HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-19-267 - A 2019-121 - 80, 86, 92 & 96 Sydney St NStaff Repod
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: November 19, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157
PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7668
WARD: 10
DATE OF REPORT: November 8, 2019
REPORT #: DSD -19-267
SUBJECT: A2019-121 — 80-96 Sydney St N
Roger Kieswetter (80 Sydney St N)
Devitt Ave. Developments (86 Sydney St N)
Lee Kieswetter (92 Sydney St N)
Kris Deyarmond (96 Sydney St N)
Approve Subject to a Condition
Figure 1. Subject Properties
*** 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 four subject properties are located on the northwest side of Sydney Street North, between
Rosedale Avenue and Weber Street East, in the King Street East Planning Community. The
subject properties are in individual ownership and currently contain existing low rise residential
development:
• 80 Sydney St N: single detached dwelling constructed in 1952;
• 86 Sydney St N: duplex dwelling constructed in 1951;
• 92 Sydney St N: duplex constructed in 1952; and
• 96 Sydney St N: single detached dwelling constructed in 1952.
The surrounding area is composed of a mix of land uses. A 6 -unit multiple dwelling is located
immediately to the west. The properties fronting onto Rosedale Avenue (to the southwest)
contain mainly single detached dwellings. The properties on the opposite side of Sydney Street
contain mainly single detached dwellings. A triplex is located immediately to the east, while
mainly single detached dwelling are located to the northeast which front onto Weber Street. A
religious institution is located immediately behind the subject properties, to the north. Planning
staff visited the site on November 5, 2019.
The subject properties are designated Low Density Multiple Residential in the King Street East
Secondary Plan (within the 1994 City's Official Plan) and have an Urban Structure (within the 2014
Official Plan) of Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). The subject properties are zoned Residential
Seven (R-7).
However, it should be noted that through the City's King Street East Secondary Plan Review, the
properties are tentatively proposed to be removed from the King Street East Secondary Plan and
re -designated to Low Rise Residential. In addition, the properties' Urban Structure would be
changed from MTSA to Community Area. Also, through this review, the properties are tentatively
proposed to be re -zoned to RES -5, which would accommodate the widest range of low density
dwelling types on the widest range of lot sizes in low rise areas.
Note that this minor variance application is solely being reviewed under By-law 85-1, since
residential zoning via By-law 2019-051 (and any secondary plan updates thereto) is not in effect.
In 2016, the applicant submitted a Site Plan Application (SP16/036/S/AP) to construct two
Multiple Dwellings on the lands: one fronting Sydney Street with 24 units, and one behind (to the
north) with 20 units. The Multiple Dwellings are in the form of stacked townhouses. The Site
Plan received approval in principle in May 2017 subject to conditions, including that the owners
obtain final approval of a minor variance. Accordingly, in July 2017, the owners applied for a
minor variance for the following:
1. Requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow parking at a rate of
1.15 spaces per unit (total of 51 spaces for 44 units), rather than the required 1.25 spaces
per unit (total of 55 spaces for 44 units);
2. Requesting relief from Section 6.1.2b)vi)B) of the Zoning By-law to permit required visitor
parking at a rate of 13% (total of 7 spaces for 44 units) of required parking rather than the
required 20% (total of 11 spaces for 44 units);
3. Requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1d)ii)1 of the Zoning By-law to permit visitor parking
located 5.8 metres from the front lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law does not permit
visitor parking located within the required front yard;
4. Requesting relief from Section 5.6A.4d) of the Zoning By-law to permit porches to be
located 3.3 metres from the front lot line, rather than the required 6.0 metre front yard
setback of the R-7 Zone;
5. Requesting relief from Section 41.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to permit a minimum east side
yard of 3.6 metres, rather than the required 6.0 metres;
6. Requesting relief from Section 5.11 of the Zoning By-law to permit a visual barrier 1.5
metres in height abutting a residential zone, rather than the required 1.8 metres; and
7. Requesting relief from Section 41.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to permit a rear yard of 4.9
metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres.
The Committee of Adjustment approved the minor variance application, subject to the following
conditions:
That the owner shall obtain approval of a revision to Site Flan Application SP1610361SIAP
from the City's Manager of Site Development and Customer Service, in consultation with the
City's Director of Transportation Planning, prior to July 18, 2018,
2. That, through the review of Site Plan Application SP16/0361SfAP, the owner shall ensure
proper drainage flows, including consideration for drainage from neighbouring properties onto
the subject site, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services.
3. That the owner shall install a visual barrier (wood, board -on -board fence) in accordance with
the Zoning By-law to the maximum height permitted in the Fence By-law (i.e., 2.4 metres), to
the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning.
Unfortunately, the owners did not fulfill condition #1 of the minor variance decision within the
specified timeframe. Consequently, the minor variance approval lapsed. Additionally, the
Approval in Principal for the site plan application also lapsed due to non -activity.
In 2019, the owners re -activated and regained approval in principle of the site plan application
(no changes to the original approval from 2017).
Through the subject minor variance application, the owners are now requesting the same minor
variances as outlined above, in order to facilitate the development proposed through the re-
activated site plan application.
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.
General Intent and Purpose of Official Plan Test
The Low Density Multiple Residential policies of the King Street East Secondary Plan state that
(emphasis added):
Permitted uses are restricted to single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi-
detached dwellings, multiple dwellings, small and large residential care facilities, lodging
houses, home businesses, and private home day care. Opportunities for residential
development are provided to a maximum density of 100 units per hectare. The Maximum
Floor Space Ratio shall be 1.0, that is, the above grade building floor area shall not
exceed 1.0 times the lot area. Multiple dwellings may be permitted to exceed 100 units
per hectare on an individual site provided the Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 is not exceeded.
The subject variances would facilitate the development of multiple dwellings that have an overall
Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 — consistent with the Official Plan designation.
In addition, Planning staff is of the opinion that Variances 1 and 2, which relate to parking relief,
meet the intent of the King Street East Secondary Plan and applicable 2014 Official Plan policies.
The 2014 Official Plan states:
13.C.8.2. The City may consider adjustments to parking requirements for properties within
an area or areas, where the City is satisfied that adequate alternative parking facilities
are available, where developments adopt transportation demand management (TDM)
measures or where sufficient transit exists or is to be provided.
and,
4.C.1.8. Where... minor variances are requested, proposed or required to facilitate
residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special
zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following
to ensure, that:
e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for
adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an
appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site.
In this regard, the City's Transportation Services has advised that there are no concerns with the
requested relief and in 2017 it noted pedestrian opportunities and transit -supportive nature of the
site / proposed development:
There are several existing GRT bus routes in close proximity to the site, the site is
walkable and errands can be accomplished on foot. Also, there is a future ION stop near
Charles Street and Ottawa Street. Therefore, based on the walkability, existing GRT bus
routes and future ION stop and the reallocation of visitor parking, Transportation Services
supports the proposed parking reductions.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the variances meet the general intent and purpose of the
Official Plan.
General Intent and Purpose of Zoning By-law Test
The Zoning By-law seeks to ensure that adequate parking, sufficient setbacks, and appropriate
screening / buffering (e.g., visual barriers) is provided as part of new developments.
In this case, Transportation Services does not have concerns with the requested parking relief.
With respect to setbacks, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested relief is appropriate
since the front yard is consistent with the adjacent front yards facing Sydney Street. In addition,
the side yard is appropriate given the low rise nature of the proposed development. Also, the
rear yard is adjacent to a non -sensitive land use (religious institution) which is located in a
tentatively proposed Institutional designation with an MTSA Urban Structure element.
Regarding the variance for height relief related to the proposed visual barrier (i.e., fence),
Planning staff advises that this variance would only slightly reduce the height of the visual barrier
(by 30 cm or 1 foot), which is proposed on top of a retaining wall. However, it would still act as an
appropriate screen for neighbouring properties from the adjacent parking lot and ensure that
headlight glare from vehicles is mitigated.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the variances meet the general intent and purpose of the
Zoning By-law.
"Ming' Test
With respect to Variances 1 and 2, it should be noted that By-law 2019-051 (not yet in effect of
this property) requires a rate of 1.15 spaces per unit for this context, which is the same parking
ratio proposed in this case.
Planning staff is of the opinion that Variances 3, 4, 5, and 7, which relate to setback relief, meet
the intent of the King Street East Secondary Plan (within the 1994 Official Plan), applicable 2014
Official Plan policies, and the Zoning By-law. The 2014 Official Plan states:
4.C.1.8. Where... minor variances are requested, proposed or required to facilitate
residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special
zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following
to ensure, that:
a) Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are
appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the
community character of the established neighbourhood.
b) Where front yard setback reductions are proposed for new buildings in established
neighbourhoods, the requested front yard setback should be sim ilar to adjacent properties
and supports and maintain the character of the streetscape and the neighbourhood.
Staff is of the opinion that the requested setback reductions are compatible with adjacent
development and the related development is of an appropriate massing and scale. In addition
Variance 6 will not cause unacceptably adverse impacts for the reasons noted above.
All requested variances are minor since they are not anticipated to cause any unacceptably
adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
Desirability for Appropriate Development or Use Test
All requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The requested
variances would facilitate the development of low density residential development in the form of
Multiple Dwellings (stacked townhouses) that is compatible and in character with the surrounding
low density residential neighbourhood, at a Floor Space Ration of 1.0 and maximum building height
of 11.1 metres. The variances would facilitate compatible, appropriate development.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Variances 1-7 be approved, subject to
the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report.
Building Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance.
Transportation Services Comments:
Given that the a previous Committee of Adjustment application was granted for both the
proposed parking rate and visitor parking rate, Transportation Services does not have any
concerns.
Engineering Comments:
No Engineering concerns.
Heritage Comments:
No heritage planning concerns.
Environmental Planning Comments:
Tree Management matters shall be addressed through the Site Plan process.
RECOMMENDATION
A. That Minor Variance Application A2019-121, requesting the following relief from Zoning
By-law 85-1, in order to facilitate the development of two multiple dwellings on the lands,
one fronting Sydney Street with 24 units, and one behind (to the north) with 20 units:
1. Requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow parking at a
rate of 1.15 spaces per unit (total of 51 spaces for 44 units), rather than the
required 1.25 spaces per unit (total of 55 spaces for 44 units);
2. Requesting relief from Section 6.1.2b)vi)B) of the Zoning By-law to permit required
visitor parking at a rate of 13% (total of 7 spaces for 44 units) of required parking
rather than the required 20% (total of 11 spaces for 44 units);
3. Requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1d)ii)1 of the Zoning By-law to permit visitor
parking located 5.8 metres from the front lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law does
not permit visitor parking located within the required front yard;
4. Requesting relief from Section 5.6A.4d) of the Zoning By-law to permit porches to
be located 3.3 metres from the front lot line, rather than the required 6.0 metre
front yard setback of the R-7 Zone;
5. Requesting relief from Section 41.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to permit a minimum
east side yard of 3.6 metres, rather than the required 6.0 metres;
6. Requesting relief from Section 5.11 of the Zoning By-law to permit a visual barrier
1.5 metres in height abutting a residential zone, rather than the required 1.8
metres; and
7. Requesting relief from Section 41.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to permit a rear yard of
4.9 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres,
be approved, subject to the following condition:
That this approval shall apply to the development approved through Site Plan
Application SP16/036/S/AP.
Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Attach.-
0
ttach:• Re -activated Site Plan that received Approval in Principle in August 2019
� ve
M:
1
Ir
7L
a-:
_ I qpqp i
0.
9L8�1 I .lei.
1
' WSC
I
I
A s
N
i
1
WNH M1r
d LL
� O Y
[..+���o
5
g �LUgg �i e
�ty��
` w W
zO
W
p
Z
O
DLLI
LLJ
W
WJ V J
Y
417
LLJ
�
w� �
Y fQ
OY do
M1
� Cij
Y
I
Z
�
U
CL
Q`
N
W
LUW
S
L�
1c
LU
�
F
sLU
U)
o
.
C
z
d
z
6
p
J
N
U
Q
�,/ ui
iN
J
4 w
a
o0CL
co
Z
LUw
a-
}
LJ
<
LU
F-
LU
—a
x
Q
7—
ra
owe
w
N
r +
U)
w
}
N
16l
N
ti
U
N
¢
Q
zO
W
p
Z
O
DLLI
LLJ
W
WJ V J
Y
417
LLJ
�
w� �
Y fQ
OY do
Region of Waterloo
November 05, 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
(13) DEVIT AVENUE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
(15) 197 FREDERICK STREET TDL GROUP
Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on November 19, 2019, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have following comments:
1) FN 2019-002
— 123 Mountain Mint Crescent— No Concerns.
2) SG 2019-016
— 500 Fairway Road South — No Concerns.
3) A 2019-111 —
37-39 Pandora Avenue North — No Concerns.
4) A 2019-112 —
45 Heiman Street — No Concerns.
5) A 2019-113 —
47 Heiman Street — No Concerns.
6) A 2019-114 —
45 Maywood Road — No Concerns.
7) A 2019-115 —
593 Charles Street East — No Concerns.
8) A 2019-116—
10 Shanley Street — No Concerns.
9) A 2019-117—
450 Rivertrail Avenue — No Concerns.
10) A 2019-118
— 8 Devon Street — No Concerns.
11) A 2019-119
— 51 David Street — No Concerns.
12) A 2019-120
— 14 Frontier Drive — No Concerns.
13) A 2019-121
— 80-96 Sydney Street North — No Concerns.
14) A 2019-122
— 1092 Queen's Boulevard — No Concerns.
15) A 2019-123
— 181-197 Frederick Street — No Concerns.
16) A 2019-124 thru 129 — 205, 209, 220, 212, 208 & 204 Field Sparrow Crescent —
No Concerns.
17) A 2019-130
— Adjacent to 85 McIntyre 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 the payment of Regional Development Charges for this
development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this
letter pertain to the Application number listed. If a site is subject to more than one
application, additional comments may apply.
Document Number: 3146724
Page 1 of 2
Please forward any decision on the above mentioned application to the undersigned.
Yours Truly,
Joginder Bhatia
Transportation Planner
(519) 575-4500 Ext 3867
Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729
Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6
Andrew Herreman, Resource Planning Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2228
Technician E-mail: aherreman@grand river. ca
PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener
Holly Dyson
DATE: November 8, 2019 YOUR FILE: See below
RE: Applications for Minor Variance:
FN 2019-002
123 Mountain Mint Crescent
SG 2019-016
500 Fairway Road South
A 2019-111
37-39 Pandora Avenue North
A 2019-112
45 Heiman Street
A 2019-113
47 Heiman Street
A 2019-114
45 Maywood Road
A 2019-115
593 Charles Street East
A 2019-116
10 Shanley Street
A 2019-117
450 Rivertrail Avenue
A 2019-118
8 Devon Street
A 2019-119
51 David Street
A 2019-120 14 Frontier Drive
A 2019-121 80, 86, 92 & 96 Sydney Street North
A 2019-122 1092 Queens Boulevard
A 2019-123 181-197 Frederick Street & 143-147 Lancaster Street East
A 2019-124 to A 2019-129 204, 205, 208, 212 & 220 Field Sparrow Crescent
Applications for Consent:
B 2019-066-071 253 Clark 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,
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
xThese 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