Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-20-014 - A 2020-004 - 30 Saddlebrook CrtStaff Report Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: January 21, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner— 519-741-2200 ext. 7987 WARD: 5 DATE OF REPORT: January 10, 2020 REPORT NUMBER: DSD -20-014 SUBJECT: Application A2020-004 30 Saddlebrook Court Owner — Freure Promontory Inc. Approve 0,-0 } 1� Subject Lands: 30 Saddlebrook Court TI V Staff Report Development Services Department K_x wwwkitchener. ca Photo: Subject lands (December 21, 2019) Report: The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Regulation Provision 698R. The owner has received Site Plan Approval in Principle for a 96 -unit townhouse development, subject to approval of the following minor variances: 1. To permit a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65 rather than 0.60; and 2. To permit a minimum of 142 parking spaces rather than 144. 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. 1. Maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.65 rather than 0.60 General Intent of the Official Plan: The Low Rise Residential designation accommodates a full range of low-density housing types including cluster townhouse dwellings and permits a floor space ratio of 0.6 and up to 0.75 where it is compatible. The applicant has indicated that all units are designed as two storey units, however, where basements allow for lookout or walkouts, the entire basement level is included in the FSR calculation, this has resulted in a calculation of 0.03 above the permitted FSR. Staff notes that the applicant is seeking an increase to 0.65 rather than 0.63 to provide for additional flexibility during construction. The proposed increase in FSR is very small and will generally not be perceivable as it permits additional walkouts and lookout and does not affect the street elevation. Staff is of the opinion that the built form is compatible with surrounding development and that the general intent of the Official Plan is maintained. Staff Report Development Services Department K"'""' NFR wwwki tchenr. ca General Intent of the Zoning By-law: The general intent of a floor space ratio is to ensure that a site is developed at a scale that is appropriate in the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed two-storey townhouses are low-rise, and dwellings will comply with maximum building heights and minimum setbacks. Staff notes that Special Regulation 698R imposes a maximum height of 9.65 for units near the existing house at 760 Huron Road, and the applicant has confirmed that all units will comply with height and setback regulations. The minor increase to FSR is due to grading conditions that allow for units to have lookout and walkout basements, which must be included in the FSR, however the resulting built form is compatible with surrounding development. Staff is of the opinion that the intent of the zoning by-law is maintained. Variance is Minor: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed 0.05 increase to the FSR is minor. This small increase is not visually perceptible and represents only about 500 m2 in a development having an overall GFA of 18,573m2. Variance is Appropriate: The proposed variance allows the developer to make good use of existing grading conditions, and allows additional light and access to basements. All units are designed as two storey units, and comply with setback and height restrictions and the overall development is compatible with surrounding land uses. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the variance is appropriate. 2. Minimum of 142 parking spaces rather than 144: General Intent of the Official Plan: Official Plan policies support providing adequate parking for all developments. The applicant is proposing to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 144 to 142. While the by-law considers that 142 parking spaces are provided, each dwelling unit has been designed to include a single car garage as well as a single car driveway, thereby potentially accommodating two vehicles. However only one of these parking spaces is counted in parking calculations. While the driveway does not officially count towards the parking, in practice it does provide one additional parking space for each unit, and a few units (units 41 — 43) have double length driveways. Should residents use these non -official spaces, there are actually 241 spaces available rather than 142. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will provide adequate parking and that the general intent of the Official Plan is maintained. General Intent of the Zoning By-law: The intent of the parking regulations is to ensure an adequate amount of parking is provided. As discussed above, staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will provide adequate parking and that the general intent of the zoning by-law is maintained. Variance is Minor: The proposed reduction of two parking spaces is minimal, and while not officially counted, each unit has the possibility of accommodating parking for 2 (or more) vehicles in addition to the visitor parking dispersed throughout the site. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed parking reduction is minor. Staff Report Development Services Department K"'""' NFR wwwki tchenr. ca Variance is Appropriate: Through background studies for the CRoZBy project, detailed consideration was given to parking ratios for residential developments. Due to an increased priority being placed on transit and other alternative modes of transportation, staff is recommending an overall lower parking ratio than is currently required. While CRoZBy does not apply to the subject lands, staff is of the opinion that a lower parking rate overall is appropriate for residential developments. The site is located in a developing neighbourhood which has good access to transit routes, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, schools, community spaces, and future commercial development, which will contribute to a community that is less reliant on the private automobile. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed parking variance. Engineering Comments: Engineering has no concerns with the proposed severance. RECOMMENDATION: That Application A2020-004 requesting relief from section 40.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to permit a Floor Space Ratio of 0.65 whereas the Zoning By-law permits 0.60; and relief from section 6.1.2.a to permit a minimum of 142 parking spaces whereas 144 spaces are required be approved. Katie Anderl, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Juliane von Westerholt, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo January 03, 2020 Holly Dyson City of Kitchener 200 King Street West P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Dyson: File No.: D20-20/ VAR KIT GEN 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 Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on January 21, 2020, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1) A 2020-001 — 618 King Street West — No Concerns. 2) A 2020-002 — 149 Roxborough Avenue — No Concerns. However, the owner is advised that a future development application for the above property may require the dedication of a 7.62 metre daylight triangle at the northeast corner of the property. 3) A 2020-003 — 5 Manitou Drive — No Concerns. However, the owner is advised that a dwelling located within the property boundaries of the stationary source is not considered as a noise sensitive land use for the purposes of this application. 4) A 2020-004 — 30 Saddlebrook Court — No Concerns. 5) A 2020-005 — 196 grand Flats Trail — No Concerns. 6) A 2020-006 — 95 Crosswinds Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2020-007 — 78 Valleybrook Drive — No Concerns. Please be advised that any development on the lands subject to the Applications noted above are 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 these developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed above. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Document Number: 3186251 Page 1 of 2 Please forward any decision on the above mentioned application to the undersigned. Yours Truly, p� �-7- ` 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: January 7, 2020 YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2019-103 581 Strasburg Road A 2019-108 41 Moore Avenue A 2020-001 618 King Street West A 2020-002 149 Roxborough Avenue A 2020-003 5 Manitou Drive A 2020-004 30 Saddlebrook Court A 2020-005 196 Grand Flats Trail A 2020-006 95 Crosswinds Drive A 2020-007 78 Valleybrook Drive 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 *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope Page 1 of 1 and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority.