Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCA - 2017-11-21 - A 2017-107 - 386 Southill DrJ Staff Report KITCH��r,R Community Services Department www.kifcheneua REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: November 21, 2017 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 x7157 PREPARED BY: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 x7987 APPLICATION #: A2017-107 ADDRESS: 386 Southill Drive PROPERTY OWNER: Dejan and Olga Brakus SUMMARIZED RECOMMENDATION: Approve DATE OF REPORT: November 10, 2017 Location Map: 386 Southill Drive REPORT The subject property is located at 386 Southill Drive. The original single detached dwelling was constructed in about 1988 and includes a single car attached garage. The owner received a building permit in the summer of 2017 to construct an additional attached garage. The owner has indicated to staff that this garage will be used for long-term seasonal storage of a second vehicle (i.e. the vehicle will remain parked in the garage for the duration of winter months, and will be parked on the existing driveway when in use other times of the year). The new garage is K Staff Report K�Tc� ►� :R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua currently under construction, and during a recent inspection by Building Division staff it was observed that the garage does not meet the required side yard setback. Upon further review, planning staff has identified that the combination of the existing single detached garage and new double car garage extend for 72% of the fagade width rather than 70% and an irregular driveway is proposed which exceeds the permitted driveway width of 50%. As such, and to allow completion of the garage the following minor variances are required: 1. To permit a side yard setback of 0.6 metres, whereas section 38.2 requires 1.2 metres; 2. To permit the attached garages to have a maximum cumulative width of 72% of the front fagade of the dwelling, whereas section 5.5A.1 permits a maximum width of 70%; and 3. To permit a driveway having a width of 85% of the lot width, whereas section 6.1.1.1.b) e) permits a maximum width of 50%. Photo — 386 Southill Drive (October 30, 2017) Planning Analysis In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments. The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential. The intent of this designation is to permit low density housing types, and policies require that new development is compatible with existing neighbourhoods. The use as a single detached dwelling complies and staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances will allow a garage and driveway design that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, in accordance with the discussion and recommendations below. , Staff Report I .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua The lands are zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) which requires a 1.2 metre side yard setback. The purpose of this setback is to ensure sufficient separation between existing homes, to align with typical building code requirements, to provide space for access to rear yards and to allow space for maintenance of eaves, walls, etc. Building Division staff has indicated that with minor changes Building Code requirements will be met and request that new drawings be submitted. There is about a 1.7 metre side yard on the opposite side with an existing pedestrian walkway which provides direct access the rear yard. Further, regulations of the zoning by-law permit detached accessory structures, which may include a detached garage, to be located 0.6 metres from the side lot line. Detached accessory structures require a lessor setback in part, because they are only permitted to be one storey, which requires less space for maintenance than a two or three storey building. The subject attached garage is proposed to have a height of 2.4 metres near the side property line, sloping up to a maximum height of 4.27 metres where it meets the house. The height is consistent with the heights permitted for a detached accessory structure. Based on the foregoing, planning staff is of the opinion that the intent of the side yard setback is maintained. The purpose of limiting the maximum width of garages and driveways is to provide for an attractive streetscape which is not dominated by garages, and to protect space for front yard landscaping, street trees, and on -street parking between driveways. The proposed garage is unusual in that it is not an extension of the existing garage, but is separated from the existing garage by the front porch. The new garage does not project in front of the fagade of the existing house which minimizes its visual impact on the street. There are also three large coniferous trees in the front yard which help screen the new garage and are being retained. In addition, the existing driveway access at the street is not proposed to be expanded. This ensures there is no additional impact to availability of on -street parking. Further discussion with respect to the driveway width and configuration is provided below. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the proposal to increase the width of the garages from 70% to 72% of the fagade maintains the intent of the zoning by-law. The applicant also requires a variance for the driveway width. The by-law permits a maximum driveway width of 50% of the lot width. However in this instance, because the two garages are separate, in order to access the new garage the driveway must be significantly wider at its widest point. The intent of the garage width regulation is to ensure that a street is not dominated by driveways, and so that there is space for on -street parking, street trees and front yard landscaping. The new garage is proposed to be used for long-term winter storage of a personal vehicle (not driven in winter). Because the new garage will only be accessed infrequently, the owner proposed a two track, single car width driveway extending from the existing driveway to the new garage. Transportation planning staff suggests that because of the curve in the driveway that a two -track driveway may be difficult to manoeuver and suggest a single car width driveway paved with grass pavers. This will create a single solid surface which will blend in with the lawn. Further, this design will not require the driveway apron to be widened and there is no impact to on -street parking. While the proposed driveway configuration is unusual, staff is satisfied that it will function appropriately for the purpose of the garage. Staff recommends that any portion of the driveway which is permitted to exceed 50% of the lot width must be located a minimum of 3 metres from the front lot line. This is consistent with the zoning by-law requirement that a drive -aisle be located at least 3 metres from the property line to allow for a landscape buffer, and that the J Staff Report KITCH��r,R Community Services Department www.kifchenerca owner be required to construct the driveway in accordance with the Driveway Location Sketch included in this report. Staff also recommends that conditions be included which will limit the storage of vehicles in the garage to long-term seasonal storage; which indicate that the new driveway is for access purposes only and that the owner agrees not to park on the driveway extension; that the owner acknowledges that the Zoning By-law does not allow for the construction of a second driveway; and that the owner agrees not to expand the existing width of the driveway apron beyond 50% of the lot width. Driveway Location Sketch Based on the foregoing and subject to the recommended conditions, staff is of the opinion that the intent of the by-law is maintained, that the proposed variances are minor, and that they are appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Note that the exterior wall face of the attached garage shall have no openings, and the wall shall have a fire resistance rating not less than 45 minutes. A Building permit has been applied for and issued for the new attached garage. Revised drawings are to be submitted to the Building Division. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services staff has no concerns, subject to the driveway being constructed in accordance with the Driveway Location Sketch and that the driveway extension consist of grass pavers. , Staff Report I .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua Engineering Comments: Engineering has no concerns. RECOMMENDATION: That minor variance application A2017-107 requesting relief from s.38.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow a side yard setback of 0.6 metres, rather than 1.2 metres; from s. 5.5A.1 of Zoning By- law 85-1 to permit the attached garages to have a maximum cumulative width of 72% of the front fagade of the dwelling, rather than 70%; and from s. 6.1.1.1 (b)(e) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a driveway having a maximum width of 85% of the lot width, rather than 50%, be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That any portion of the driveway which exceeds 50% of the lot width must be setback 3.0 metres from the front lot line. 2. That the driveway extension be constructed by June 30, 2018, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning and Director of Transportation Services, and in accordance with the Driveway Location Sketch contained in report A2017-107. 3. That the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the Corporation of the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title, agreeing to the following: a. That the Owner shall construct an extension to the existing driveway on the lands, which extension shall connect the existing driveway to the new attached garage through the front yard of the lands. b. That the said driveway extension shall be constructed with grass pavers and maintained as a single car -width driveway extension only. For greater certainty, the agreement will indicate that construction and maintenance of the driveway extension will be in exact accordance with the foregoing, neither more nor less, it being the intention that the foregoing shall represent the sole standard of construction and maintenance of the said driveway extension and shall not be regarded as either a minimum or maximum standard. c. That the Owner acknowledges that the said driveway extension shall be used for access purposes only, and that the Owner agrees not to park on the said driveway extension. d. That, with respect to vehicular storage, the new garage shall only be used for the long-term seasonal storage of motor vehicles or major recreational equipment. e. The Owner shall acknowledge that the said driveway extension shall be construed to be an extension of the original driveway on the property and not a new driveway, and that the Zoning By-law does not allow for the construction of a second driveway between the street and the new garage on the lands or the expansion of the driveway apron beyond 50% of the lot width. �, Staff Report ITc� R Community Services Department wm kitchenerca 4. That the owner shall submit revised Building Permit drawings to the satisfaction of the City's Building Division. Katie Anderl, BES, MICP, RPP Senior Planner Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada Region of Waterloo Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4449 November 10, 2017 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Holly Dyson City of Kitchener 200 King Street West File: T 15-40/VAR KIT GEN P.O. Box 1118 (01) /50, Forest Hill United Church Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 (02) /58 KIT, Schlegel Urban Developments, 1193-1201 FHM Rd (04) /VAR KIT, 1142805 Ontario Inc. (05) /VAR KIT, Roopnarine, Angad (08) / VAR KIT, 2361693 Ontario Inc. (09, 10) / VAR KIT, Emmanuel Bible College (11, 12) /VAR KIT, Garden Brook Homes (13) / VAR KIT, 673099 Ontario Ltd. Freure North Subdivision (30T-98201) Dear Ms. Dyson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on November 21, 2017, City of Kitchener. Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have the following comments: 1. 121 Westmount Road East (SG 2017-016): No concerns. Please ensure that the sign and its foundation are located on private property. 2. 1201 Fischer -Hallman Road (SG 2017-017): No concerns. 3. 317 Greenbrook Drive (A 2017-104): No concerns. 4. 2399 Kingsway Drive (A 2017-105): No concerns. 5. 31 Cherry Street (A 2017-106): No concerns. 6. 386 Southill Drive (A 2017-107): No concerns. 7. 42 Marlis Crescent (A 2017-108): No concerns. 8. 125 Margaret Avenue (A 2017-109): No concerns. 9. 100 Fergus Avenue (70-100 Fergus Avenue) (A 2017-110): No concerns. 10.110 Fergus Avenue (A 2017-111): No concerns. 11.27 Bismark Avenue (A 2017-112): No concerns. 12.27 Bismark Avenue (A 2017-113): No concerns. 13.3, 7, 11, 15, 19 & New Lot (A 2017-114, 115, 116, 117, 118 & 119): No concerns. DOCS: 2553615 Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these development(s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application number(s) listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application number(s) to the undersigned. Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4757 ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Beth Brown, Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2307 Supervisor of Resource Planning E-mail: bbrown@grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: November 06, 2017 YOUR FILE: See below GRCA FILE: N/A RE: Applications for Signs: SG 2017-016 121 Westmount Road East SG 2017-017 1201 Fischer Hallman Road Applications for Minor Variance: A 2017-104 317 Greenbrook Drive A 2017-105 2399 Kingsway Drive, Unit 7 A 2017-106 31 Cherry Street A 2017-107 386 Southill Drive A 2017-108 42 Marlis Crescent A 2017-109 125 Margaret Avenue A 2017-110 100-110 Fergus Avenue A 2017-111 100-110 Fergus Avenue A 2017-112 27 Bismark Avenue A 2017-113 27 Bismark Avenue A 2017-114 5 & 3 Rockcliffe Drive A 2017-115 7 Rockcliffe Drive A 2017-116 11 Rockcliffe Drive A 2017-117 15 Rockcliffe Drive A 2017-118 19 Rockcliffe Drive A 2017-119 5 & 3 Rockcliffe Drive Applications for Consent: B 2017-038 125 Margaret Avenue B 2017-039 125 Margaret Avenue B 2017-040 100-110 Fergus Avenue B 2017-041 27 Bismark Avenue B 2017-042 27 Bismark Avenue B 2017-043 5 & 3 Rockcliffe Drive B 2017-044 7 Rockcliffe Drive B 2017-045 11 Rockcliffe Drive B 2017-046 15 Rockcliffe Drive B 2017-047 19 Rockcliffe Drive Applications for Provisional Consent: CC 2017-001 369 & 375 Frederick Street *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of 2 Grand River Conservation Authority. GRCA COMMENT*: The above noted applications are located Authority areas of interest. As such, we will and plan review fees will not be required additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Beth Brown Supervisor of Resource Planning Grand River Conservation Authority BB/dp outside the Grand River Conservation not undertake a review of the applications . If you have any questions, or require *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 2 of 2 Grand River Conservation Authority.