Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-19 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl and Ms. P. Kohli OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:47 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held August 15, 2017, as circulated to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT APPLICATION: 1. Submission Nos.: B 2017-020 & B 2017-021 Applicant: Brian and Cheryl Pollock Property Location: 11 Chicopee Park Court Legal Description: Part Lot 49 and Lot 50, Registered Plan 959 Appearances: In Support: D. Anghad B. May Contra: A. Vassell Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to sever two parcels of land and retain one parcel for residential development. Severed Lot 1 identified on the plan submitted with the application will have a width of 9.666m, a depth of 35.956m and an area of 347.069 sq.m. Severed Lot 2 identified on the plan submitted with the application will have a width of 9.683m, a depth of 35.841 and an area of 345.841 sq.m. The retained land will have a width of 9.674m, a depth of 35.481m and an area of 344.158 sq.m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated July 28, 2017, advising the subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City’s 2014 and 1994 Official Plans and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are currently developed with an existing residential dwelling. The subject property measures 29.1 metres (95 feet) wide by 35.9 metres (118 feet) deep for an area of 1046.6 square metres (11,265.7 square feet). The surrounding development of the neighbourhood consists of a mix of single detached and duplex dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and low rise multiple dwellings. Lot sizes vary in width and area. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residential structure and requesting permission to sever the subject lands with the intent to create two new residential lots and retain one residential lot. The two severed lots would each have lot widths of 9.6 metres (31.5 feet), a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 214 - 1. Submission Nos.: B 2017-020 & B 2017-021 (Cont’d) depth of 35.9 metres (118 feet) and an area of 344.6 square metres (3709.6 square feet). The retained lot would have a lot width of 9.6 metres (31.5 feet), depth of 35.9 metres (118 feet) and an area of 344.6 square metres (3709.6 square feet). 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 Provincial Policy Statement and City’s Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street, serviced with municipal services and each parcel of land can be serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area and also comply with the minimum lot width and lot area regulations of the Residential Four (R-4) zone of the City’s Zoning By-law 85-1. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated August 8, 2017, advising although they have no objections to the subject applications, they noted the retained and severed lots will be impacted by traffic noise from Fairway Road and River Road. The subject lands are within 6 km of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and in close proximity to one of the flight paths which may cause noise impacts. Messrs. B. May and D. Anghad were in attendance in support of the subject application. In response to questions regarding the condition related to storm services, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised it is a standard condition and upon request, the City’s Engineering Services will provide the requirements to obtain clearance. Mr. A. Vassell was in attendance in opposition to the subject application. He indicated he had concerns with the Notice of Hearing and the outcome of the subject application. He further advised in his opinion, the request is not consistent with the Planning Act guidelines and should have been subject to part lot control regulations, not Committee of Adjustment consent. Mr. von Westerholt advised this application is consistent with the requirements outlined in the Planning Act with regards to lot creation through the consent process. Mr. A. Head stated he has been a member of this Committee for a number of years and in his experience, this is a straight- forward consent application. He noted all decisions of this Committee may be appealed through the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Mr. B. McColl noted the comments provided by the Region of Waterloo requesting conditions to be included in the Committee’s decision. Submission No.: B 2017-020 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Brian and Cheryl Pollock requesting permission to sever a parcel of land identified as Severed Lot 1 on the plan submitted with the application having a width of 9.666m, a depth of 35.956m and an area of 347.069 sq.m., on Part Lot 49 and Lot 50, Registered Plan 959, 11 Chicopee Park Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners 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 owners shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owners shall submit building and driveway location plans and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 215 - 1. Submission Nos.: B 2017-020 & B 2017-021 (Cont’d) 4. That the owners shall receive a Demolition Control Permit in accordance with the City’s Demolition Control By-law to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 5. That the owner shall obtain building permits for servicing connections, demolition of the existing structure and construction of new dwellings to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building Official. 6. 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 demolition or 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. 7. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: a. That prior to any demolition, grading or the application or issuance of a building permit, the owners shall submit a plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction and approval of the City’s Director of Planning showing: (i) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and structures), decks and driveways; (ii) the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or relocated; (iii) the proposed grades and drainage; (iv) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted on or adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size, species and condition; (v) justification for any trees to be removed; (vi) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved; and, (vii) building elevation drawings. b. Any alteration or improvement to the lands including grading, tree removal and the application or issuance of any building permits shall be in compliance with the approved plan. Any changes or revisions to the plan require the approval of the City’s Director of Planning. c. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the owners shall obtain clearance from the City’s Director of Engineering that the forcemain for the Freeport Pumping Station has been fully commissioned and the development freeze has been lifted. d. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City’s Engineering Services to extend the storm sewer at the sole cost of the owners to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering. 8. That the owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication on the severed parcels equal in the amount of $4,446.36. The parkland dedication is calculated at the residential rate of 5% of the per metre lineal frontage land value for the severed portions. 9. That the owners 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 216 - 1. Submission Nos.: B 2017-020 & B 2017-021 (Cont’d) 10. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services in consultation with the City’s Director of Operations for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and paved driveway ramps, on the severed and retained lands. 11. That any new driveways shall be built to City of Kitchener standards at the owners’ expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Division. 12. That the owners shall provide a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 13. That the owners shall submit a complete Development and Reconstruction As- Recorded Tracking Form (as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150) together with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 14. That the owners shall provide Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement 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. 15. That the owners shall make arrangements, financial or otherwise, for the relocation/removal of any existing City-owned street furniture, boulevard trees, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the City Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the City’s Director of Operations and the Director of Transportation Planning. 16. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the relocation of the existing hydro pole, if necessary. 17. That the owners shall submit the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo. 18. That the owners shall enter into a registered agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to include the following warning clause in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements (for the severed and retained parcels): ‘Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic from Fairway Road and River Road may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment. Purchasers/tenants are advised that this property is located in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and that directional lighting along this path and noise from aircraft using the flight path may cause concern to some individuals.’ It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 217 - 1. Submission Nos.: B 2017-020 & B 2017-021 (Cont’d) 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 September 19, 2019. Carried Submission No.: B 2017-021 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Brian and Cheryl Pollock requesting permission to sever a parcel of land identified as Severed Lot 2 on the plan submitted with the application having a width of 9.683m, a depth of 35.841 and an area of 345.841 sq.m., on Part Lot 49 and Lot 50, Registered Plan 959, 11 Chicopee Park Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners 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 owners shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owners shall submit building and driveway location plans and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 4. That the owners shall receive a Demolition Control Permit in accordance with the City’s Demolition Control By-law to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 5. That the owner shall obtain building permits for servicing connections, demolition of the existing structure and construction of new dwellings to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building Official. 6. 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 demolition or 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. 7. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: a. That prior to any demolition, grading or the application or issuance of a building permit, the owners shall submit a plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction and approval of the City’s Director of Planning showing: (i) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and structures), decks and driveways; (ii) the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or relocated; COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 218 - 1. Submission Nos.: B 2017-020 & B 2017-021 (Cont’d) (iii) the proposed grades and drainage; (iv) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted on or adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size, species and condition; (v) justification for any trees to be removed; (vi) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved; and, (vii) building elevation drawings. b. Any alteration or improvement to the lands including grading, tree removal and the application or issuance of any building permits shall be in compliance with the approved plan. Any changes or revisions to the plan require the approval of the City’s Director of Planning. c. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the owners shall obtain clearance from the City’s Director of Engineering that the forcemain for the Freeport Pumping Station has been fully commissioned and the development freeze has been lifted. d. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City’s Engineering Services to extend the storm sewer at the sole cost of the owners to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering. 8. That the owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication on the severed parcels equal in the amount of $4,454.18. The parkland dedication is calculated at the residential rate of 5% of the per metre lineal frontage land value for the severed portions. 9. That the owners 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. 10. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services in consultation with the City’s Director of Operations for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and paved driveway ramps, on the severed and retained lands. 11. That any new driveways shall be built to City of Kitchener standards at the owners’ expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Division. 12. That the owners shall provide a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 13. That the owners shall submit a complete Development and Reconstruction As- Recorded Tracking Form (as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150) together with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 14. That the owners shall provide Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 219 - 1. Submission Nos.: B 2017-020 & B 2017-021 (Cont’d) 15. That the owners shall make arrangements, financial or otherwise, for the relocation/removal of any existing City-owned street furniture, boulevard trees, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the City Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the City’s Director of Operations and the Director of Transportation Planning. 16. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the relocation of the existing hydro pole, if necessary. 17. That the owners shall submit the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo. 18. That the owners shall enter into a registered agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to include the following warning clause in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements (for the severed and retained parcels): ‘Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic from Fairway Road and River Road may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment. Purchasers/tenants are advised that this property is located in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and that directional lighting along this path and noise from aircraft using the flight path may cause concern to some individuals.’ 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 September 19, 2019. Carried This meeting recessed at 9:56 a.m. and reconvened at 10:05 a.m. with the following members present: Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl and Ms. P. Kohli. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE: 1. Submission No.: A 2017-083 Applicant: James Gough Property Location: 51 Chestnut Street Legal Description: Lot 20, Plan 327 Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 220 - 1. Submission No.: A 2017-083 (Cont’d) In Support: J. & S. Gough Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to convert an existing single detached dwelling into a duplex having a lot width of 10.07m rather than the required 15m; a front yard setback for a covered porch of 3.81m rather than the required 4.5m; a southerly side yard setback of 1.09m rather than the required 1.2m; a side yard abutting Luella Street of 1.4m rather than the required 4.5m; to permit a duplex with 1 off-street parking space rather than the required 2-off street parking spaces; to permit a setback from the street line for the required off- street parking of 2.7m rather than the required 6m; and, to permit an accessory structure (existing garage) to have a setback of 0.1m from the rear lot line rather than the required 0.6m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 7, 2017, advising the subject property located at 51 Chestnut Street is zoned Residential Five (R-5), 129U in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Conservation A in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan of the City’s Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing single detached dwelling to a duplex dwelling. Relief is being sought from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow the following: a. a lot width of 10.07 metres rather than the required 15 metres; b. a front yard setback of 3.81 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres; c. an interior side yard setback of 1.09 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres; and, d. a side yard abutting a street setback of 1.4 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres. Further relief is being sought from: e. Section 6.1.2 to permit a duplex dwelling with 1 off-street parking space rather than the 2 spaces required; f. Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law to allow the one required parking space for the single detached dwelling to be located in the driveway setback 2.7 metres from the street line rather than the required 6.0 metres; and, g. Section 5.5.2 c) to permit an accessory structure setback of 0.1 metres rather than the required 0.6 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments. The subject property is designated Low Rise Conservation A in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan in the City’s Official Plan (secondary plan policies of the 1994 Official Plan remain in effect). This designation permits low density forms of housing such as duplex dwellings. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of different forms of housing and encourages a mix of residential uses in residential areas. The proposed variances conform to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances to legalize the existing situation as well as the reduction of a parking space and the location of the one required parking space meets the intent of the Official Plan. The requested minor variances for a lot width of 10.07 metres rather than the required 15 metres, a front yard setback of 3.81 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres, an interior side yard setback of 1.09 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres and a side yard abutting a street setback of 1.4 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres, to permit an accessorystructure (existing garage) to have a setback of 0.1 metres from the rear lot line rather than the required 0.6 metres, a setback from the street line for the required off-street parking of 2.7 metres rather than the required 6 metres, all recognize an existing situation and staff is of the opinion that the conversion to a duplex dwelling will not adversely affect the subject property nor will it interfere with the functionality of the surrounding neighbourhood. The requested minor variance to permit a duplex with 1 off-street parking space rather than the required 2-off street parking spaces is warranted as the property cannot provide 2 legal parking spaces on site. Staff is of the opinion that 1 space is sufficient for the current needs of the property as the second unit is for family use with no intention at this time to rent out to a third party which may require a separate vehicle. However, staff is of the opinion that if in the future the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 221 - 1. Submission No.: A 2017-083 (Cont’d) secondary unit is rented to a third party, future tenants are to be formally advised that there is no parking available for the unit. Staff also notes that on-street parking is available on nearby side streets and can help accommodate occasional parking. Staff is of the opinion the requested variances are minor and approval of this application will legalize the existing buildings footprints. The reduction of one parking space as well as the reduced parking setback of 2.7 metres will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variances should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. The requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the footprints of the existing buildings. The requested minor variances are necessary as it will legalize the location of the required parking space on the subject property. Heritage Comments: No natural heritage concerns. The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Although the subject property does not have formal heritage status (not designated or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register), the owner of the property municipally addressed as 51 Chestnut Street is advised that the property is located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The owner will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Consequently, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed variances. It was noted the subject property is located within the Central Fredrick Secondary Plan. The City will be commencing a secondary plan review in 2018. The land use and zoning of the property is subject to change. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Messrs. J. and S. Gough were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. In response to questions, Mr. J. Gough stated there will be no changes to the building footprint. He noted on-street parking is available on Luella and Chestnut Streets. Regarding the parking space reduction, Mr. B. McColl questioned the feasibility of a condition being added to the Committee’s decision to advise future owners/tenants of a reduction in required parking spaces. Ms. J. von Westerholt noted conditions to that affect have been included in past applications. Mr. Gough stated he would be amenable to adding that condition. Mr. McColl requested, and it was agreed, a condition be added to the Committee’s decision that future owners/tenants of the subject property be advised of a reduction in parking spaces. Moved by Seconded by That the application of James Gough requesting permission to convert an existing single detached dwelling into a duplex having a lot width of 10.07m rather than the required 15m; a front yard setback for a covered porch of 3.81m rather than the required 4.5m; a southerly side yard setback of 1.09m rather than the required 1.2m; a side yard abutting Luella Street of 1.4m rather than the required 4.5m; to permit a duplex with 1 off-street parking space rather than the required 2-off street parking spaces; to permit 1 required off-street parking space located in the driveway to be 2.7m from the street line rather than the required 6m setback; and, to permit an accessory structure (existing garage) to have a setback of 0.1m from the rear lot line rather than the required 0.6m, on Lot 20, Plan 327, 51 Chestnut Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 222 - 1. Submission No.: A 2017-083 (Cont’d) 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the conversion of the single detached dwelling to a duplex dwelling from the City’s Building Division by April 1, 2018. 2. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title, to include the following warning clause in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements for the subject property: ‘Purchasers/tenants are advised that the subject property has one (1) legal off- street parking space.’ 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 2017-084 Applicant: 2578545 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 54 Park Street Legal Description: Lot 14, Registered Plan 104 Appearances: In Support: C. Metaxas Contra: W. Guzowski Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing single detached dwelling into a duplex having a front yard setback of 3.31m rather than the required 4.5m; to permit a setback from the street line for the required off-street parking of 5.7m rather than the required 6m; and, to permit a 1.26m encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 10, 2017, advising the subject property is located at 54 Park Street. The site contains a house, built around 1914, with a rear addition added in 1985. The house is currently used as a single detached dwelling and the owner would like to convert it to a duplex. There are no changes proposed to the existing building footprint; however, minor variances are required to legalize existing deficiencies as follows: 1. to permit the existing building to encroach 1.26 metres into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law permits no obstruction; 2. to permit a front yard setback of 3.31 metres for the existing building, whereas section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law requires 4.5 metres; and, 3. to permit a setback of 5.7 metres for a parking space, whereas section 6.1.1.1 b) i) of the Zoning By-law requires a 6.0 metre 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 following comments. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 223 - 2. Submission No.: A 2017-084 (Cont’d) The subject lands are designated Low Rise Conservation in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan (secondary plan policies of the 1994 Official Plan remain in effect). The intent of this designation is to retain the existing low rise, low density residential character of the Neighbourhood. Preservation of the built scale of development shall be encouraged through the retention of the existing housing stock while permitting the subdivision of the existing housing stock to create multiple unit dwellings. Duplexes are permitted. The owner is proposing to renovate the existing house into a duplex and the proposed variances legalize the existing building and parking arrangement on the existing lot, thereby allowing the conversion. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the intent of the Official Plan is maintained. The lands are zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5). The R-5 Zone is generally applied to low rise residential areas in the central city and permits duplexes. The intent of the setback regulations for the building and parking is to provide sufficient separation between buildings and the public realm (streets/sidewalks). The intent of a DVT is to ensure visibility is maintained for drivers exiting driveways. There is sufficient space on the driveway to accommodate for two full-size parking spaces (in tandem) each having a length of 5.5 metres, while still allowing a 0.2 metres setback to the property line. The building footprint is not proposed to be altered and the building has existed with the site deficiencies for many years without concern or complaint. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the requested variances maintain the intent of the Zoning By- law, and that they are minor and are appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Heritage Planning Comments: The subject property is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and subject to the policies and guidelines of the VPAHCD Plan. Policies of the Plan regulate exterior alterations. Given that the proposed variance is to convert the dwelling from a single detached dwelling to a duplex dwelling, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the subject application. However, any future or proposed exterior alterations/development or site alteration, including erecting a sign, may be subject to the submission and approval of a Heritage Permit Application and/or Heritage Impact Assessment/Conservation Plan. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. C. Metaxas was in attendance of the subject application and staff recommendation. Ms. W. Guzowski was in attendance on behalf of the property owner of 50 Park Street, who is in opposition of the subject application. She questioned parking on the subject property, noting the property is difficult to access from the street. Mr. Metaxas stated the existing driveway currently allows tandem parking. Mr. B. McColl commented he is not typically in favour of encroachments into the DVT; however, he acknowledged in this instance, the encroachment is an existing condition which would be difficult to change. Mr. Metaxas indicated the encroachment is a result of the location of the front porch column, adding there would be Heritage impacts if the column was removed. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 2578545 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to convert an existing single detached dwelling into a duplex having a front yard setback of 3.31m rather than the required 4.5m; to permit the required off-street parking to be located 5.7m rather than the required 6m; and, to permit a 1.26m encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT, on Lot 14, Registered Plan 104, 54 Park Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 224 - 2. Submission No.: A 2017-084 (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 3. Submission No.: A 2017-086 Applicant: Deer Ridge Heights Inc. Property Location: 52 Fall Harvest Drive Legal Description: Lot 41, Registered Plan 58M-587 Appearances: In Support: P. Florica Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single detaching with covered porch in the rear yard to have a rear yard setback of 6.3m rather than the required 7.5m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 6, 2017, advising the subject property is located at 52 Fall Harvest Drive and is designated Low Rise Residential in both the 1994 and 2014 Official Plans and zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1, with Special Regulation Provisions 230R and 260R, and Special Use Provision 235U. The lands are currently being developed with a single detached dwelling and covered porch which will extend into the rear yard. As such, the owner is requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres (24.61 ft) to 6.3 metres (20.67 ft) to allow for a covered porch. 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 1994 Official Plan and 2014 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. In this case, both plans are being relied upon to determine whether the subject variance meets the 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 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 minor change will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.3 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre setback is to provide amenity area in the rear yard and separation from adjacent properties. The proposed 6.3 metre rear yard setback will continue to provide amenity space in the rear yard and adequate separation between the covered porch and properties to the rear. As such, staff is satisfied the proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will continue to provide amenity space in the rear yard and maintain adequate separation between the covered porch and adjacent properties. The requested variance will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 225 - 3. Submission No.: A 2017-086 (Cont’d) The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the residential use is permitted in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing and height of the covered porch will not negatively impact the character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. 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 September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. P. Florica was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Deer Ridge Heights Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a covered porch located in the rear yard to have a rear yard setback of 6.3m rather than the required 7.5m, on Lot 41, Registered Plan 58M-587, 52 Fall Harvest Drive, 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 4. Submission No.: A 2017-087 Applicant: Anna Woerner Property Location: 261 Claremont Avenue Legal Description: Lot 3, Registered Plan 872 Appearances: In Support: R. Miner Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission for an existing single detached dwelling to have two driveway accesses on a lot having a width of 24.996m whereas the By-law requires a lot width of 30m to permit two driveways. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 11, 2017, advising the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned as Residential Two (R-2) in Zoning By-law 85-1. A new single detached dwelling is currently under construction on the subject property. The Applicant has now filed a minor variance application to request that a “U” shaped driveway with two accesses be permitted for the proposed driveway, whereas only one driveway access is permitted for lots less than 30 metres wide. Relief is being sought from Section 6.1.1.1.b) iii b) to permit two driveways on a lot that is 24.996 metres wide whereas 30.0 metres is required. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 226 - 4. Submission No.: A 2017-087 (Cont’d) In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments: The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential districts permits a variety of low rise residential dwelling types including single detached dwellings. Where a minor variance is requested to facilitate residential redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the minor variance is reviewed to ensure that 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 case, there is sufficient area within the front yard to accommodate between the two 3.6 metre wide driveways as proposed. The distance between the two driveways is large enough to accommodate on-street parking. The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of regulating the number of driveways for a property based on lot width is to limit the amount of hardscape in the front yard by ensuring there is adequate room for landscaping areas along the street edge. This helps to protect the established aesthetic appearance of the streetscape. The applicant has revised the driveway plan by reducing the width of the second driveway to 3.6 metres rather than 6.1 metres, and reducing the total depth of the driveway at the dwelling to 10.6 metres rather than 14.5 metres. These changes result in a much larger landscape area while still providing the owner with the desired functionality of a “U” shaped driveway. The requested variance is minor. Section 6 of the Zoning By-law permits a single driveway with a maximum total width of 50% of the lot width or 8 metres, whichever is less, for a lot having a width greater than 10.4 metres. In this case, a single driveway for this property could be up to 8.0 metres wide. The revised driveway proposal design shows two driveways which are 3.6 metres wide each, for a total width of 7.2 metres, which results in less hard surface than permitted as of right for a single driveway. The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The proposed configuration with two driveways will allow for a centre landscaped area that can be used to screen the parking area. Heritage Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Although the subject property does not have formal heritage status (not designated or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register), the owner of the property municipally addressed as 261 Claremont Avenue is advised that the property is located within the Westmount East & West Neighbourhood CHL. The owner will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. R. Miner was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Anna Woerner requesting permission for an existing single detached dwelling to have two driveways on a lot having a width of 24.996m whereas the By-law requires a lot width of 30m to permit two driveways, on Lot 3, Registered Plan 872, 261 Claremont Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall ensure no City-owned boulevard be removed for the installation of the proposed driveway, except where written permission is provided by the City’s Director of Operations. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 227 - 4. Submission No.: A 2017-087 (Cont’d) 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 5. Submission No.: A 2017-088 Applicant: Tuan Van Le Property Location: 50 Breithaupt Street Legal Description: Lot 140, Plan 376, being Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-3989 Appearances: In Support: H. Le Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to reconstruct a single detached dwelling having a lot width of 11.89m rather than the required 12m; a front yard setback of 3m rather than the required 6m; a side yard abutting Waterloo Street of 3m rather than the required 6m; and, to permit a setback from the street line for off-street parking of 5m rather than the required 6m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 7, 2017, advising the subject property is municipally addressed as 50 Breithaupt Street and is located at the corner of Waterloo Street and Breithaupt Street. Surrounding land use consists of predominately low rise residential with commercial (Google) located directly across Breithaupt Street to the south. The subject property is zoned Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) in Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated General Industrial Employment in the 2014 Official Plan. The existing dwelling was damaged by fire. The owner is proposing to demolish the existing single detached dwelling and has received Planning approval for the requirements of the City’s Demolition Control. A new detached dwelling is to be erected in its place which requires several minor variances. Accordingly, relief is being sought from Section 19.3 of the Zoning By-law to legalize a lot width of 11.89 metres instead of the required 12 metres and permit a front yard and side yard setback abutting a street of 3 metres instead of 6 metres. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1b) i) of the By-law to permit an off-street parking setback of 5 metres instead of the required 6 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 General Industrial Employment in the City’s 2014 Official Plan. All of the policies pertaining to this designation are under appeal. The previously approved 1994 Official Plan designation is General Industrial. The policies are similar to those of the General Industrial Employment. The intent is to allow for a broad range of industrial uses as well as single detached, duplex and triplex dwellings in areas where a mixture of industrial and residential land uses already exists. As the subject property is located within an area of a mix of industrial/residential land use, the proposed variances meet the intent of this designation. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variances to allow for a 3 metres front and side yard setback abutting a street is consistent with setbacks observed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 228 - 5. Submission No.: A 2017-088 (Cont’d) in the immediate vicinity and provides for consistency and regularity the By-law sets out to regulate. The only impact with a 3 metres setback is a slight intrusion of the building footprint within the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT) and Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT). To address these, the plan shows the building footprint angled at two locations as to not conflict with the corner/driveway visibility requirements. Staff will ensure that the final design is reflective of the visibility triangles. The requested variance for an off-street parking setback of 5 metres meets the intent of the By- law as the proposed setback in combination with an approximate distance of 1.6m between the property line and front edge of the City sidewalk ensures there is sufficient space within the driveway to park a vehicle and not overhang the sidewalk. Staff has no concerns. The variances are considered minor and appropriate for the use and development of the land as the requested front yard and side yard setbacks abutting a street are consistent with setbacks observed within the immediate vicinity and will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties, the overall neighbourhood and any visibility issues as the proposed building footprint is outside of the corner/driveway visibility requirements. Moreover, it is important to note the existing dwelling setbacks are less than what is currently required under the Zoning. The proposed off-street parking setback is considered minor in light of the fact the legal parking space can be accommodated within the proposed garage. Moreover, the proposal to re-build a residential dwelling is consistent with the Official Plan and with the Zoning By-law. Heritage Planning Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Although the subject property does not have formal heritage status (not designated or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register), the owner of the property municipally addressed as 50 Breithaupt Street is advised that the property is located within the Warehouse District CHL. The owner will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Consequently, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed variances. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. H. Le was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Tuan Van Le requesting permission to reconstruct a single detached dwelling having a lot width of 11.89m rather than the required 12m; a front yard setback of 3m rather than the required 6m; a side yard abutting Waterloo Street of 3m rather than the required 6m; and, to permit a setback from the street line for off-street parking of 5m rather than the required 6m, on Lot 140, Plan 376, being Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-3989, 50 Breithaupt Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall submit building elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning by December 31, 2017. 2. That the owner shall obtain building permits for demolition and construction of a new dwelling to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official by August 31, 2018. 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 SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 229 - 5. Submission No.: A 2017-088 (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 No.: A 2017-089 Applicant: Adrien Cote and Gaby Sabados Property Location: 260 Lydia Street Legal Description: Part Lot 18, Plan 284 Appearances: In Support: M. Buckley Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition in the rear year of an existing single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.37m rather than the required 1.2m; a side yard abutting Stirling Avenue of 2.42m rather than the required 4.5m; to permit a 2.5m encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT; and, to locate the required off- street parking 2.59m from the street line rather than the required 6m setback. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 7, 2017, advising the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned as Residential Four (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1. There is an existing single detached dwelling on the subject property. The applicant has now filed a minor variance application to legalize existing non-compiling aspects of the existing dwelling, as well as seeking relief to permit an addition and a detached garage in the rear yard. Specifically, relief is being sought from Section 38.2.1 to legalize an existing interior side yard setback of 0.37 metres whereas 1.2 metres is required, to permit an existing side yard abutting a street setback for the new addition and to legalize the existing dwelling of 2.42 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required. Secondly, relief is being sought from Section 4 to permit a DVT of 2.5 metres whereas 4.57 metres is required, and from Section 6.1.1.1b)i to permit a 2.59 metre setback for a required parking space whereas 6.0 metres is required, to permit a new detached garage in the rear yard with a driveway access to Stirling Avenue. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments: The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the Low Rise Residential designations is to permit a variety of low density residential uses throughout the City’s communities. The housing policies in the Official Plan support having a variety of housing types throughout the City to provide adequate living accommodations for all citizens. Where a minor variance is requested for a building addition or modification in an established residential community, the overall impact of the requested variance is reviewed to ensure that any new additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate and compatible. New additions are directed to the rear yard and the proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that 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 case, the proposed addition is intended to be located in the rear yard and adequate parking and amenity are provided and the setbacks of the proposed addition are in line with the existing dwelling. The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the zoning and parking regulations in the Zoning By-law is to ensure that residential development is compatible COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 230 - 6. Submission No.: A 2017-089 (Cont’d) with the adjacent properties in the community and that adequate on-site amenity space and required parking can be provided. In this case, the changes are occurring in the rear yard and the required parking can be provided in the proposed detached garage. Once the required off-street parking space is legalized and established within the proposed garage, the City can move forward with the installation of a sidewalk along this section of Stirling Avenue within the public right-of-way. The total lot coverage (total buildings covering the lot) is 35.5%, which is well below the maximum of 55%. As such, an adequate outdoor amenity space can be provided in the rear yard. The requested variance is minor. The existing attached garage is proposed to be removed and new living space is proposed that is similar in size. The detached garage in the rear yard is proposed to be located adjacent to the neighbour’s driveway. The DVT is measured at the property line, which is not consistent along Stirling Avenue. If the property line was consistent, a 4.57 metre DVT could be provided for the proposed new driveway location. The proposed variances to both legalize the existing dwelling, to permit a small rear yard addition, and to permit a new detached garage in the rear yard are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The addition is modest in size and is located in the rear yard. It is appropriate to legalize existing dwellings that existed prior to the current zoning regulations being applied to the property, thus bringing the building into conformity. Heritage Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Although the subject property does not have formal heritage status (not designated or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register), the owner of the property municipally addressed as 260 Lydia Street is advised that the property is located within the Pandora Neighbourhood CHL. The owner will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. M. Buckley was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. He provided a brief overview of the subject application. Ms. D. Saunderson requested, and the Committee agreed, that the condition outlined in the staff report be amended to indicate a building permit shall be obtained, rather than a building permit application shall be filed. Moved by Mr. P. Kohli Seconded by Ms. B. McColl That the application of Adrien Cote and Gaby Sabados requesting permission to construct an addition and garage in the rear year of an existing single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.37m rather than the required 1.2m; a side yard abutting Stirling Avenue of 2.42m rather than the required 4.5m; to permit a 2.5m encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT; and, to locate the required off-street parking 2.59m from the street line rather than the required setback of 6m, on Part Lot 18, Plan 284, 260 Lydia Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City of Kitchener for the proposed addition and/or detached garage. 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 SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 231 - 6. Submission No.: A 2017-089 (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 7. Submission No.: A 2017-090 Applicant: Williamsburg Homes Inc. Property Location: 195 Commonwealth Street Legal Description: Block 85, Registered Plan 58M-247 Appearances: In Support: M. Robson V. Labreche Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 4-storey multiple residential dwelling having a front yard setback of 0.9m rather than the required 9m; a side yard abutting Swartz Street of 2m rather than the required 9m; a side yard abutting Cotton Grass Street of 1m rather than the required 9m; a minimum landscaped area of 14% rather than the required 20%; to allow for stairs exceeding 0.6m in height to be located within 3m of the street line; to allow terraces greater than 0.6m above finished grade to be setback 0.9m from the front lot line rather than the required 3m; and, to allow 67 off-street parking spaces (1.25 per unit) rather than the required 91 off-street parking spaces (1.75 per unit). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 1, 2017, advising the subject property is a vacant parcel in the Williamsburg subdivision proposed to be developed with a 53-unit multiple dwelling. This is the third of three buildings which will make up ‘Williamsburg Walk’. The property is designated Medium Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan, and the zoning of the subject property is Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation 355R. Both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law permit the use of the property as a multiple dwelling. In order to achieve the City’s vision for an “urban” development, a number of variances are required to support the development proposal. The required variances are noted below. 1. Relief from Section 42.2.6 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a front yard setback of 0.9 metres rather than the required 9.0 metres; 2. Relief from Section 42.2.6 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a side yard abutting a street of 2.0 metres from Swartz Street and 1.0 metre from Cotton Grass Street rather than the required 9.0 metres; 3. Relief from Section 42.2.6 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow a minimum landscaped area of 14% rather than the required 20%; 4. Relief from Section 6.1.2 a) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow 1.25 parking spaces per unit rather than the required 1.75 spaces per unit; 5. Relief from Section 5.6.1 a) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow stairs greater than 0.6 metres above finished grade level within 3.0 metres of a street line; and, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 232 - 7. Submission No.: A 2017-090 (Cont’d) 6. Relief from Section 5.6A.4 a) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow terraces greater than 0.6 metres above finished grade to be setback 0.9 metres from the front lot line rather than the required 3.0 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 offers the followingcomments. The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The proposed multiple dwelling is permitted under the Medium Rise Residential designation. The proposed multiple dwelling is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is appropriate for the subject lands. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The building setback regulations of the R-8 zone are in place to ensure compatible development with the surrounding properties. In order to reduce the impact on the adjacent low rise residential properties, the City has worked with the applicant to create a building with an urban feel by locating it closer to the street lines. By reducing the building setbacks to the adjacent streets, the development will create a greater separation to the low rise residential properties to the rear of the site, while creating an entrance feature to the subdivision and a human interface with the street and community park immediately across the street. The proposed parking reduction to 1.25 spaces per unit is also deemed appropriate as is evidenced in the 2012 Transportation Study that was completed for all three of the Williamsburg Walk Buildings. The parking reduction is also in keeping with the City’s direction to support alternative modes of transportation. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The reduced building setbacks and parking reduction will create a greater separation to adjacent low rise residential properties thereby minimizing any impact on those properties. The proximity of the building to the street lines and the adjacent park will create an entrance feature to the subdivision and enhance the interface with the street and neighbourhood park. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. Both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law permit the use of the property for a multiple dwelling and the design of the building with underground parking and reduced setbacks to the street lines will enhance the interface with the neighbourhood park and public streets. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Messrs. M. Robson and V. Labreche were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Mr. Labreche stated the subject application is Phase 3 of a development containing mid-rise apartments, with the site plan being Approved in Principle in August, 2017. He circulated photos of Phase 1 of the development, indicating construction on Phase 2 has recently begun with Phase 3 due to begin construction in 2018. Mr. Labreche noted the design objectives have an urban design focus, adding close proximity of dwellings to the street are common to the Williamsburg Town Centre. Mr. A. Head expressed concerns related to adequate parking on-site, noting reduced parking has already been approved through the previous two Phases. Mr. Robson noted although the subject application requests 1.25 parking spaces per unit, Phase 3 is being planned to allow 1.4 parking spaces per unit. In response to questions, Mr. D. Seller stated a parking study for the site was conducted in 2012, with a parking addendum completed in 2016. He added staff have no objections to the requested variance related to the parking reduction. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 233 - 7. Submission No.: A 2017-090 (Cont’d) That the application of Williamsburg Homes Inc. requesting permission to construct a 4-storey multiple residential dwelling having a front yard setback of 0.9m rather than the required 9m; a side yard abutting Swartz Street of 2m rather than the required 9m; a side yard abutting Cotton Grass Street of 1m rather than the required 9m; a minimum landscaped area of 14% rather than the required 20%; to allow for stairs exceeding 0.6m in height to be located within 3m of the street line; to allow terraces greater than 0.6m above finished grade to be setback 0.9m from the front lot line rather than the required 3m; and, to allow 67 off-street parking spaces (1.25 per/unit) rather than the required 91 off-street parking spaces (1.75 per/unit), on Block 85, Registered Plan 58M-247, 195 Commonwealth Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That approval of Minor Variance Application A 2017-090 shall only apply to the site plan approved through application SP17/074/C/LT. 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 8. Submission No.: A 2017-091 Applicant: 2578545 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 98-110 Victoria Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 553, Grange’s Amended Survey, Registered Plan 378, and Part Lot 41, Registered Plan 420 Appearances: In Support: C. Pidgeon Contra: M. McInnis Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a mixed-use residential development consisting of 21-storey and 17-storey towers, to calculate parking at a rate of 0.69 off-street parking spaces per unit, whereas the By-law requires a fixed number of spaces for the entire development, so as to allow the development to be constructed in phases. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 24, 2017, advising the subject property is zoned Warehouse District Zone (D-6) with Special Use Provision 439U, Special Regulations 656R, 657R, 658R, 659R, and 660R and are designated as a Special Policy Area 15.D.2.68 within the Innovation District of the New Official Plan. The owner is requesting a variance to amend Special Regulation 660R which set a total number of parking for the entire site at 243 spaces for both commercial and residential uses on site. The owner is seeking to calculate the parking rate for the entire site at a ratio of 0.69 spaces per unit, which would continue to achieve this overall number of spaces at full build-out, but would facilitate the phasing of the development to meet all Zoning requirements. Construction of the development is planned over two phases. The first phase consists of Tower 1 and a portion of the common podium which contains the parking as well as commercial uses, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 234 - 8. Submission No.: A 2017-091 (Cont’d) while the second phase will include Tower 2 and the remainder of the parking and the balance of the podium structure. The parking for the site is located both below grade within the podium structure above grade with active uses wrapped around the parking facility. Since Phase 1 would only result in the partial construction of the podium, only a portion of the total required parking area would be constructed until Phase 2 is completed. The applicant wishes to phase the development and have Phase 1 occupied prior to the completion of Phase 2. The current regulations of the zone create an implementation challenge, as it did not factor the phasing of the overall development into the equation. That said, the total number of parking spaces at full build- out will remain unchanged. 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 as a Special Policy Area 15.D.2.68 within the Innovation District of the New Official Plan. The Special Policy permits a mixed-use development with ground floor retail, restaurant and office uses and indicates that parking will be further refined in the Zoning By-law and may include shared parking. The proposed variance will alter the way in which spaces are calculated or allocated based on a “per unit ratio” rather than defining a total number of parking spaces for the entire site. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed variance for parking to be calculation on a “per unit ratio” basis, rather than a fixed number, continues to meet the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a full mix of commercial and residential high intensity of uses and contemplates the sharing of parking. Council supported the Official Plan Amendment for the Special Policy Area in the Innovation District which was intended to permit high-intensity mixed-use development that is transit-supportive. This variance continues to meet this intent and supports the development of these lands for a transit-supportive high-intensity mixed-use development within the downtown and within walking distance of a Major Transit Station Area. The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor. The intent of the parking regulation is to ensure sufficient parking for residents, employees and clients to the premises. The parking regulation envisions a true sharing of the available parking for the mix of commercial and residential uses. Currently there are 243 parking spaces required for the entire development which includes 350 residential units and commercial/office uses. The applicant is proposing that instead of using the fixed number, that a ratio of 0.69 spaces per unit be applied to the development. This will result in 243 spaces when both phases are constructed, as was originally required by the by-law. This approach would allow each phase to meet parking requirements as they are completed. It is therefore staff’s opinion that the requested variance is appropriate and meets the intent of the zoning, as it continues to provide for sufficient parking for the site and does not result in a reduction in the total number of parking spaces. Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance requested is desirable as there is no impact on the future users of the building or the neighbourhood, as the overall intended number of parking spaces remains unchanged and continues to support a shared parking arrangement for all uses on site. It is staff’s further opinion that this approach to calculation of parking spaces is appropriate and the variance proposed is desirable as it allows for the implementation of the phasing of the development and some flexibility during construction. This approach, if applied, will continue to ensure that sufficient parking is provided for each phase of development. The allocation of parking spaces on a “per unit ratio” simply allows for the registration of a plan of condominium for the first phase prior to the completion of the construction of balance of the development. It is also noted that Transportation Services are in support of the proposed parking variance. The variances are appropriate for a high-intensity mixed-use development within the downtown Innovation District and the Major Transit Station Area. As noted above, there would be no impact on the overall parking to be provided for this development once fully constructed and is therefore minor. Heritage Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Although the subject property does not have formal heritage status (not designated or listed on the Municipal Heritage COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 235 - 8. Submission No.: A 2017-091 (Cont’d) Register), the owner of the properties municipally addressed as 98-110 Victoria Street South is advised that the properties are located within the Warehouse District CHL. The owner will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) dated September 13, 2017, advising although they have no objection to the subject application, they noted the floodplain proper does not extend onto the subject lands. However, a portion of the subject lands do fall within the 5-metre regulated allowance associated with the floodplain. Therefore, a portion of the subject lands are regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Mr. C. Pidgeon was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. He noted the requested variance is intended for a phased-in construction approach. Moved by Mr. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 100 VIC GP Inc. requesting permission to construct a mixed-use residential development consisting of two towers, one 21-stories in height and the second 17- stories in height, having parking calculated at a rate of 0.69 off-street parking spaces per unit, whereas the By-law requires a fixed number of spaces for the entire development, so as to allow the development to be constructed in phases, on Part Lot 553, Grange’s Amended Survey, Registered Plan 378, and Part Lot 41, Registered Plan 420, 98-110 Victoria Street South, 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 9. Submission No.: A 2017-092 Applicant: Huck Glove Company Inc./114 Victoria Street Inc. Property Location: 114-118 and 120 Victoria Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 553, Registered Plan 378 Appearances: In Support: C. Pidgeon Contra: M. McInnis Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing commercial residential building into a 6-storey office building having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 3.0 rather than the permitted maximum FSR of 2.0. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 236 - 9. Submission No.: A 2017-092 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 24, 2017, advising the subject property is zoned Warehouse District (D-6) with Special Use Provision 294U,with Special Regulation 1R, and Holding Provision 43 H and are designated as Innovation District within the Urban Core in the New Official Plan. The owner is requesting permission to amend D-6 zone regulation 17.3 which sets the total Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for the site to 2.0. The owner is seeking permission from the Committee of Adjustment to increase the FSR from 2.0 to 3.0 to bring the zoning regulation in conformity with the Official Plan which allows for an FSR of 3.0. The Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By- law (CROZBY) is not yet approved, however the intent is to bring the zoning regulations in conformity with the recently approved New Official Plan. By allowing this increase, development of the site will be facilitated. No other variances are being sought and the development concept will require full Site Plan Approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act and may require a review by Heritage Kitchener should the applicants wish to conserve the former Huck Glove building as part of the redevelopment. 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 Innovation District and is located within the Urban Growth Centre (UGC). Lands within the Innovation District are intended to permit high-intensity mixed- use development that is transit-supportive. This variance continues to meet this intent and supports the redevelopment of these lands for a transit-supportive high-intensity mixed-use development within the downtown and the major transit station area. The proposed development will intensify these former employment lands and allow them to be developed for a major office employment use over time. The intent of the Floor Space Ratio is to regulate the massing and scale of the development of these lands. The New Official Plan, now in effect, allows a maximum FSR of 3.0 in the Innovation District of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) through policy 15.D.2.53. The applicant is requesting that the maximum FSR for the site be increased to 3.0 as permitted in the Official Plan and described above. This request is simply seeking to align the permissions of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. This variance will implement the vision of the Official Plan by allowing the slight increase in FSR to facilitate the redevelopment and intensification of the site. As the City is currently reviewing its comprehensive Zoning By-law, it is anticipated that the new Zoning By-law will allow an FSR of 3.0 in order to be consistent with the new Official Plan. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are maintained. Staff is of the opinion that there is no impact to adjacent lands which have an approved FSR of 8.2 and also fall within the Innovation District, which is envisioned to transform into a dense contemporaryurban setting from its former warehouse industrial past. As part of the UGC, development is directed to this area and the slight increase in FSR to bring it into conformity with the already permitted as of right FSR of 3.0 as specified in the Official Plan is desirable and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Heritage Comments: Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed variance. The property located at 120 Victoria Street South has no heritage status. The property was identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings and evaluated for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register. The property was not listed by Council. However, Heritage Planning staff encourages the applicant to consider conservation of some or all of the original Huck Glove buildings. If the applicant considers some level of conservation, plans may be circulated to Heritage Kitchener for review and comment. The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Although the subject property does not have formal heritage status, the owners of the properties municipally addressed as 114-118 & 120 Victoria Street South are advised that the properties are located within the Warehouse District CHL. The owners will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 237 - 9. Submission No.: A 2017-092 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) dated September 13, 2017, advising although they have no objection to the subject application, they noted the floodplain proper is located outside of the property limits. However, the 5-metre regulated allowance from the floodplain extends onto the subject lands. Therefore, a portion of the subject lands are regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Mr. C. Pidgeon was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Mr. B. McColl noted the comments provided by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) regarding a permit requirement. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Huck Glove Company Inc./114 Victoria Street Inc. requesting permission to convert an existing commercial/residential building into a 6-storey office building having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 3.0 rather than the permitted maximum FSR of 2.0, on Part Lot 553, Registered Plan 378, 114-118 and 120 Victoria Street South, 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 10. Submission No.: A 2017-093 Applicant: Jordan Pancer Property Location: 228 Waterloo Street Legal Description: Part Lot D, Plan 386 Appearances: In Support: J. Pancer S. Veale G. Kobayashi Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 2-storey addition in the rear of an existing single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.67m for the existing dwelling and proposed addition rather than the required 1.2m; and, a southerly side yard setback of 2.79m rather than the required 3m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 6, 2017, advising the subject property is located at 228 Waterloo Street 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 238 - 10. Submission No.: A 2017-093 (Cont’d) 85-1. The lands currently contain a single detached dwelling and detached garage, and the owner is proposing to develop an attached two-storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling with the exterior wall of the addition being in line with that of the existing dwelling. As such, the owner is requesting relief from Section 40.2.2 a) to allow an addition to have a northerly side yard setback of 0.67 metres (2.20 ft) rather than the required 1.2 metres (3.94 ft), and to legalize the existing northerly side yard setback of the dwelling of 0.72 metres (2.36 ft) in the process. The owner is requesting additional relief from Section 40.2.2 d) to legalize the existing southerly side yard setback for the dwelling of 2.79 metres (9.15 ft), whereas 3.0 metres (9.84 ft) is required where the driveway is located in the side yard. 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 1994 Official Plan and 2014 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. 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 minor change, and legalizing existing conditions, 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 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. Given that the reduced northerly side yard setback of the dwelling already exists and the addition only slightly increases the encroachment due to the orientation of the side lot line and existing dwelling on the property, staff is satisfied the reduction of 0.53 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 3.0 metre side yard setback requirement where the driveway is located in the side yard is to ensure there is adequate space for a legal driveway and parking space, and to ensure the location of the building will accommodate the car door swing. As the reduced 2.79 metre side yard setback is an existing condition, staff is satisfied the reduction of 0.21 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor as the reduced side yard setbacks 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 an addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. As such, 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 setback reductions will continue to provide sufficient space for maintenance of the walls, roof, and eaves of the dwelling; provide adequate access to the rear yard; and provide sufficient space for a legal driveway and parking space with appropriate space for a car door swing. Therefore, the variances 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. Heritage Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Although the subject property does not have formal heritage status (not designated or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register), the owner of the property municipally addressed as 228 Waterloo Street is advised that the property is located within the Mount Hope/Breithaupt/Gildner/Gruhn Neighbourhood CHL. The owner will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 239 - 10. Submission No.: A 2017-093 (Cont’d) Consequently, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed variances. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Messers J. Pancer, S. Veale and G. Kobayashi were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Jordan Pancer requesting permission to construct a 2-storey addition to be located at the rear of an existing single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.67m for the existing dwelling and proposed addition rather than the required 1.2m; and, a southerly side yard setback of 2.79m rather than the required 3m, on Part Lot D, Plan 386, 228 Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the proposed addition. 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 11. Submission No.: A 2017-094 Applicant: White Birch Lands Limited Property Location: 395 Westwood Drive Legal Description: Block B, Plan 1273, Part Reserve K, Plan 1273 and Part of Fischer Hallman Road Plan 1273, being Parts 1 to 3 on Reference Plan 58R-18747 Appearances: In Support: G. Wellings U. Giammarco Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a multi-residential townhome development having building heights of 12.6m for Blocks C, D and E and 12.95m for Block F rather than the permitted maximum height of 10.5m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 11, 2017, advising the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned as Residential Six (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is currently under development with low rise stacked townhouse dwelling units. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 240 - 11. Submission No.: A 2017-094 (Cont’d) The Committee of Adjustment previously approved Minor Variance Application A 2015-050 to increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio to 0.65 and to permit off-street parking within 1.5 metres of Fischer Hallman Road. The applicant has now filed a minor variance application to permit some of the townhouse blocks to exceed the maximum permitted height. Specifically, relief is being sought from Section 40.