering Services. 5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and the retained lands. 6. That the owner shall prepare a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system for the severed and retained parcels to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division. 7. That the owner shall submit a Development and Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system, in accordance with the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150, to the satisfaction of the City’s to the Engineering Division. 8. That the owner shall make arrangements, financial or otherwise, for the relocation of any existing City-owned street furniture, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the appropriate City department and agency. 9. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the rights-of-way/easements for access/parking, and servicing are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easements. 10. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easements and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, shall be provided to the City Solicitor. 11. That the City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easements and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Section 53 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 Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being July 18, 2019. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of peopleCare Inc. requesting permission to have a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.715 rather than the permitted FSR maximum of 1.0; a building height of 19.3m rather than the permitted 15.3m; a westerly side yard setback of 3.0m rather than the required 9.65m; a front yard setback for ground-supported canopies of 3.4m rather than the required 6.0m; and, a rear yard setback of 5.6m rather than the required 7.5m, on Part Lot 9, Subdivision of Lot 3, German Company Tract, being Part of Park Lot X, Registered Plan 414, 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain approval of Site Plan Application SP17/040/F/AP for the development of a Retirement Home to which the variances relate, from the City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. 2. That the owner shall obtain the applicable building permit(s) for the development of the Retirement Home as outlined in Condition 1 above, from the City’s Building Division. 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 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 18th day of July, 2017. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment