The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-19-122 - A 2019-051 - 25 Vanier DrStaff Report ) R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 21St, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Junior Planner— 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 WARD: 3 DATE OF REPORT: May 13th, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-122 SUBJECT: A2019-051 — 25 Vanier Drive Applicant — Sandra & Alfredo Hernandez Recommendation: Approve with condition Location Map: 25 Vanier Drive REPORT �fo Planning Comments: The subject property located at 25 Vanier Drive is zoned Residential Nine Zone (R-9) in the Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is designated High Rise Residential in the Official Plan. Staff conducted a site inspection of the property on May 9th, 2019. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. The applicant is requesting to legalize a duplex dwelling within a legal non -conforming semi- detached dwelling, whereas a duplex is not a permitted use in the zone. The applicant is also requesting permission to legalize a driveway with a width of 5.6 metres rather than the maximum permitted driveway width of 5.2 metres. } View of Existing Semi Detached Dwelling (May 9, 2019) 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. Addition of Use (Semi -Detached Duplex) General Intent of the Official Plan 1. The requested variance meets the general intent of the 2014 Official Plan. The Official Plan encourages redevelopment that provides for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types to satisfy the varying housing needs of the community. In addition, it encourages the retention and rehabilitation of existing housing to maintain the housing stock, stability, and community character of established residential neighbourhoods. General Intent of the Zoning By-law 2. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The existing use of semi detached dwelling is not permitted in the zone because it is a low density use, whereas the zone permits only high density uses. The existing use is legal non -conforming. By adding a unit, the applicant is increasing the density of the property, bringing it closer to the intention of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Appropriate? 3. The proposed variance are considered desirable and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. No outside changes are proposed to the building and the second unit is existing. Therefore, no impacts to the neighbourhood are expected. Is the Variance Minor? 4. The variance is considered minor. The subject property abuts a landscaped area for a high rise residential tower so any impacts are considered to be minor. Driveway Widening General Intent of the Official Plan 1. The requested variance meets the general intent of the 2014 Official Plan. The Official Plan states that when minor variances are requested in order to facilitate residential intensification, the overall impact will be reviewed to ensure that the lands can function appropriately and not cause adverse impacts by providing adequate parking spaces and amenity area. The subject property contains a large rear yard for amenity, and the existing width of the driveway will facilitate adequate parking for the 2 residential units. General Intent of the Zoning By-law 2. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The regulation that limits driveways to 5.2 metres is to ensure that the front yard is not dominated by parking area and that there is room for landscaping. The driveway width of 5.6 metres is existing and represents a small increase that does not dominate the front yard. Staff is of the opinion that there continues to be adequate room for landscaping and therefore the requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Appropriate? 3. The proposed variance are considered desirable and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The driveway is existing at that width and will be resurfaced to comply with the Zoning By-law to contain one surface material, and will be more appropriate for the character of the neighbourhood. Is the Variance Minor? 4. The variance is considered minor. The requested increase represents a small increase in driveway width that will not pose any negative impacts and can therefore be considered minor. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided the building permit for the change of use into a duplex is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with this application. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning concerns. RECOMMENDATION That application A2019-051 requesting permission to legalize a semi-detached duplex dwelling having a driveway width of 5.6m rather than the permitted 5.2m (as amended) be approved, subject to the following condition: 1. That the driveway is returned to one consistent surface material (asphalt or concrete) to comply with the Zoning By-law by December 31St, 2019 Eric Schneider, BES Junior Planner Juliane von Westerholt, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo May 03, 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, Sth 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 (2) 06 BENTON/Frederick Victoria Business Centre (15) 08 WEBER KIT, Kiah Group Inc. Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on May 21, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-009 — 760 Commonwealth Crescent — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-010 — 907 Frederick Street — There are no concerns to the sign variance for the sign mounted on the building, mentioned in the application. However, it is noted that there is another ground mounted business sign which is encroaching into Victoria Street right-of-way. The owner should confirm if there is an existing encroachment agreement in place. If not, the same would be required with the Region. 3. SG 2019-011 — 524 Belmont Avenue West— No Concerns. 4. A 2019-039 — 121 Arrowhead Crescent — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-040 — 18 Rosedale Avenue — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-041 — 555 King Street East — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-042 — 244-260 Shoemaker Street—No Concerns. 8. A 2019-043 — 170 Rivertrail Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-044 — 109 North Hill Place — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-045 — 52 South Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-046 — 18 Guelph Street — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-047 — 945 Robert Ferrie Drive — No Concerns. 13.A 2019-048 — 28 Stirling Avenue South— No Concerns. 14.A 2019-049 — 101-115 Margaret Avenue — No Concerns. 15.A 2019-050 — 149-151 Ontario Street North / 21 Weber Street West: There are no concerns to the minor variance application. However, the owner is advised Document Number: 2997610 Page 1 of 2 that any development application on the above development would require dedicated road widening of approximately 3.0 metre along the entire property frontage along Weber Street (RR #08). 16.A 2019-051 — 25 Vanier Drive — 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. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 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(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: May 13, 2019 YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: SG 2019-009 760 Commonwealth Crescent SG 2019-010 907 Frederick Street, Units 3-5 SG 2019-011 524 Belmont Avenue West A 2019-038 128 Mill Street A 2019-039 121 Arrowhead Crescent A 2019-040 18 Rosedale Avenue A 2019-041 555 King Street East A 2019-042 244 and 260 Shoemaker Street A 2019-043 170 Rivertrail Place A 2019-044 107-109 North Hill Place A 2019-045 52 South Drive A 2019-046 18 Guelph Street A 2019-047 945 Robert Ferrie Drive A 2019-048 28 Stirling Avenue South A 2019-049 101-115 Margaret Avenue A 2019-050 149-151 Ontario Street North/21 Weber Street West A 2019-051 25 Vanier Drive Applications for Consent: B 2019-014 128 Mill Street B 2019-015 23-25 Wendy Crescent B 2019-016 52 Wilhelm Street B 2019-017 177 Fifth Avenue B 2019-018 69 Amherst Drive/118 Doon Valley Drive B 2019-020 28 Burgetz Avenue B 2019-021 20-24 Breithaupt Street B 2019-022 20-24 Breithaupt Street B 2019-023 26, 43, 47, 53, 55 Wellington Avenue North, 2, 12 Moore Avenue, 20-24 Breithaupt 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. '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 Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT 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 2 of 2 Grand River Conservation Authority.