The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCA - 2017-11-21 - A 2017-108 - 42 Marlis Cres�, Staff Report KJ R Community Services Department www. kitchenerca REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: APPLICATION #: ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: SUMMARIZED RECOMMENDATION: DATE OF REPORT: REPORT: Planning Comments: Committee of Adjustment November 21St, 2017 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 April Best-Sararas, Planning Student 519-741-2200 ext. 7074 A2017-108 42 Marlis Crescent Kurt and Karin Schuemann Approve November 8t", 2017 P Location Map: 42 Marlis Crescent City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on November 8t", 2017. The subject property is located at 42 Marlis Crescent 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. The lands currently contain a single detached dwelling, and recently constructed sunroom addition and as such, the owner is requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 to legalize the existing side yard setback of 1.1 metres (3.6 ft) for the addition, whereas 1.2 metres (3.9 ft) is required. Existing dwelling and addition at 42 Marlis Crescent 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 property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City's 2014 Official Plan and 1994 Official Plan. Although a significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal, it should be noted that certain policies do apply. 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 staffs opinion that the proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan, which encourages a range of housing forms that achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. Legalizing the existing condition will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. 2. The requested variance to reduce the side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 1.1 metres meets the general 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 side yard setback of the addition already exists, Staff is satisfied the reduction of 0.1 metres will continue to provide adequate separation and access to the rear yard. 3. The variance can be considered minor. Given that the purpose of the variance is to legalize the existing side yard setback for the addition, Staff is satisfied that the requested variance will not present any significant impacts on adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood that do not already exist. 4. The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The application is to legalize an existing setback; therefore, the proposed variance will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. Based on the above comments, Staff is of the opinion that the 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. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. A building permit has been applied for and is currently under review for this rear yard addition. Engineering Comments: Engineering has no comments or concerns. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Comments: No heritage planning concerns. RECOMMENDATION: That minor variance application A2017-108 requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 to legalize the existing side yard setback of 1.1 metres (3.6 ft) for the addition, whereas 1.2 metres (3.9 ft) is required, be approved. 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.