Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-20-092 - A 2020-041 - 56 Wilhelm St REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: August 18, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Richard Kelly-Ruetz, Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7110 WARD: 10 DATE OF REPORT: July 17, 2020 REPORT #: DSD-20-092 SUBJECT: A2020-041 56 Wilhelm Street Owner Terry Brown & Rebecca Brown Applicant Straight and Level Carpentry Services Inc. Approve Location Map: 56 Wilhelm Street REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property located at 56 Wilhelm Street is zoned Residential Five (R-5) with Special Use Provision 129U in Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in The applicant is proposing to tear down an existing garage fronting onto Hett Avenue, construct an addition to the existing dwelling unit in its place, and relocate the legal parking space on the property from the garage to an existing driveway fronting Wilhelm Street. Several variances are required. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. As such, the applicant is requesting the following variances: - Relief from Section 39.2.1 to construct an addition with a side yard abutting the street setback of 1.39 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; - Relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b) i) to locate a legal parking space in an existing driveway less than 6 metres from the street line, whereas 6 metres is required; - Relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) to legalize an existing driveway located 4.5 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot, whereas 9 metres is required; and, - Relief from Section 5.3 to legalize an existing driveway which is 3 metres within the 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle, whereas driveways are not permitted within a Corner Visibility Triangle. IN Side of property location of proposed Existing driveway to be legalized addition City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 14, 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. 1. General Intent and Purpose of Official Plan Test The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The intent of this designation is to encourage a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. Each of the requested variances to accommodate an addition for an existing single detached dwelling are appropriate, as the addition will maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and is consistent with the low-density character of the neighbourhood. 2. General Intent and Purpose of Zoning By-law Test The requested variance to construct an addition with a side yard abutting the street setback of 1.39 metres, rather than the required 4.5 metres, meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By- law. The purpose of the 4.5 metre side yard abutting a street setback is to maintain a consistent streetscape along street frontages. The key consideration for this variance is that the existing house has a side yard abutting the street setback of around 1.39 metres. Further, the proposed addition is approximately located within the footprint of an existing attached garage, which is being demolished; the existing garage also has a deficient setback. As the proposed addition will be in line with the existing house and previous attached garage, the built form on the property as it relates to setbacks and impacts on the streetscape will be similar to the existing situation. As such, staff is satisfied that a consistent streetscape will be maintained and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is met. The requested variance to locate the required parking space less than 6 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 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. 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. The requested variance to legalize an existing driveway located 4.5 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot, whereas 9 metres is required, meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 9 metres setback is to provide adequate separation between the corner of a lot and the driveway, which would result in an aesthetically pleasing streetscape by opening up opportunities for landscaping (etc.). This is an existing driveway on a relatively small lot, and there is some existing landscaping in the corner of the property. As such, staff is satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the By-law is maintained. The requested variance to locate an existing driveway 3 metres within the 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of not permitting objects such as a driveway within the corner visibility triangle is to maintain visibility for pedestrians and vehicles on the road and sidewalk at the corner of the lot. Hett Avenue, one of the two streets abutting this lot, is a one-way street. Transportation staff has indicated they have no concerns with a reduced visibility triangle at this location on account of the direction of Hett Avenue, and no evidence of accidents caused by the existing reduced visibility triangle. Planning staff has no concerns with the request to legalize the existing driveway within the visibility triangle and is satisfied that the general intent of the By-law is maintained. 3. The variances can be considered minor as the reduced side yard abutting the street setback to accommodate an addition, and the legalization of an existing driveway will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. The driveway is existing and staff has no concerns with its continued existence, and the addition is in line with the location of the existing dwelling, which is appropriate. 4. Desirability for Appropriate Development or Use Test The requested variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land, as the proposed residential addition and legalization of an existing driveway is consistent with the low-density development of the neighbourhood. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Application has been made to for the addition to a single detached dwelling and is currently under review Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services can support the proposed variances for the existing conditions of the driveway encroachment into the setback from an intersection and corner visibility triangle. Also, Transportation Services has no concerns with the required parking space being located 0 metres from the street line, where 6 metres is required. Heritage Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory. The CHLS was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The applicant is advised that the property municipally addressed as 56 Wilhelm Street is located within the Mt Hope/Breithaupt Neighbourhood CHL. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Environmental Comments: While no trees are proposed to be removed or impacted in connection with this planning permission, the City would like to advise the proponent to appropriately restrict their construction works so as not to impact any trees on their or neighbouring properties. RECOMMENDATION A. That Minor Variance Application A2020-041 requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 to construct an addition with a side yard abutting the street of 1.39 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; Section 6.1.1.1 b) i) to locate a legal parking space in an existing driveway less than 6 metres from the street line, whereas 6 metres is required; Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) to legalize an existing driveway located 4.5 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot, whereas 9 metres is required; and, Section 5.3 to legalize an existing driveway which is 3 metres within the 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle, whereas driveways are not permitted within a Corner Visibility Triangle, BE APPROVED. Richard Kelly-Ruetz, BES Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner Senior Planner April 17, 2020 Juliane von Westerholt City of Kitchener File No.: D20-20/ 200 King Street West VAR KIT GEN P.O. Box 1118 1) VAR KIT, ELEV08 Properties Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 8) 56 BLEAMS, FREEDON IN CHRIST PENTECOSTAL CHURCH Dear Ms. Westerholt: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications April 2020, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1) A 2020-029 293 King Street East No Concerns. 2) A 2020-030 366 Rivertrail Avenue No Concerns. 3) A 2020-031 10 Martin Street No Concerns. 4) A 2020-032 201 Featherstone Crescent No Concerns. 5) A 2020-033 210 Rivertrail Avenue No Concerns. 6) A 2020-034 25 Shanley Street No Concerns. 7) A 2020-035 371 Biehn Drive No Concerns. 8) A 2020-036 1643 Bleams Road No Concerns. 9) A 2020-037 886 Strasburg Road No Concerns. 10) A 2020-038 121 Grand Flats Trail No Concerns. 11) A 2020-039 52 Helena Feasby Street No Concerns. 12) A 2020-040 251 Margaret Avenue No Concerns. 13) A 2020-041 56 Wilhelm Street No Concerns. 5ƚĭǒƒĻƓƷ bǒƒĬĻƩʹ ЌЋАЊААЉ tğŭĻ Њ ƚŅ Ћ 14) A 2020-042 948 Chapel Hill Court No Concerns. 15) A 2020-043 285 Connaught Street No Concerns. 16) A 2020-044 50 West Avenue 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. Please forward any decision on the above mentioned application to the undersigned. Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 April 23, 2020 Via email Holly Dyson, Administrative Clerk Legislated Services, City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Dyson, Re: Plan Review Report Applications for Minor Variance: A2020-029 293 King Street East A2020-030 366 Rivertrail Avenue A2020-031 10 Martin Street A2020-032 201 Featherstone Crescent A2020-033 210 Rivertrail Avenue A2020-034 25 Shanley Street A2020-035 371 Biehn Drive A2020-036 1643 Bleams Road A2020-037 886 Strasburg Road A2020-038 121 Grand Flats Trail A2020-039 52 Helena Feasby Street A2020-040 251 Margaret Avenue A2020-041 56 Wilhelm Street A2020-042 948 Chapel Hill Court A2020-043 285 Connaught Street CC2020-001 75 Tillsley Drive Applications for Consent: B2020-020 948 Chapel Hill Court B2020-021 944 Chapel Hill Court B2020-024 124 Walker Street B2020-025 285 Connaught 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 Page 1 of 2 fees will not be required. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Chris Foster-Pengelly, Resource Planner at 519-621-2763 ext. 2319 or cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca. Sincerely, Melissa Larion, MCIP, RPP Supervisor of Resource Planning Grand River Conservation Authority Page 2 of 2 *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority.