Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-18-071 - A 2018-024 - 2 Crossbridge AvenueJ Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Siobhan Kelly, Student Planner— 519-741-2200 ext.7074 WARD: 5 DATE OF REPORT: April 11, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-071 SUBJECT: A2018-024 (Amended) — 2 Crossbridge Avenue Applicant — Milestone Developments Inc. Approve R4 50'!R Nt 50tl Subject Lands 7R. Location Map: 2 Crossbridge Avenue RA 597R 41 RECOMMENDATION: That Application A2018-024 requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a side yard setback abutting a street of 4.0 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres, relief from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a rear yard setback of 6.15 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres, relief from Section 6.1.1.1 (b)(iv) of the Zoning By-law to allow a corner access driveway to be located at 8.7 metres to the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot rather than the required 9.0 metres, and relief of Section 5.6A.4 (a) of the Zoning By-law to allow a porch to be setback 2.75 metres from the lot line abutting a street rather than the required 3.0 metres, be approved. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT Prior to the March 20, 2018 Committee of Adjustment meeting, the Applicant submitted a modification to the application by adding a front wrap around porch to the proposed dwelling. This modification required an additional variance to permit a setback of 2.75 metres abutting Rivertrail Avenue for the wrap around porch rather than the required 3 metres. Consequently, the application was deferred in order to allow time for staff to consider the added request and to provide proper notification of the additional variance. The Applicant has since revised the Application for Minor Variance to request the following: 1. Relief from Section 38.2.1 to allow a side yard setback abutting a street of 4.0 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres; 2. Relief from Section 38.2.1 to allow a rear yard setback of 6.15 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres; 3. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1(b)(iv) to allow a corner lot access driveway to be located at 8.7 metres to the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot rather than the required 9.0 metres; and 4. Relief from Section 5.6A.4(a) to allow a porch to be setback 2.75 metres from a lot line abutting a street rather than the required 3.0 metres. Planning staff continues to recommend approval of variances 1 to 3, in addition to the latest variance (4) as discussed below. Planning Comments: The subject property located at 2 Crossbridge Avenue is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The subject property is located at the intersection of Crossbridge Avenue and Rivertrail Avenue. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on March 2, 2018. 2 Crossbridge 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 following comments: Variance 1 & 2: Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback 1. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City's 2014 Official Plan and the 1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect however, a significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal and therefore, are not being relied upon for this report. Instead, Low Rise Residential Policy 3.1.2.1 from the 1994 Official Plan which allows for low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings is being relied upon to determine whether the proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the designation which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The requested variance to permit a reduced side yard setback and rear yard setback continues to maintain the low density character of the property and the surrounding neighbourhood. As such, the variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. 2. The intent of the 4.5 metres setback for side yards abutting a street is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety and to maintain a uniform and consistent building edge along the streetscape. It is the opinion of staff, that the proposed 4 metre setback provides sufficient separation between the street and the dwelling due to the presence of an open amenity space and useable porch that wraps around the corner of the dwelling. The intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to ensure appropriate privacy between adjacent properties and/or adequate separation between different land uses, environmentally sensitive areas, and outdoor amenity areas. Considering that the adjacent properties are all zoned R-4, it is the opinion of staff that a 6.15 metre rear yard setback provides adequate separation between the subject and adjacent properties, maintaining appropriate privacy and safety. The application meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. 3. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staffs opinion that the requested variances will not impact the subject property, adjacent lands or the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. 4. The variances are minor for the following reasons. The proposed reductions would not impact the functionality or visual appearance of the site or dwelling as they would maintain appropriate separation from adjacent properties and the street; and would maintain visibility in the corner visibility triangle and driveway visibility triangles. The proposed 6.17 metre rear yard setback and the 4 metre side yard setback maintains appropriate separation in regards to privacy and safety due to the presence of private amenity space to the rear and a useable porch that wraps the corner of the dwelling. Variance 3: Driveway Setback from Intersection 1. The requested variance to permit a driveway setback for a corner lot continues to maintain the low density character of the property and the surrounding neighbourhood. As such, the variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. 2. The intent of the 9.0 metre driveway separation requirement is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. It is the opinion of staff, that the driveway separation requirement of the Zoning By-law was developed to ensure that corner lots maintain appropriate visibility to and from an intersection so as to ensure safe ingress/egress. The proposed driveway is located to lead directly to a street and maintains appropriate DVT (4.5 metres) and CVT (7.5 metres). It should be noted that on the sketch prepared for the minor variance application, the CVT was measured as 9.0 metres rather than 7.5 metres. It is the opinion of staff that the 0.3 metre reduction meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law with respect to the provision of safety and visibility. Transportation Planning staff also indicated that they have no concerns with the requested reduction of 9.0 metres to 8.7 metres. 3. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staff's opinion that the requested variance will not impact the subject property or interfere with the functionality of the abutting intersection. 4. The variance is minor for the following reason: the proposed driveway would continue to respect the character of the neighbourhood and the surrounding corner properties as it provides the same width as the attached garage and is located to lead to the municipally addressed street. It is the opinion of staff, that an 8.7 metres driveway setback from the intersecting street lines would not impact access to the intersection for vehicular and pedestrian traffic and could be appropriately applied to the dwelling without compromising safety in the neighbourhood. Variance 4: Porch Setback 1. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The requested variance to permit a reduced setback from the lot line to the porch maintains the low density character of the property and the surrounding neighbourhood. As such, the variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. 2. The intent of the 3.0 metres setback requirement for porches is to ensure appropriate privacy between adjacent properties and to ensure adequate separation from the street. The subject property is a corner lot and the porch is proposed to be built on the corner of the dwelling which abuts the street. As the porch will not be located adjacent to a neighbouring property or dwelling, staff has no concerns regarding overlook and privacy. In regards to separation from the street, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed 2.75 metre setback provides sufficient separation from the street due to the presence of an open amenity space which provides a buffer between the street and porch. In addition, the proposed porch maintains both the corner visibility and driveway visibility triangles, ensuring appropriate visibility to and from the intersection at Crossbridge Avenue and Rivertrail Avenue. It is staff's opinion that the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained. 3. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it provides for an active corner. The proposed porch includes comparable high quality materials on the facades facing the public realm and offers an acceptable level of oversight to the street through the use of windows in an actively used interior space. As such, it is staffs opinion that the requested variance will not negatively impact the adjacent properties or the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. 4. The variance is minor for the following reasons: the proposed reduction would not impact the visual appearance of the porch nor the functionality of the intersection. The proposed variance maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law as it would maintain adequate separation from adjacent properties and the street to ensure safety and privacy. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit be obtained for the single detached dwelling. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with permit requirements and any questions. Transportation Services Comments: As the proposed reduction in the vision triangle would not affect the visibility, Transportation Services have no concerns with a 0.26 meter reduction from the required 9.0 meter intersection setback to a driveway, to provide an 8.71 meter setback. Engineering Comments: No concerns with the proposed application. Operations Comments: No concerns with the proposed application. Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: No concerns with the proposed application. Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo April 3, 2018 Holly Dyson City of Kitchener 200 King Street West P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Dyson: PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519.575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4449 www.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: D20-20 Kit. Gen. NA Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on April 17, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have no comments - A2018 -024 (Amended), 2 Crossbridge Avenue A2018-030 to 042, Various 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, Z_."Vwl a_ BruceErb Supervisor, Corridor Planning (519) 575-4435 Document Number: 2691987 Document Author: EBRUCE Version: 1 Document Type: XPE-PE Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth Avenue GRCA COMMENT*: The above noted applications are located outside the Grand River Conservation Authority areas of interest. As such, we will not undertake a review of the applications and plan review fees will not be required. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority.