The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-19-036 - A 2019-015 - 66 Mt. Hope StStaff Repod Development Services Department REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: WARD: DATE OF REPORT: REPORT #: SUBJECT: I www.ki tch en er. ca Committee of Adjustment February 19th, 2019 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Jenna Daum — Technical Assistant - 519-741-2200 ext.7760 9 February 11th, 2019 DSD -19-036 A2019-015 — 66 Mt. Hope Street Owner — Marc William Gibson & Vanessa Erin Parks Approve as AMENDED f' Subject Property Location Map: 66 Mt. Hope Street *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property located at 66 Mt. Hope Street is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85- 1 and is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's 1994 and 2014 Official Plans. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on January 21St. The property contains an existing single detached dwelling, with no legally established on site parking provided. It is noted that the house was built in 1929 when there was no minimum parking requirement. To allow parking on the property, the owner is requesting permission for the following variance to locate the required off-street parking space to be located 0.18 metres from the front lot line rather than the required 6.0 metres. Upon reviewing the file, staff noted that the variance for a second off-street parking space adjacent to the front stairs to be 2.3 metres wide by 5.5 metres in length rather than the required 2.6 metre width and 5.5 metre length is not required. Section 6.1.1.1 b)ii)g) of the Zoning By-law states that a lot which has a width of 10.40 metres or less, the driveway can be a maximum of 5.20 metres wide. Therefore, staff recommends that the application be amended to request only the parking space setback for the required parking space. View from Mt. Hope Street 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: General Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City's 2014 Official Plan and 1994 Official Plan. 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/duplex dwellings, is being relied upon to determine whether the proposed variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. The requested variances are appropriate and would continue to maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood and therefore meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The requested variance to locate the required parking space 0.18 metres from the front lot line, whereas 6 metres is required, meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 6.0 metre setback is to allow for a vehicle to be safely parked on a property without affecting the City right-of-way and surrounding properties. Because of the age and location of house it is not possible to meet the 6 metre setback. It is the opinion of both Planning and Transportation staff that the reduction in the parking setback for the first parking space will not affect the City right-of-way or neighbouring properties. As such, staff is satisfied the variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Minor Staff is of the opinion that requested variance for the required parking space is minor, as the approval of the location of the first parking space will not cause any significant impacts to the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. Appropriate and Desirable The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of the variance. The proposed setback for the parking space will continue to provide a safe ingress and egress to the property without impacting the safety of the pedestrians on the sidewalk. Since the owners have sought approval for legalizing the required parking space on site, the driveway can be widened to a maximum width of 5.20 metres (Section 6.1.1.1 b)ii)g)) without requiring permission from the Planning Department. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the variance requesting permission to locate the required off-street parking space to be located 0.18 metres from the front lot line rather than the required 6.0 metres, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined below in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Comments: No concerns with the requested variances. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services can support the variance of 5.82 metres reduction from the required 6.0 metres parking setback to provide a 0.18 metres parking setback. Engineering Comments: No concerns with the requested variances. Heritage Planning Comments: No concerns with the requested variances. Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns with the requested variances. RECOMMENDATION: That application A2019-015 (as amended) requesting permission for an existing single detached dwelling to have the required off-street parking space to be located 0.18 metres from the front lot line rather than the required 6 metres, be approved with the following conditions: That the existing asphalt on the left side of the house on 66 Mt Hope Street not be used as a driveway and be replaced with a decorative path along the right-of-way with the neighbouring property at 70 Mt Hope Street, thus ensuring they have continued access to their garage via the 0.70 metre Right -of -Way designated on 66 Mt Hope Street, and that the remaining asphalt be converted to a proposed garden as shown on the Site Plan included with the application; 2. A curb cut permit be obtained from Engineering Services; 3. That the Rogers box on the boulevard be relocated as per Rogers regulations; 4. That the above noted conditions 1 to 3 be fulfilled no later than August 31, 2019. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate) prior to the completion date set out in the decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. Jenna Daum Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Technical Assistant (Planning and Zoning) Senior Planner Region of Waterloo February 1, 2019 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.: D20-01/VAR KIT GEN 1-8 Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on February 19, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have no comments: 1. SG 2019-003 — 151 Zeller Drive, Waterloo Region District School Board 2. SG 2019-004 — 222 Chandler Drive, City of Kitchener 3. A 2019-014 — 71 Heit Lane, 2103780 Ontario Inc. 4. A 2019-015 — 66 Mt. Hope Street, Marc Gibson & Vanessa Parks 5. A 2019-016 — 36 Gordon Avenue, David & Nancy Ashley 6. A 2019-017 — 6 Pequegnat Avenue, Jackman Property Holding 7. A 2019-018 — 396 Vanier Drive, Scott Davey 8. A 2019-019 — 396 Vanier Drive, Scott Davey 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. DOCS: 2926476 Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Yours Truly, Jason Wigglesworth, C.E.T. Transportation Planner (519) 575-4835 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 RE February 8, 2019 YOUR FILE: See below Application for Minor Variance (Signs): SG 2019-003 151 Zeller Drive Applications for Minor Variance: A 2019-014 71 Heit Lane A 2019-015 66 Mt. Hope Street A 2019-016 36 Gordon Avenue A 2019-017 6 Pequegnat Avenue A 2019-018 396 Vanier Drive A 2019-019 396 Vanier Drive Applications for Consent: B 2019-005 151 Wentworth Avenue B 2019-006 151 Wentworth Avenue B 2019-007 396 Vanier Drive CC 2019 -001 -CC 2019-004 883 Doon Village Road 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. February 13, 2019 Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services City of Kitchener Re: 66 Mt. Hope Street Minor Variance Application I am writing as a resident of Mt. Hope Street. I have concerns with the proposed minor variance application for 66 Mt. Hope Street. I understand that this application has been submitted after a stop work order was imposed on the residents for partially constructing a new driveway and parking pad including curb cuts without City permission. It is my understanding that these proposed works may not discussed with both of the neighbours on either side prior to construction. I have 2 primary concerns with the proposed minor variance application. The first is severe impacts to the tree on the adjacent property, 64 Mt. Hope Street and the second is the loss of on -street parking spaces. Tree Impacts It is my understanding that the City have different guidelines and policies to protect trees from development. I am not sure which of these documents may apply to an application to create additional parking spaces, however tree protection is universal in that trees require certain protection from and during construction activities without which they can die or decline and pose a hazard and liability. Through a previous work project, communications with City of Kitchener Urban Designer Lenore Ross indicated that the City typically recommends that the dripline of trees plus 1 additional meter is to be protected with tree protection fencing, as is described in the City of Kitchener Tree Management Policy (City of Kitchener, 2002), but that minor encroachments into this area may be accepted where deemed appropriate and not detrimental to the tree (Ross, Personal communication, October 20 2017). Many municipalities define Tree Protection Zones in which disturbance is prohibited. For example, the following is taken from the City of Guelph's Standard Specifications #31. Crrr OF GUELPH SS -31 SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLANTING OF TREES Tree Protection Zones The following is a chart showing minimum required distances for determining a Tree Protection .Zone: (TPZ) for City -awned trees located on a City Street, in parks and trees on private property_ Some trees and some site conditions may require a larger TP2. Tree Protection Zones; Trunk [Diameter (DEH)' Minimum Protection distances Requined2 City -owned and Private Trees Minimum Protection Distances Required Whichever of the two is greater: -10 cm 1.2 m The drip line°' or 1.2 m 103 — 29 cm 1.8 m The drip line cr 3.6 m 30-40 cm 2.4 m The drip line or 4.8 m 41 =50 cm 3A m The drip line or 6_0 m 51 —60 cm 3.6 m The drip line or 7.2 m 61 — 70 cm 4.2 m The drip line or 8.4 m 71 —80 cm 4.8 m The drip line or 9.6 m 81 —90 cm 5.4 m The drip line or 10.8 m 91 a 100 cm 6.0 m The drip line or 12.0 m X100 cm 6 cm protection for each 1 cm 12 cm protection for each 1 cm diameter or dri pline plus 1 meter° diameter or the drip lines 'Diameter at breast height (DEH) measurement of tree stem at 1.4 metres above the round. Tree Protection Zone distances are to be measured from the outside edge of the tree base. 21}iameter (10 cm) at which trees qualify for protection under the private tree by-law. "The drip line is defined as the area beneath the outer most branch tips of a tree_ sConverted from ISA Arborists' Certification Study Guide, general guideline for tree protection barriers of 1 foot of diameter from the stem for each inch of stem diameter flOr dripline plus 1 meter, whichever is greater Within a TPZ there must be: • no construction; • no altering of grade by adding fill, exeauaGng, trenching, scraping, dumping or disturbance of any kind. • no storage of construction materials, equipment, soil, construction waste or debris. • no disposal of any liquids e_g. concrete sleuth, gas, oil, paint. • no movement of vehicl es. equipment or pedestrians. • no parking of vehicles or machinerry_ + directional micro -tunnelling and boring may be permitted within the limits of a TPZ. • open face cuts outside a TPZ that are oonsistent with an approved plan and that require root pruning, require the services of a qualified arborist or approved tree professional. An exploratory dig, either by hand or using a low water pressure hydro vac method, must be completed prior to commencing with open face cuts outside the TPZ. PAGE 1 OF 2 The tree located at 64 Mt. Hope Street adjacent to the proposed parking spaces is characterized as follows: Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) 55cm Diameter -at -Breast -Height (DBH) Crown Radius 7.Om Condition — Fair to good No tree protection was implemented prior to the preliminary driveway excavations which were completed in December 2018. The attached Figure shows the tree crown as having a 7.Om radius (solid green line). Using the City of Guelph's Tree Protection Zones as an example, the minimum protection distance required would be 3.6m from the trunk (dashed green line). It is clear that the excavations have extended substantially inside this minimum protection zone. As an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist, the dripline of a tree is used as a surrogate measure of the root system which is typically located in the top 30 cm of soil. I routinely perform tree impact assessments for a variety of construction -related impacts. As a general rule of thumb, if 30% of the root system, as determined by the canopy is impacted, the tree is predicted to decline or die and is typically recommended for removal prior to construction. The attached figure identifies that the primary rooting area for this tree, which is comprised of the front yards, side yard and boulevard, totals 74M2. The excavations done in December removed 34M2 of this rooting area or roughly 45%. At the time I recommended to the tree owner that the roots severed and left exposed by the contractor be pruned back to the limit of excavation in accordance with Best Management Practices. This was done to mitigate further root damage and desiccation. Norway Maple are recognized as resilient trees capable of withstanding harsh urban environments. lam not predicting that this tree will necessarily die, but instead would suggest that if this rooting area was restored and if it received regular watering during the 2019 — 2021 growing seasons it would stand a reasonable chance to recover from the injuries resulting from the excavations. Alternatively, using the ISA's Tree Guide to Plant Appraisal, my co-worker who is an ISA Certified Tree Appraiser has done preliminary calculations to determine that the appraised value of this tree is $19,300 —this is a conservative valuation. My concern for the health of this tree is based on my appreciation for the trees in the urban area and what they contribute in terms of reducing stormwater run-off, minimizing heat island impacts and improving air quality. Our neighborhood has lost a substantial number of mature trees in the past decade as a result of ice storms and high wind events. As someone who works professionally with trees and municipalities to develop policies and management plans for the urban forest, I well -aware of the importance of protecting existing mature trees. I hope that through this process, steps can be taken to recover this tree to ensure its survival and contribution to our neighborhood. On -street Parking Evening and weekend parking spaces are limited on Mt. Hope Street. There were previously a maximum of 8 spaces on the block which has 16 houses. Beside residents and their friends and family, these spaces are routinely used by people going to Grand River Hospital and accessing services at the OATC clinic on Park Street. The curb cuts undertaken without permission have resulted in a loss of 2 of these spaces. Based on these 2 concerns I do not support the application for a minor variance to allow the 2 partially constructed parking spaces. I do recognize that parking is a challenge for the residents of 66 Mt. Hope Street, and wonder if they would consider restoring the one parking space closest to the tree and restoring the City curb in this location. This would effectively create an area where the tree could set new roots and restore 1 on -street parking space. I would suggest that a second parking space could possibly be achieved on the opposite side of the front walk in the vicinity of the pre-existing driveway that was removed in December. If additional curb cuts were needed at this location it would not reduce any on -street parking spaces. I respectfully submit this information to the Committee for their consideration of this matter on February 19, 2019. Sincerely, Mt. Hope Resident Encl. Figure 1 Tree Canopy Assessment