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to permit a maximum building height of 12.6 metres for Blocks C, D and E and 12.95 metres for Block F, whereas the maximum permitted height is 11.55 metres (10.5 metres + 10%) from lowest finished grade. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments: The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the Low Rise Residential district is to permit a variety of low density residential uses throughout the City’s communities. The housing policies in the Official Plan support having a variety of housing types throughout the City to provide adequate living accommodations for all citizens. The proposed multiple dwellings are a permitted use on lands with the Low Rise Residential designation. The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the maximum building height regulation in the Zoning By-law is to ensure that the overall built form of a community is compatible. In this case, the portions of the building which appear the highest are located away from existing residential uses and internal to the site. The requested variance is minor. Due to the topography of the site, the storm water management design, and the roof pitches proposed for the blocks, there are portions of the buildings that exceed 11.55 metres from the lowest finished grade. Overall, the buildings have been designed to feature peaked roofs and enhanced elevations, so they are compatible with the existing built form found throughout the community. The site servicing and storm water management techniques utilized, which require the interior of the site to be lower in elevation, will ensure the development does not have negative impacts for adjacent properties. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The majority of the lower floors are below grade and not all portions of each building exceed the permitted height. This design is preferred as the roof peaks will be sloped appropriately ensuring compatible and appropriate design. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising although they have no concerns with this application, they advised that any balconies which could be considered Outdoor Living Area (OLA) and are located at higher levels may require noise attenuation. No noise study has been undertaken by the owner so far. The owner is responsible to ensure the development is not impacted by environmental noise in the vicinity. Messer G. Wellings and U. Giammarco were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of White Birch Lands Limited requesting permission to construct a multi- residential townhome development having building heights of 12.6m for Blocks C, D and E, and 12.95m for Block F rather than the permitted maximum height of 11.55m (10.5m + 10%) from the lowest finished grade, on Block B, Plan 1273, Part Reserve K, Plan 1273 and Part of Fischer Hallman Road Plan 1273, being Parts 1 to 3 on Reference Plan 58R-18747, 395 Westwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 241 - 11. Submission No.: A 2017-094 (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 12. Submission No.: A 2017-095 Applicant: Jeremy Krygsman Property Location: 199 Mansion Street Legal Description: Lot 5 & Part Lots 4 & 6, Registered Plan 279 Appearances: In Support: J. Krygsman Contra: None Written Submissions: P. & S. Campsall The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing single detached dwelling into a duplex having a rear yard setback of 1.4m rather than the required 7.5m; to have a westerly side yard setback for the driveway of 0m rather than the required 0.6m; the driveway to have a width of 7.8m which is greater than 50% of the lot width whereas the By-law does not permit driveways to be greater than 50% of the lot width; and, to allow an accessory building with a gross floor area in excess of 9.9 sq.m. or building height in excess of 3m to have a side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 0.6m, without a maintenance and encroachment easement whereas the By-law would require an easement for the existing garage. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 11, 2017, advising the subject property is located on the south side of Mansion Street, west of Dunham Avenue, in the Central Frederick Planning Community. The property contains a single detached dwelling, located towards the rear of the property, which was constructed in approximately 1930. The surrounding area is composed mainly of single detached dwellings constructed between the 1920s and 1950s. The subject property is designated Low Rise Conservation A in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan (contained within the 1994 Official Plan) and is zoned Residential Five (R-5) with Special Use Provision 129U. The owner is now requesting the following minor variances in order to facilitate the construction of a building addition to the existing dwelling to create a second dwelling unit on the property, for a total of two dwelling units (note that Variances 1-3 would legalize aspects the existing property, whereas Variance 4 relates to new site works): 1. relief from Section 39.2.1 to legalize a 1.4 metre rear yard for the existing dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 7.5 metres; 2. relief from Section 5.5.2c) to legalize an accessory building with a gross floor area in excess of 9.9 square metres or a building height in excess of 3.0 metres to have a side yard of 0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 0.6 metres, with no requirement to provide any easement or encroachment; 3. relief from Section 6.1.1.1b)ii)e) to legalize a driveway located 0 metres from the side lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 0.6 metres (the existing driveway allows access to the existing garage); and, 4. relief from Section 6.1.1.1b)ii)e) to allow the driveway to be 7.8 metres wide, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a maximum driveway width of 50% of the lot width or 8 metres, whichever is less, which in this case is 6.6 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 242 - 12. Submission No.: A 2017-095 (Cont’d) Variances 1-3 meet the intent of the 2014 Official Plan and the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. It should be noted that these variances merely legalize the existing site conditions. The Low Rise Conservation - A policies state: The intent of the Low Rise Conservation - A designation is to preserve the scale, use and intensity of existing development….Permitted uses are restricted to single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings… In addition, the following policies from the 2014 Official Plan apply to the proposed development: 4.C.1.6. The City will identify and encourage residential intensification and/or redevelopment, including adaptive re-use and infill opportunities, including second dwelling units, in order to respond to changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of existing community infrastructure. 4.C.1.7. The City may require a site plan, elevation drawings, landscaping plans and any other appropriate plans and/or studies, to support and demonstrate that a proposed development or redevelopment is compatible with respect to built form, architectural design, landscaping, screening and/or buffering. These requirements are intended to address the relationship to adjacent residential development, to ensure compatibility with the existing built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood and to minimize adverse impacts. 4.C.1.8. Where a special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) is/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: 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. c) 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. 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. 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. f) The impact of each special zoning regulation or variance will be reviewed prior to formulating a recommendation to ensure that a deficiency in the one zoning requirement does not compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site and neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning deficiencies. 4.C.1.9. Residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering compatibility. In this regard, the variances would allow the property to be intensified with one additional dwelling unit, having the effect of creating a duplex dwelling, which is a permitted use in the Low Rise Conservation - A Official Plan designation. This minor intensification will assist in reducing infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of existing community infrastructure. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 243 - 12. Submission No.: A 2017-095 (Cont’d) In order to ensure that the proposed intensification is compatible with the existing built form and community character of the established neighbourhood and to minimize adverse impacts, Planning staff recommends an approval condition to require that a site plan drawing and elevation drawings be submitted and implemented to the satisfaction of City staff. Additionally, Variances 1-3 are minor since they will not cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The garage side yard setback, driveway side yard setback and dwelling rear yard setback have existed in their current state for many decades without issue. Furthermore, these variances are appropriate for the desirable development of the land because they will allow compatible intensification. Variance 4 does not meet the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is not minor, and is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. It should be noted that this variance is the only variance requested that does not legalize an existing situation, but proposes new site works. The proposed driveway width does not respect the existing character of the existing neighbourhood. The proposed driveway would be approximately 60% of the lot width and able to accommodate 3 vehicle widths, while most of the driveways in this older established neighbourhood are approximately 25% of the lot width and able to accommodate 1 vehicle width. Planning staff is of the opinion that Variance 4 is not compatible with or sensitive to the surrounding context. Instead, the 2 required parking spaces for the proposed duplex may be provided in tandem at the side of the dwelling, behind the building line, on a driveway that complies with the Zoning By-law. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Variances 1-3 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report, and that Variance 4 be refused. Heritage Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Although the subject property does not have formal heritage status (not designated or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register), the owner of the property municipally addressed as 199 Mansion Street is advised that the property is located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The owner will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Consequently, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed variances. Note that the subject property is located within the Central Fredrick Secondary Plan. The City will be commencing a secondary plan review in 2018. The land use and zoning of the property is subject to change. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. J. Krygsman was in attendance in support of the subject application. He questioned whether Site Plan approval is required for this application and if it is a standard condition for applications of this nature. Ms. von Westerholt noted staff is not requesting a full site plan review; rather, the request is for site and elevation drawings. Mr. A. Head noted staff is recommending refusal of the variance request related to the driveway width. Mr. Krygsman stated he has no objection to that variance being refused, adding there was an intention to provide a double-wide driveway; however, the site can accommodate tandem parking. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Jeremy Krygsman requesting permission for the driveway to have a width of 7.8m which is greater than 50% of the lot width whereas the By-law does not permit driveways to be greater than 50% of the lot width, or 8m, whichever is less, on Lot 5 & Part Lots 4 & 6, Registered Plan 279, 199 Mansion Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 244 - 12. Submission No.: A 2017-095 (Cont’d) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is not minor. 2. This application is not 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 not being maintained on the subject property. - and - That the application of Jeremy Krygsman requesting permission to convert an existing single detached dwelling into a duplex having a rear yard setback of 1.4m rather than the required 7.5m; to have a westerly side yard setback for the driveway of 0m rather than the required 0.6m; and, to allow an accessory building with a Gross Floor Area (GFA) in excess of 9.9 sq.m., or building height in excess of 3m, to have a side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 0.6m, without a maintenance and encroachment easement whereas the By-law would require an easement for the existing garage, on Lot 5 & Part Lots 4 & 6, Registered Plan 279, 199 Mansion Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall submit a site plan drawing and elevation drawings illustrating that the proposed development is compatible and in conformity with Sections 4.C.1.7. through 4.C.1.9. of the 2014 Official Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Additionally, the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division and the above mentioned drawings shall be implemented through the building permit process, to the satisfaction of the City’s Planning Division and Building Division. 2. That Condition 1, above, shall be completed prior to September 19, 2018. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. 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 13. Submission No.: A 2017-096 Applicant: Andrew Bennett Property Location: 11 Bismark Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot B, Plan 386 Appearances: In Support: A. Bennett M. Sisson Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 245 - 13. Submission No.: A 2017-096 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to convert the front porch on an existing single detached dwelling into livable space having a front yard setback of 3.65m rather than the required 4.5m; and, an easterly side yard setback of 0.72m rather than the required 1.2m. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 6, 2017, advising the subject property is located at 11 Bismark Avenue and is designated Low Rise Residential in both the 1994 and 2014 Official Plans and zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1, with Special Use Provision 129U. The lands currently contain a single detached dwelling with a covered porch on the front of the dwelling and a detached garage, and the owner is proposing to convert the existing covered porch into enclosed living space. As such, the owner is requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 to allow the converted living space to have a front yard setback of 3.65 metres (11.98 ft) rather than the required 4.5 metres (14.76 ft). The owner is requesting additional relief from Section 39.2.1 to legalize the existing easterly side yard setback of 0.72 metres (2.36 ft) rather than the required 1.2 metres (3.94 ft). 