The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-18-060 - A 2018-060 - 6 Waterwillow CourtREPORT TO:Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING:July 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY:Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner -519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY:Richard Kelly-Ruetz,Technical Assistant (Planning and Zoning) –519- 741-2200 ext. 7110 WARD:5 DATE OF REPORT:July 6, 2018 REPORT #:DSD-18-060 SUBJECT:A2018-060–6 Waterwillow Court Applicants –Biljana Ivanovic Variance 1 (Rear Yard): Refuse Variance 2-5 (Legalize Existing Conditions): Approve Location Map: 6 Waterwillow Court REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property located at 6 Waterwillow Courtis zoned Residential Four (R-4), in Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential inthe City’s Official Plan. The applicant has requested 5 variances. For Variance 1, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-lawto allow asetback of 4.0metres from the rear lot linewhereas the By-law requires 7.5 metres, to facilitate a 2-storey duplex addition. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Variances 2-5 seekto legalize existing non-compliances being: Relief from Section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law to locate an existing obstruction (motor vehicle) in a corner visibility triangle, whereas no obstruction is permitted; Relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) e) of the Zoning By-law to allow an existing driveway width of approximately 7.5 metres, whereas 6.15 metresis the maximum; Relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) to locate a driveway 3.8 metresfrom the intersection of street lines, whereas 9.0 metresis required; and, Relief from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize an existing corner lot width of 12.3 metres, whereas 15.0 metresis required. Front and side yard of 6 Waterwillow Court Approximate location of proposed duplexaddition City Planningstaff conducted a site inspection of the property on July 4, 2018. 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 offersthe following comments. 1.The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and 1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect, however a significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Planare 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 variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. The proposed variancesmeetthe intent of the designation, which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The requested variancesto permit a reduced rear yard setback and legalize existing non-compliances areappropriate and would continueto maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood.The proposed variances conformto the designation andit is the opinion of staff that the requested variances areappropriateand meets the general intent of the Official Plan. 2.The requested Variance 1to have arear yard setback of 4.0 metresmetres rather than the required 7.5 metres does not meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intentof the 7.5 metre setback is to provide outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties.The reduced rear yard setback would result in inadequate separation between the proposed duplex addition and the rear yard of an adjacent property, thus not meeting thegeneralintent of the Zoning By-law. As shown in the diagram below, the proposedduplexaddition abuts 2 adjacent properties, being 118 Wilderness Drive,and 2 Waterwillow Court. Proposed addition in rear yard of 6 Waterwillow Court With regards tothe impact to118 Wilderness Drive, the proposed duplex addition mostly abuts the side yard of this property, thereby limiting the impacts of the proposed addition as their side yard is less likely to be used as amenity space than the rear yard.As such, staff hasno concerns with the impacts to 118 Wilderness Drive. However, Staff hasconcernswith the impacts thatareduced4.0 metreyear yard setbackwould have on the amenity space inthe rear yard of the adjacent 2 Waterwillow Court. The proposed rear yard reduction wouldresult in a partialenclosure of the rear yard of 2 Waterwillow Court, due to the proximity of the proposed duplex addition. It is the opinion of staff that thislimited separationwould createan uncomfortablesense of enclosure andultimately reduce the effectiveness of the rear yard amenity space at 2 WaterwillowCourt, thus not meeting the intent of the zoning by-law. Rear yard of the adjacent 2 Waterwillow Court Staff contemplatedrequiringthatno windows be located on the side of the proposed duplex addition facing the rear yard of 2 Waterwillow Placeto avoid overlook into the rear yard,and/or requiring that the duplex addition be 1-storey instead of the proposed 2-storeys. However,Staff is of the opinion thatthese solutionswould not sufficiently address the overall reduction in effective rear yard amenity space for 2 WaterwillowCourt.Furthermore, as the proposed addition is to be used for a duplex, the practicalities of either solution are limited.Staff could potentially support a reduced rear yard, but not to the extent proposed. Overall, while a reduced rear yard setback of 4.0 metrescould allow sufficient, albeit reduced, amenity space for the subject property (6 Waterwillow Court)and also not negatively impact 118 Wilderness Drive, it is the opinion of Staff that there is insufficient separation between the proposed duplex addition and the existing rear yard amenity space at2 Waterwillow Court, thereby not meeting thegeneralintent of the zoning by-law. Existing Non-Compliances(Variances 2-5) The requested Variances 2-5to legalize existing non-compliances with regards to corner lot width, driveway width, setback to intersection of street lines, and motor vehicle obstruction in a visibility triangle can be considered minor as these are existing conditions. Staff do not anticipate that these will cause any impactsto neighbouring properties. 3.Staff is of the opinion that requested Variance1to permit a reduced rear yard setback isnot minor as theapproval of the rear yard setback will negatively affect the amenity space for an adjacent property.As discussed extensively in the second test, the proposed duplex addition with a reduced rear yard setback would have a significant impact on the amenity space for the adjacent 2 Waterwillow Court. Existing Non-Compliances(Variances 2-5) The remaining Variances 2-5are minor as they seek to legalize existing conditions and are supported by City Transportation staff. 4.The requested Variance1is notappropriate for the development and use of the land. Staff is of the opinion that the varianceto reduce the required rear yard setback willresult in a negative impact for an adjacent propertywithin the neighbourhood, being 2 Waterwillow Court.While the proposed duplex addition with a deficient rear yard would meet other regulations of the Zoning By-law, including lot coverage, side yard, and side yard setback abutting a street, the impacts on the rear yard amenity space of 2 Waterwillow Court are significant enough to make the proposal not appropriate for the development and use of the land. Existing Non-Compliances(Variances 2-5) The remaining Variances 2-5seek to legalize existing conditions and as such, can be deemed appropriate for thedevelopment and use of the land.Staff notes that by legalizing the existing corner lot width, a duplex within the existing single detached dwelling or an addition within the confines of the R-4 zoning regulations could now be permitted, subject to other matters such as receiving a building permit, meeting fire regulations, meeting parking regulations, etc. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Variance 1 of this application berefusedand Variance 2-5be approved. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit for the proposed rear yard addition and change of use is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: The corner visibility and driveway visibility triangle encroachments are exiting conditions which we recognize and therefore, support the proposed encroachments. Heritage Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Comments: The subject property has a tree in the rear yard and 3 street trees along Waterwillow Court. The tree within the rear yard will need to be removed to facilitate the addition. The street trees will need to be protected during constructionof the addition. If approved, please apply the Standard Minor Variance Condition forthe protection of street trees: That the Owner ensures any boulevard trees identified by the City for retention are protected during construction to the satisfaction ofthe City’s Operations and Planning. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Owner makes satisfactory arrangements financial or otherwise for any relocation/removal of any existing boulevard trees adjacent to the subject property to the satisfaction of the City’s Operations. RECOMMENDATION A.That Variance 1 outlined in Minor Variance Application A2018-060 requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 to permit a rear yard setback of 4.0 metres, whereas 7.5 metresis required, berefused; and, B.That Variance 2-5 outlined in Minor Variance Application A2018-060 requesting relief from Section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law to locate an existing obstruction (motor vehicle) in a corner visibility triangle, whereas no obstruction is permitted; from Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) e) of the Zoning By-law to allow anexisting driveway width of 7.5 metres, whereas 6.15 metres is the maximum; from Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) to locate a driveway 3.8m from the intersection of street lines, whereas 9.0 metresis required; and from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize an existing corner lot width of 12.3 metres, whereas 15.0 metresis required, be approved. Richard Kelly-Ruetz, BES Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Technical Assistant Senior Planner July 04, 2018 Holly Dyson City of Kitchener 200 King Street West File: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN P.O. Box 1118 (5) /VAR KIT, 8141362 Ontario Inc. Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 (8) /VAR KIT, Michael Prendiville (11) /VAR KIT, Goran and Milena Gligorovic Dear Ms. Dyson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 17, 2018, City of Kitchener. Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have the following comments: 1. 901 Pebblecreek Court (A 2018-057): No concerns. 2. 352 Maple Avenue (A 2018-058): No concerns. 3. 39 Susan Crescent (A 2018-059): No concerns. 4. 6 Waterwillow Court (A 2018-060): No concerns. 5. 1 Adam Street (A 2018-061): No concerns. 6. 330 Joseph Schoerg Crescent (A 2018-062): No concerns. 7. Doonwoods Crescent Parts 2 & 3 58R-17119 (A 2018-063): No concerns. 8. 304 Park Street (A 2018-064): No concerns. 9. 101 Mt. Hope Street (A 2018-065 & A 2018-066): No concerns. 10. 105 Mt. Hope (A 2018-067 & A 2018-068): No concerns. 11. 44 Fifth Avenue (A 2018-069): No concerns. 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. 5ƚĭǒƒĻƓƷ bǒƒĬĻƩʹ ЋАЏВЎЏЊ 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 N1R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes@grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2018 YOUR FILE: See below Applications for Minor Variance: RE: A 2018-057 901 Pebblecreek Court A 2018-058 352 Maple Avenue A 2018-059 39 Susan Crescent A 2018-060 6 Waterwillow Court A 2018-061 1 Adam Street A 2018-063 Doonwoods Crescent A 2018-064 304 Park Street A 2018-065 101 Mount Hope Street A 2018-066 101 Mount Hope Street A 2018-067 105 Mount Hope Street A 2018-068 105 Mount Hope Street A 2018-069 44 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-044 43 Barclay Avenue B 2018-047 239 Wellington Street North B 2018-048 Weichel Street at Victoria Street South B 2018-049 Weichel Street at Victoria Street South B 2018-050 Weichel Street at Victoria Street South B 2018-051 304 Park Street B 2018-052 101 Mount Hope Street B 2018-053 105 Mount Hope Street B 2018-054 44 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 Page 1 of 1 *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority.