The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-20-051 - A 2020-028 - 783 Guelph St1 Staff Repoil K�-WFLEN� Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: March 17, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 WARD: 10 DATE OF REPORT: March 9, 2020 REPORT #: DSD -20-051 SUBJECT: A2020-028 — 783 Guelph Street Recommendation: Approval 4-sr, c,E t" 1 1111110110-. s 11 1 zt Ilk V.,r9 � • low C :. � � Grp � 4= n j �^ y - � n� r i, '`1� Location Map: 783 Guelph 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 783 Guelph Street is zoned Residential Seven Zone (R-7) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is designated Low Density Multiple Residential in the North Ward Secondary Plan in the Official Plan. Staff conducted a site inspection of the property on March 5, 2020. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing single detached dwelling to construct a 65 unit stacked townhouse multiple dwelling development. A site plan application has been submitted and is under review. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a reduction in parking from the required 1.25 spaces per unit to 1.12 spaces per unit, and to allow for 10% visitor parking rather than the required 20%. The applicant is also requesting relief from Section 41.2.6 to allow a front yard setback of 5.3 metres rather than the required 12.7 metres (average of abutting front yard setbacks, as per RIENS By-law). View of Existing Site (March 5, 2020) 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. Parkina Reduction General Intent of the Official Plan 1. The subject property is designated Low Density Multiple Residential in the North Ward Secondary Plan in the Official Plan. The Official Plan aims to develop an integrated transportation system that incorporates active transportation and public transit along with vehicular traffic. It also promotes land use planning and development that is conducive to the efficient and effective operation of public transit and encourages increased ridership of the public transit system. The subject site is located less than 100 metres walking distance from an existing GRT Route 6 bus stop, which offers connections to the mainline Route 7 and the LRT line. The requested reduction in parking encourages alternatives to vehicular transportation and therefore meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law 2. The intent of the regulation that requires 1.25 parking spaces per unit and 20% visitor parking spaces is to provide adequate vehicle storage space for the property. The requested rate of 1.12 spaces per unit still provides more than one parking space per unit and is approximately in line with the parking rates proposed to be applied in the new Zoning By-law 19-051 (Crozby). Through discussions with Transportation Services staff, Planning Staff is satisfied with the proposed minor reduction in required and visitor parking spaces and finds the proposed number of parking spaces sufficient for the development. Therefore, the minor reductions in required parking meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Appropriate? 3. The requested variance to reduce the amount of required parking spaces and visitor spaces required is considered appropriate because of the subject site is close to the urban core, has immediate access to transit opportunities and can utilize existing bike lane routes on nearby Union Boulevard and Margaret Avenue. With these opportunities for alternatives to vehicular transportation, staff can consider the requested minor reduction in parking appropriate. Is the Variance Minor? 4. The reduction of required and visitor parking spaces are minor and will only result in a loss of 8 parking spaces. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amount of parking spaces will be adequate for the site. Therefore, the requested variance is considered minor. Front Yard Setback General Intent of the Official Plan 1. The subject property is designated Low Density Multiple Residential in the North Ward Secondary Plan in the Official Plan. The Official Plan contains policies that encourage residential intensification and infill opportunities such as this development as an effective means to reduce infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land use and making better use of existing community infrastructure. This development represents an infill opportunity that will make better use of existing community infreastructe and therefore meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law 2. The intent of the regulation that bases front yard setback on the average of the 2 abutting lots (Residential Intensification within Established Neighbourhoods) is to preserve consistent building lines within established neighbourhoods to ensure that development does not negatively affect a consistent building line on a street. Unlike other neighbourhoods in the RIENS subject area, this portion of Guelph Street does not have a consistent building line. Some homes are as close as 3 metres to the front lot line, whereas others are as far back as 15 metres. The proposed front yard setback is in line with the City's standard front yard setback which can be considered adequate in instances where a consistent building line is not present. The proposed reduction in front yard setback will also allow the applicant to incorporate balconies for the units facing the front of the site, which was requested by Staff to help animate the front fagade and address the street by providing an active streetscape. Therefore, the requested variance for front yard setback meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Appropriate? 3. The requested variance to the front yard setback will not disrupt a consistent building line and the presence of balconies will result in a positive overall effect on enhancing the streetscape. Therefore, Staff can consider the requested variance appropriate. Is the Variance Minor? 4. The requested variance can be considered minor given that there is no consistent building line in this area and the proposed front yard setback meets the standard minimum front yard setback in the Zoning By-law. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Transportation Services Comments: As the proposed parking rates approximately align with what Zoning By -Law 2019-051 (CROZBY) require, Transportation Services can support the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with this application. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning concerns. RECOMMENDATION That minor variance application A2020-028 requesting permission to construct a 65 -unit stacked townhouse development having a front yard setback of 5.3m rather than the required 12.7m; a parking rate of 1.12 spaces/per-unit rather than the required 1.25 spaces per-unit; and, a visitor parking rate of 10% rather than the required 20% be approved. Eric Schneider, BES Planner Juliane von Westerholt, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo Feb 27, 2020 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 5) 08 WEBER KIT, Mary Kolosowski 7) 08 KING KIT, AHMET SHERIFALI Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on March 17, 2020, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1) A 2020-019 — 33 Lancaster Street East — No Concerns. 2) A 2020-020 — 51 Nelson Avenue — No Concerns. 3) A 2020-021 — 44 Beasley Drive — No Concerns. 4) A 2020-022 — 903 Zeller Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2020-023 — 312 Weber Street West — No Concerns. 6) A 2020-024 — 85 Wood Street — No Concerns. 7) A 2020-025 — 624 King Street West — No Concerns. 8) A 2020-026 — 924 Redtail Court — No Concerns. 9) A 2020-027 — 293 Field Sparrow Crescent — No Concerns. 10)A 2020-028 — 783 Guelph Street — 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 Document Number: 3186251 Page 1 of 2 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. 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 Chris Foster -Pengelly, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2763 ext. 2319 E-mail: cfosterpenge I ly@g rand river. ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dvson DATE: March 3, 2020 YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2020-019 33 Lancaster Street East A 2020-020 51 Nelson Avenue A 2020-021 44 Beasley Drive A 2020-022 903 Zeller Crescent A 2020-023 312 Weber Street West A 2020-024 85 Wood Street A 2020-025 624 King Street West A 2020-026 924 Redtail Court A 2020-027 293 Field Sparrow Crescent A 2020-028 783 Guelph Street Applications for Consent: B 2020-010 123 Pioneer Drive B 2020-011 98 Strange Street B 2020-012-019 Valencia 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, Chris Foster -Pengelly, M.Sc., CAN-CISEC Resource Planner 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. Holly Dyson From: Sent: To: Subject: My mailing address is 05 March, 2020 3:44 PM Holly Dyson Re: A 2020-028 783 Guelph st. On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:42 PM <Holly. Dy song kitchener. ca> wrote: Hell Thank you for your email. In order for your comments to be considered by the Committee members, I will need your mailing address. Your personal identifiers will be removed prior to your comments being posted on the City's website; however, as this is a public planning process your personal information is not protected if someone requests the list of interested parties. Regarding your questions, you may wish to contact the file Planner, Eric Schneider (cc'd here) as I can't tell you which questions the Committee is able to address at the meeting. Regards, Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holly. dyson(aD_kitchener.ca 0100 luiv I ti From: Sent: 05 March, 2020 1:10 PM To: Holly Dyson <Holly.Dyson @kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: A 2020-028 783 Guelph st. Hello Holly, application A 2020-028 783 Guelph st. I have lived on Guelph street for 30 years, I don't think the owner/ builder should be granted the variance they are asking for. I don't think its in the communities best interest to allow the parking to be lessoned. 65 units is a big population boom to our street. On top on of that parking on Guelph street is currently used up most days and nights. The food bank patrons use on street parking and it often gets quite congested on top of that the knights of Columbus is right next door to this property and they also use a majority of on street parking. We also have a beautiful park in the winter months it is often full of people using the rink and using on street parking. As well as the residents on Guelph street that use the on street parking for friends and family By allowing the builder to reduce parking I believe will cause issue with the residents that currently live on the street and those that frequent the area. In any townhouse/ subdivision there never seems to be enough parking for visitors or residences so if the builder was granted less parking it would also cause more on street parking. The food bank patrons often use that side of the street to walk up and down instead of crossing the street to use the sidewalk, the concern here is more traffic in and out and of the units and Guelph st isn't that wide so if cars are on the side of the road and On top of all that I can imagine we would also lose some of the on street parking as well as the current set up is just a single car driveway which I can assume is not sufficient for a 65 unit building. As for the setbacks the current set up for this property has a lovely hedge that has been there forever and also has tons of beautiful mature trees. I think is would be a big loss to the community to lose all that greenery to a large building and parking lot. If the setback were to remain the required amount it would give sufficient space to plant trees and make it look more desirable. Has the builder looked into possibly purchasing adjacent properties to fulfill the required parking and setback requirements? How does the property owner intend to deal with units at need more than one spot ? How is it possible the builder is allowed to cut down all the trees and hedges? How many on -street parking spots will be loss due to this construction ? Thank you On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:22 AM <Ho11y.Dysongkitchener.ca> wrote: Hello_ You can submit written comments to me prior to the meeting and I will circulate them to the Committee members if you're unable to attend the meeting. It would be best if I receive them prior to 4:00 p.m. next Wednesday so I can include them in the Members packages when they are couriered. That allows them ample time to review them before the meeting on Tuesday, March 17, 2020. 2 If that's not possible, I can accept comments until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 16th; which still allows time for me to copy and provide them to the members at the meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holly. dyson(cDkitchener.ca YO i From: Sent: 04 March, 2020 8:39 AM To: Holly Dyson <Holly.Dyson @kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: A 2020-028 783 Guelph st. Hello Holly, I received a letter from the committee of adjustments - notice of hearing. I have to work that day is there a way to express my concerns with A2020-028 783 Guelph st. Is there a way to express my concerns in writing to be read at the meeting or would I have to attend? Thank you for your time