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 1994 Official Plan and 2014 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. 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 minor change, and legalizing existing conditions, 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 3.65 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 0.75 metres will maintain adequate separation. The front porch is being converted within the same footprint, and this variance seeks to legalize the reduced front yard setback due to the front yard setback requirement changing from 3.0 metres for a covered porch, to 4.5 metres for the proposed living space. The requested variance to legalize the easterly side yard setback of 0.72 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. Given that the reduced easterly side yard setback of the dwelling already exists and the conversion of the covered porch into living space does not increase the encroachment, staff is satisfied the reduction of 0.48 metres will continue to provide adequate separation and access to the rear yard. The variances can be considered minor as the reduced front yard and side yard setbacks will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The purpose of these variances is to legalize existing conditions to facilitate the front porch conversion into living space. As such, 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. 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. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 246 - 13. Submission No.: A 2017-096 (Cont’d) Heritage Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Although the subject property does not have formal heritage status (not designated or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register), the owner of the property municipally addressed as 11 Bismark Avenue is advised that the property is located within the Mount Hope/Breithaupt/Gildner/Gruhn Neighbourhood CHL. The owner will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Consequently, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed variances. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. A. Bennett and Mr. M. Sisson were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Andrew Bennett requesting permission to convert the front porch on an existing single detached dwelling into living space having a front yard setback of 3.65m rather than the required 4.5m; and, an easterly side yard setback of 0.72m rather than the required 1.2m, on Part Lot B, Plan 386, 11 Bismark Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the proposed conversion. 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 14. Submission No.: A 2017-097 Applicant: Hallman Construction Limited Property Location: 95 Hollybrook Trail Legal Description: Block 30, Registered Plan 58M-504 Appearances: In Support: P. Britton A. Sinclair Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 247 - 14. Submission No.: A 2017-097 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a cluster townhouse development having 51 off-street parking spaces (1.41 spaces/unit) rather than the required 63 off-street parking spaces (1.75 spaces/unit); and, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75 rather than the permitted maximum FSR 0.6. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 11, 2017, advising the subject property located at 95 Hollybrook Trail is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are currently vacant and are proposed to be developed with a two-storey cluster townhouse (multiple dwelling) development containing 36 units. Of these units, 18 will front on Hollybrook Trail and the remainder will front on an internal private driveway. As such, the owner is requesting relief of Section 40.2.6 to permit an increased FSR of 0.75, whereas a maximum of 0.6 is permitted, and Section 6.1.2 a) to permit a reduced parking rate of 1.41 spaces per unit (51 spaces), whereas 1.75 spaces per unit (63 spaces) is required. Site Plan Approval in Principle has been granted subject to Committee of Adjustment approval. 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 1994 and 2014 Official Plans. The 2014 Official Plan designation is currently in effect, however a number of Low Rise Residential policies are under appeal and therefore are not being relied upon for this report. Policy 3.1.2.1 from the 1994 Official Plan which allows for low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and low rise multiple 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 variances meet the intent of the 1994 Official Plan, which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. While several policies of the Low Rise Residential designation of the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal, staff notes that Policy 15.D.3.11 has not been appealed and is therefore in effect. This policy applies a maximum FSR of 0.6, however site-specific increases up to a maximum of 0.75 may be considered where it can be demonstrated that the increase in the FSR is compatible and meets the general intent of the policies in this Plan. Through the review of the site plan application, staff has determined the proposed density and built form is compatible and will maintain the low rise character of the designation. Staff is therefore satisfied the minor increase in FSR and reduced parking will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. As such, the proposed variances conform to both the 1994 and 2014 Official Plan designations and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate. The requested variance to increase the maximum FSR from 0.6 to 0.75 meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The R-6 zone permits a range of housing types, and the intent of 0.6 FSR allowance is to ensure development occurs at a scale which is compatible with other low-rise housing forms in adjacent neighbourhoods. The proposed townhouse units will provide a mix of housing types while maintaining compatibility with the low rise residential neighbourhood proposed for the remainder of the subdivision. The requested variance to reduce the parking rate to 1.41 spaces per unit, whereas 1.5 spaces per unit is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the 1.5 spaces per unit requirement is to ensure there is adequate parking provided for residents and visitors of multiple dwellings. The multiple dwelling use captures various built forms which may not be designed with private garages and driveways for each unit. While interpreted as multiple dwellings, the proposed cluster townhouse dwellings will look and function similar to street townhouse dwellings with private garages and driveways, which have a parking rate of 1 space per unit. As such, staff is satisfied the rate of 1.41 spaces per unit will provide sufficient parking for residents and visitors and therefore meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor as the increased FSR and reduced parking rate will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 248 - 14. Submission No.: A 2017-097 (Cont’d) The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed multiple dwelling use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. Given that the proposed cluster townhouse dwellings will look and function as street townhouses, staff is satisfied the proposed variances 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 September 8, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. P. Britton and Ms. A. Sinclair were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Mr. A. Head expressed concerns related to the building massing on the site as well as adequate parking being provided. He questioned whether the massing could be reduced to accommodate more parking. Mr. Britton indicated the requested variances are quite technical in nature. He stated if the townhouse units fronting onto Hollybrook Trail were developed as a separate block, they would only be required to provide one parking space per unit. He indicated the remaining units would then be subject to a parking ratio of 1.3 parking spaces per unit. He commented the proposed parking reduction to 1.41 parking spaces per unit is greater than what would be required if the blocks were separate. He further advised when considering the variance for FSR, the definition as outlined in the Zoning By-Law indicates the basements of the dwellings would also need to be included in the calculation due to the varying grading of the subject property. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Hallman Construction Limited requesting permission to construct a cluster townhouse development having 51 off-street parking spaces (1.41 spaces/unit) rather than the required 63 off-street parking spaces (1.75 spaces/unit); and, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75 rather than the permitted maximum FSR of 0.6, on Block 30, Registered Plan 58M-504, 95 Hollybrook Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain Full Site Plan Approval to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. 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 2017-023 Applicant: Kalita Hanson and James Steinbach Property Location: 17 Nelson Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 6, Plan 675 Appearances: In Support: C., A. & C. Kreutzkamp COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 249 - 1. Submission No.: B 2017-023 (Cont’d) Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land at the rear of the subject property having a width of 18.261m, a depth of 8.321m and an area of 152 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 11 Norbert Place. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 6, 2017, advising the subject properties are municipally addressed as 17 Nelson Avenue, and 11 Norbert Place. The subject properties are designated as Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan. 17 Nelson Avenue and 11 Norbert Place are zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law. 17 Nelson Avenue and 11 Norbert Place are both currently developed with single detached dwellings. The owner of 17 Nelson Avenue is requesting consent to allow a portion of their lands to be severed as a lot addition to 11 Norbert Place. The application proposes to sever a parcel of land from the rear yard of 17 Nelson Avenue and add it to the abutting rear yard property at 11 Norbert Place (i.e., lot addition). The proposed parcel of land to be severed has a width of 8.32 metres, a depth of 18.26 metres, and an area of 152 square metres. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. c.P. 13, both the severed and retained parcels reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern of surrounding lands and are compatible for this neighbourhood. Both severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning staff is of the opinion that the lots conform to consent policy 17.E.20.4 of the Official Plan. The proposed lots comply with the regulations of the Residential Three Zone (R-3). The proposed severance conforms to the City’s Official Plan and the reconfiguration of the proposed lots can be considered appropriate for the use of the lands. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated September 11, 2017, advising they have no objection to this application. Messrs. C. and C. Kreutzkamp and Ms. A. Kreutzkamp were in attendance of the subject application and staff recommendation. In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt stated parkland dedication would have been taken into consideration during the Plan of Subdivision process. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Kalita Hanson and James Steinbach requesting permission to sever a parcel of land at the rear of the subject property having a width of 18.261m, a depth of 8.321m and an area of 152 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 11 Norbert Place, on Part Lot 6, Plan 675, 17 Nelson Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 250 - 1. Submission No.: B 2017-023 (Cont’d) 3. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 4. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to 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 September 19, 2019. Carried 2. Submission No.: B 2017-024 Applicant: 100 VIC GP Inc. Property Location: 98-110 Victoria Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 553, Grange’s Amended Survey, Registered Plan 378 and Part Lot 41, Registered Plan 420 Appearances: In Support: C. Pidgeon Contra: M. McInnis Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land from having a width on Victoria Street South of 1.524m; a depth of 26.213m and an area of 40 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to 92-94 Victoria Street South. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 11, 2017, advising the subject properties are located at 98-110 Victoria Street South, directly south of the Victoria Street and Arthur Place intersection. The owner received approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change by way of an Order from the Ontario Municipal Board in July 2016 to permit a two-tower mixed use development, which is currently under construction. Accordingly, the property is designated Innovation District with Special Policy Area 4 in the City’s 2014 Official Plan and zoned Warehouse District Zone (D-6) with Special Regulations 656R, 657R, 658R, 659R, and 660R in Zoning By-law 85-1. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 251 - 2. Submission No.: B 2017-024 (Cont’d) The applicant is requesting to sever a 1.5 metre by 26.3 metre parcel of land with approximately 40 square metres in area from 98-110 Victoria Street South (retained lands) to be conveyed as a lot addition to the neighbouring property at 92-94 Victoria Street South (recipient parcel). The effect of the lot addition will be to increase the southerly side yard setback of the recipient parcel from 0.4 metres to 1.9 metres, bringing it into compliance with the Zoning By-law. This is a re-application of Consent Application B 2014-032, which was approved by the Committee of Adjustment in September of 2014 but has since lapsed. A side yard setback of 1.9 metres for the recipient parcel was also approved by the Committee in September of 2014 through Minor Variance Application A 2014-061, which was submitted and approved concurrently with Consent Application B 2014-032. 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. Planning staff is of the opinion that the dimensions and shape of both the retained lands and recipient parcel comply with the applicable zoning regulations and are appropriate. No new lots are being created through this consent application. Rather, the lot addition will allow the recipient lands to be brought into compliance with the Zoning By-law. Heritage Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Although the subject property does not have formal heritage status (not designated or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register), the owner of the properties municipally addressed as 98-110 Victoria Street South is advised that the properties are located within the Warehouse District CHL. The owner will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Consequently, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed consent. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated September 11, 2017, advising they have no objection to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) dated September 13, 2017, advising although they have no objection to the subject application, they noted the floodplain proper does not extend onto the subject lands. However, a portion of the subject lands do fall within the 5-metre regulated allowance associated with the floodplain. Therefore, a portion of the subject lands are regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Mr. C. Pidgeon was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of 100 VIC GP Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Victoria Street South of 1.524m; a depth of 26.213m; and, an area of 40 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to 92-94 Victoria Street South, on Part Lot 553, Grange’s Amended Survey, Registered Plan 378 and Part Lot 41, Registered Plan 420, 98-110 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 252 - 2. Submission No.: B 2017-024 (Cont’d) 2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 4. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to 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 September 19, 2019. Carried 3. Submission No.: B 2017-025 Applicant: Rockway Holdings Limited Property Location: 239 Eden Oak Trail (Block 214, Registered Plan 58M-597) Legal Description: Block 214, Plan 58M-597 Appearances: In Support: C. Pidgeon Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on River Trail Avenue of 10.8m; a depth of 31.497m and an area of 340 sq.m. The retained land has a depth on Eden Oak Trail of 61.5m, a depth on Fairway Road of 315m and an area of 2.33 hectares. Both the severed and retained lands are intended for residential development. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated September 12, 2017, advising the subject property is located at the northeast corner of Eden Oak Trail and Fairway COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 253 - 3. Submission No.: B 2017-025 (Cont’d) Road North, in the Grand River South Planning Community. The property has two narrow frontages on Rivertrail Avenue. The subdivision containing the subject property and surrounding lands was registered approximately one year ago. The subject property is presently vacant. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and is zoned Residential Six (R-6), with Special Regulation Provisions 1R, 596R, 597R, and Special Use Provision 419U. It should be noted that in September 2016 the Committee approved Minor Variance Application A 2016-103, subject to conditions, which granted the following relief for multiple residential development: 1. relief from Section 40.2.6 to allow a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.88, whereas a maximum of 0.6 FSR is permitted; 2. relief from Section 5.6A.1a) to allow the proposed balconies of the buildings to be supported by columns rather than be cantilevered; 3. relief from Special Regulation Provision 596R to permit a setback of 4.5 metres to Fairway Road North, whereas a minimum setback of 7.5 metres is required; 4. relief from Section 6.1.2a) to permit 188 parking spaces for 148 cluster townhouse dwelling units, whereas 222 parking spaces are required; and, 5. relief from Section 6.1.2b)vi) to permit 40 visitor parking spaces for the proposed cluster townhouse development, whereas 44 (20% of the required 259 spaces) are required. The applicant is now seeking consent to create a new lot by eliminating the westerly access connection to Rivertrail Avenue and converting it into a single detached building lot. The severed parcel would have an approximate width on Rivertrail Avenue of 10.8 metres, a depth of 31.5 metres, and an area of 340 square metres. The retained parcel would have an approximate width on Fairway Road North of 315 metres, a depth between 60 and 80 metres, and an area of 2.3 hectares. The retained parcel would be subject to site plan control for multiple residential development. To date no development concepts have been provided that show the elimination of the westerly access connection to Rivertrail Avenue and no site plan application has been submitted to date. Planning staff is of the opinion that there are pros and cons to the proposed consent application. Pros: • the severed parcel conforms to the City’s Official Plan, the severed parcel fronts onto an established public street, the dimensions and shape of the severed parcel are appropriate, and the severed parcel is suitable for the purpose for which it is proposed to be severed. • the future development of the retained parcel will likely be able to meet the minimum requirements of the emergency services policy if the consent application is approved. This would have to be confirmed at the time of the future site plan application. From an emergency services viewpoint, if one of the access connections to Rivertrail Avenue is to be eliminated, the westerly access makes the most sense. • no water, storm, or sanitary services have been installed within the westerly access connection to Rivertrail Avenue, so removal of services is not required (note that such services have been installed within the easterly access). Cons: • eliminating either of the access connections to Rivertrail Avenue in the absence of a site plan application will limit potential development options for the retained parcel. Approving the consent without a concrete site plan proposal will frustrate the ability of the City to obtain an optimal site development. Note that Section 51(24)(b) of the Planning Act states that in considering an application to create a new lot, it should be considered whether the proposal is premature. Planning staff is of the opinion that the application is premature. • Section 51(24)(m) of the Planning Act states that in considering a consent application, the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land should be considered. At this time, the interrelationship cannot be determined until a site plan proposal is submitted and approved. • Fire Services staff prefers two access connections to Rivertrail Avenue, rather than one, for optimal emergency service provision. • the access connection to be eliminated would otherwise allow the most direct access to a City park located on the opposite side of Rivertrail Avenue. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 254 - 3. Submission No.: B 2017-025 (Cont’d) • the westerly access connection to Rivertrail Avenue would provide the most rational and functional secondary access to/from the subject property, since traffic would flow in a westerly direction, towards Eden Oak Trail and Old Zeller Drive (not eastward). • the westerly access connection to Rivertrail Avenue is located directly across from/in-line with Crossbridge Avenue (note that the easterly access is located across from/in line with a single detached building lot), which would make the most orderly access location. From a planning perspective, a question that should be answered at the time of a site plan application is whether both access connections to Rivertrail Avenue should be retained (both westerly and easterly access connections) or only the easterly access connection. 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 severed parcel conforms to the City’s Official Plan, the severed parcel fronts onto an established public street, the dimensions and shape of the severed parcel are appropriate, and the severed parcel is suitable for the purpose for which it is proposed to be severed. However, the retained parcel is in jeopardy and the proposed consent application is premature and may negatively affect site plan matters as mentioned in the Cons section above. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Consent Application B 2017-025 be refused. Planning staff would be willing to consider recommending approval to the consent application at such time as a site plan application has been reviewed and approved. Notwithstanding Planning staff’s refusal recommendation, should the Committee wish to approve the application, Planning staff recommend application of 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 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 one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. That the severance be in general conformity with the sketch attached to the staff report dated September 12, 2017. 4. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's 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 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 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 complete and submit the 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 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 owner obtain a building permit for the development of the severed lot. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated September 11, 2017, advising although they have no objection to this COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 255 - 3. Submission No.: B 2017-025 (Cont’d) application, they noted the lands were subject to plan of subdivision 30T-10202 with the Region’s issues and concerns addressed through this planning process or secured through subdivision agreements with the City of Kitchener and/or the Region. The applicant is reminded that the subject lands are subject to Regional agreement WR967927 dated July 22, 2016 and the City of Kitchener agreement WR732556 dated December 24, 2012. Water Services: The Region of Waterloo Water Services has identified the Grand River South Community as an area to be migrated to a new pressure zone with a lower HGL. The new pressure zone will have a HGL of 365 mASL. With the lower HGL of 365 mASL any centreline road elevation below 308.9 m will require the services to be connected to individual PRV's and any centreline road elevation above 293.6 m will be below the maximum pressures in the water system of 700 kPa (100 psi). Any development with a finished road elevation below 308.9 mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2017. Source Water Protection: For information. The lands are situated within the 2-year time-of-travel/Sensitivity 2 Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area as designated on Map 6a of the Regional Official Plan. The municipal wells in the area are GUDI wells (groundwater under the direct influence of surface water) which are prone to microbial contamination (Map 6f) and therefore must be protected. Any development related issues/concerns associated with the proposed severed parcel have been address through the plan of subdivision process. Corridor Planning: The applicant is reminded that the above development is subject to all related conditions of subdivision 30T-10202 secured through Regional agreement WR967927 dated July 22, 2016 and the City of Kitchener agreement WR732556 dated December 24, 2012. Among other things, these include requirements (special building components and warning clauses) associated with road traffic and aircraft noise, and future pedestrian walkways. Future Pedestrian Walkway Connection: Clause 9 of registered agreement WR967927 requires a future pedestrian connection from River Trail Avenue to Fairway Road through Block 214 (grades permitting). GSP Group has confirmed the prevailing grades at both the westerly and easterly accesses on River Trail Avenue to Fairway Road would not be conducive to providing such a pedestrian connection given the grades. As such, staff has no concern with the proposed severance to create the severed parcel (westerly access), but would like to further assess the pedestrian access requirement as part of site plan on the retained lands. Transit Development is currently developing new service options for Breslau, and some initial concepts include a route via this section of Fairway Road. Though preliminary, this would potentially be a busPlus route, operating during peak periods only. A potential future stop location (should the above route be implemented) would be on Fairway Road. Mr. C. Pidgeon was in attendance in support of the subject application. He provided a conceptual drawing of the proposed block development, noting the requested severance is intended to create a stand-alone lot for future residential development fronting onto Rivertrail Avenue, which was determined to be redundant to the existing multi-residential block. He indicated staff have voiced concerns regarding sufficient fire access to the site, noting a site plan application has yet to be submitted for the development of the block. He noted the subject property is currently for sale and the final development design has yet to be determined. He stated through the conceptual drawing, it is clear that the shape of the site would render the major access off Eden Oak Trail with an additional access off Rivertrail Avenue to meet the 90m distance separation required by the Fire Department. He stated in his opinion as a Planner, the question is when to sever – to wait until the Site Plan Approval process has begun or to sever the property first. He noted another multi-residential block adjacent to the subject property has already been developed and would function similar to the subject property, which demonstrates adequate fire access can be achieved. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 - 256 - 3. Submission No.: B 2017-025 (Cont’d) In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt stated staff’s main reason for recommending refusal of the subject application is due to the conceptual nature of the subject application, as no site plan has been submitted as yet. The Chair noted although he has no objections to the proposed severance, in his opinion the subject application is premature as there are a number of assumptions being made through conceptual designs that have yet to be finalized. He stated he was in support of the staff recommendation to refuse the subject application this date. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Rockway Holdings Limited requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on River Trail Avenue of 10.8m; a depth of 31.497m and an area of 340 sq.m. The retained land has a depth on Eden Oak Trail of 61.5m, a depth on Fairway Road of 315m and an area of 2.33 hectares, on Block 214, Plan 58M-597, 239 Eden Oak Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED, It is the opinion of this Committee that the propsed development of the subject property is yet to be determined and the application was deemed premature. 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 Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:01 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of September, 2017. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment