Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-18-183 - A 2018-139 - 16 Chapel Hill DrJ Staff Report KIR Community Services Department www.krtchenerca REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: WARD: DATE OF REPORT: REPORT #: SUBJECT: Committee of Adjustment December 11, 2018 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Sheryl Rice Menezes, Planning Technician — 519-741-2200 ext. 7844 4 December 5, 2018 DSD -18-183 A 2018-139 — 16 Chapel Hill Drive Applicant — Mike Nielsen Owner —Jim and Cindy Nessner Approval with Conditions Photo 1 REPORT Planning Comments: The property is zoned Residential Two (R-2) in By-law 85-1 and is designated as Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan. Staff visited the site on December 3, 2018. The owner is requesting permission to legalize an existing accessory building in the rear yard of an single detached dwelling having a height to the underside of the fascia of 3.5 metres rather than the permitted maximum of 3 metres; and for the single detached dwelling to have a driveway width of 13.7 metres rather than the maximum width of 8 metres. Photo 2 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. Accessory Buildin A building permit was issued in August 2018 for `the construction of a new detached garage in the rear of a single detached dwelling.' Upon inspection, the municipal building official noticed that the structure was not built according to the approved building permit drawings regarding fascia height. Consequently, this minor variance approval would be required to legalize the increase to the fascia height of the recently built garage. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan designation. The intent of the Low Rise Residential designation is to accommodate a full range of low-density housing types such as the single detached dwelling located on this property. The variance in regards to the existing fascia height is in keeping with the intent for low-density housing on the site. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of a maximum fascia height for an accessory dwelling is to ensure that accessory buildings are appropriate in size and massing when compared to the main dwelling on the site. The property has a lot area of 2,386 square metres and the existing detached building is a small portion of this site (see photo 1). The proposed fascia height of 3.5 metres meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law (see photo 2). The proposed variance may be considered minor and appropriate development for the subject property and surrounding neighbourhood. As noted above, the intent is to ensure the accessory building does not exceed the size or massing of the main dwelling. The proposed variance for 0.5 metres may be considered minor and is appropriate development for the size of the lot and for the surrounding neighbourhood. Driveway Width The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan designation. As noted above, the intent of the Low Rise Residential designation is to accommodate a range of low-density dwellings. The use of the property is for a single detached dwelling and the existing driveway width accommodates accessing the garage attached to the house, as well as the rear yard. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the maximum driveway width is to ensure that a property, as well as the surrounding streetscape, is not negatively impacted by the size of a driveway when compared to the lot width. The subject lot has a width of 42 metres. While the Zoning By-law notes a maximum driveway width of 8 metres, it does permit two driveways for any lot with a frontage more than 30 metres. Although the 13.7 metres wide driveway exceeds the maximum width of 8 metres for one driveway, it does function as two driveways that are side-by-side. The left side of the driveway leads to a three -car attached garage; and the right side leads to the rear yard. The proposed variance may be considered minor and appropriate development for the subject property and surrounding neighbourhood. The existing driveway width is 13.7 metres compared to an overall lot width of 42 metres. The driveway width is appropriate when considering the size of the frontage and that two separate driveways would have been permitted. The existing driveway acts similar to two separate driveways as they lead to different areas on the property. The driveway has existed since prior to 1997 (as shown on the oldest aerial photo available to staff) and there have been no complaints to date regarding the driveway width. Based on the above comments, staff is of the opinion that the driveway width variance is minor and appropriate for the property and neighbourhood. Photo 3 Staff notes that the existing driveway is composed of asphalt and gravel and as noted above has existed for many years. Section 6.1.1.1 b) vi) of the Zoning By-law requires the driveway to be composed of the same material; however, as the two different materials have existed prior to this regulation being implemented in 2007, it is considered legal non -conforming. Lastly, Engineering staff have concerns in regards to drainage from the driveway and any increase in vehicles accessing the rear yard affecting drainage. To ensure that all drainage from the property is directed towards the street, Engineering staff are recommending that a drainage swale be constructed (see Engineering comments below). Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved subject to the conditions noted in the Recommendations section below. Tire storage During the site visit, staff noticed the storage of numerous tires stacked in the rear yard. Staff advises the applicant and the owner that the residential zoning of the property does not permit a use or business involving `storage of parts and accessories for motor vehicles'. Nor does it permit the `service or repair of motor vehicles' whether for profit or not for profit. The existence of any non -complying use or business could result in enforcement action. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a revision to the issued building permit is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at 519-741-2433 with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Comments: Engineering staff have concerns regarding drainage from the driveway, which may be directed towards the easterly side lot line and result in erosion of the embankment over the short or long term. It is requested that a drainage swale be constructed along the edge of the driveway and generally parallel to the side lot line such that all drainage is directed to the street where it will then find its way into the existing drainage system along the side lot line. Please contact the Engineering Division at 519-741-2200 x 7410. Heritage Planning Comments: Heritage Planning staff notes that the property municipally addressed as 16 Chapel Hill Drive is adjacent to 40 Chapel Hill Drive which is a listed property on the Municipal Heritage Register. Given the nature of the application, Heritage Planning staff is of the opinion that there will be no adverse impacts to the listed property. 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 serves to establish an inventory. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The owner of the property municipally addressed as 16 Chapel Hill Drive is advised that the property is located within the Caryndale Neighbourhood CHL. The owner and the public 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. Environmental Planning Comments: As the driveway is existing and the building of the accessory building is in progress Environmental Planning has no concerns. RECOMMENDATION: That application A 2018-139 requesting permission to legalize an existing accessory building in the rear yard of an single detached dwelling having a height to the underside of the fascia of 3.5 metres rather than the permitted maximum of 3 metres; and for the single detached dwelling to have a driveway width of 13.7 metres rather than the maximum width of 8 metres be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That a revision to the issued building permit is obtained from the Building Division prior to construction; 2) That a drainage swale be constructed along the edge of the driveway and generally parallel to the side lot line to ensure that all driveway drainage is directed to the street, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division; and, 3) That conditions 1 and 2 noted above be completed by May 30th, 2019. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate) prior to completion date set out in this decision. Failure to complete the conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. Sheryl Rice Menezes, CPT Planning Technician (Zoning) Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo November 29, 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. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca File No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on December 11, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2018-014 — 321 Fischer Hallman Road — No Concerns 2. SG 2018-015 — 371 Franklin Street North — No Concerns 3. A 2018-126 — 468 Trussler Road — No Concerns 4. A 2018-128 — 24 Crosswinds Drive — No Concerns 5. A 2018-129 — 398 Rivertrail Avenue — No Concerns 6. A 2018-130 — 374, 380 and 384 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns 7. A 2018-131 — 414 and 424 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns 8. A 2018-132 — 114-120 Victoria Street South — No Concerns 9. A 2018-133 — 121 Walter Street — No Concerns 10.A 2018-134 — 76 Grand Flats Trail — No Concerns 11. A 2018-135 — 171 Rivertrail Avenue — No Concerns 12. A 2018-136 — 248 Shady Glen Cres — No Concerns 13. A 2018-137 — 1 Goodrich Drive AKA 1 Chandaria Place — No Concerns 14. A 2018-138 — 242, 254 and 262 Queen Street South — No Concerns 15. A 2018-139 — 16 Chapel Hill Drive — No Concerns 16. A 2018-140 — 405 and 409 Nyberg Street — No Concerns 17.A 2018-141 — 1800 Victoria Street North — 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Document Number: 2877629 Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Yours Truly, Monirul Islam, P.Eng. Transportation Planner (519) 575-4435 Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Andrew Herreman, Resource Planning Technician 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2228 E-mail: aherreman@grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: December 3, 2018 YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance (Signs and Fences): SG 2018-014 321 Fischer Hallman Road SG 2018-015 371 Franklin Street North FN 2018-003 626 Blair Creek Drive Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-116 359 Alice Avenue A 2018-123 106 Ahrens Street West A 2018-125 810 Frederick Street A 2018-126 468 Trussler Road A 2018-128 24 Crosswinds Drive A 2018-129 398 Rivertrail Avenue A 2018-130 374, 380 & 384 Prospect Avenue A 2018-131 414 & 424 Prospect Avenue A 2018-133 121 Walter Street A 2018-134 76 Grand Flats Trail A 2018-135 171 Rivertrail Avenue A 2018-136 248 Shady Glen Crescent A 2018-137 1 Goodrich Drive/1 Chandaria Place A 2018-138 242, 254 & 262 Queen Street South A 2018-139 16 Chapel Hill Drive Applications for Consent: B 2018-121 59 Irvin Street B 2018-122 20 Victoria Marie Court/15 Prince Albert Boulevard B 2018-124 34 Third Avenue B 2018-126 53 Second Avenue B 2018-127 385 Frederick Street 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, Andrew Herreman Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority "These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of 1 Grand River Conservation Authority.