The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-20-183 - A 2020-089 - 34 Dunham AveREPORT TO:Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING:November17, 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:#10 DATE OF REPORT:November 17,2020 REPORT #:DSD-20-183 SUBJECT:A2020-089–34 Dunham Ave Owner–Adelaide Afonso & Thomas Gasselle Recommendation–Approve Photo1: 34 Dunham Avenue (photo taken October 22, 2020) *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Site Plan: 34 Dunham Ave REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property is locatedat 34 Dunham Avenue. The lands are zoned Residential FiveZone (R- 5)and contain a duplex. The applicant is proposing to add a two storey addition in the rear yard, using a foundation which was constructed by a previous owner. City staff isnot aware of any previous variancessought by the previous owner for the foundation and a building permit was not issued. As such the existing foundationand basementwill need to be reviewed to confirm that theywill comply with current building code requirements.This will be addressed through the building permit process.The foundation and proposed addition are in-line with the existing building, as shown in the photo below. Photo 2 –Rear yard and existing foundation wall (photo provided by applicant). A duplex requires 2 parking spaces which are accommodated in an existing 2 car detached garage located in the rear yard and additional space islocated in the driveway in front of the garage(see site plan above). Access to thegarageis via an informal mutual driveway shared with 30 Dunham Avenue. No right-of-way or easement is registered on title of either benefitting property, however the mutual driveway function is acknowledged on historic survey plans. Transportation Services staff is satisfied that the proposed driveway width of 2.3m will provide sufficient space for a vehicle to pass between the house and the property line to access parking in the rear yard should the mutual driveway function ever cease. Required parking is notlocated between the building and the property line and thereforethe widthdoes not need to include space to open doorsor load/unload the vehicle.The owners of 34 Dunham Ave may wish to pursue a right-of-way with the neighbouring property owner to formalize the mutual driveway in perpetuity, however this is not recommended as a condition of the subject variance. More specifically, the Owner is requesting the following minor variances: 1.Relief from section 39.2 to permit a side yard setback of 2.3m whereas 3.0 m is required; and 2.Relief from section6.1.1.1 b) ii) b) to permit a driveway to have a minimum width of 2.3 metres rather than 2.6 m. 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 offer the following comments. General Intent of the Official Plan The subject lands are designated LowRise Residential in the Official Plan, and the proposed land use is consistent with this land use designation.OP Parking policies require that parking facilities be designed to accommodation the safe and efficient movement of vehicles. Transportation Services staff is satisfied that the proposed 2.3 metre setbackprovidessufficient driveway widthto allow vehicles to manoeuvre to the require parking spaces which are located in the back yard. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances maintain the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of setback and driveway width requirements are to ensure that there is sufficient space for a vehicle to park, and for the driver and passengers to load and unload from the vehicle. As the required parking is provided behind the dwelling and proposed addition, the driveway width must only accommodate for vehicles to pass between the house and the property line.Transportation Services has advised that most passengervehicles have an overall width less than 2.3 metresand confirm that the proposed setback is adequate. Based on the foregoing staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances main the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Minor? Staff is of the opinion that the variancesareminor. The proposed reduction will allow the addition to be constructed in-line with the existing dwelling, and subject to Building’s review through the permit process, using the foundation previously constructed. The dwelling and garage were originally constructed in about 1948 and the lot has existed with the current driveway configuration since that time with no record of concern or complaint. Should the informal mutual driveway arrangement ever cease to exist the proposed setback will provide sufficient width for a standard passengervehicle to pass between the house and property line. Staff note that an air-conditioning unit and side entrance stairs encroach into the drivewayand will need to berelocated if the mutual driveway function ceases. Is the Variance Appropriate? Staff is of the opinion that the variance is appropriate for the development and use of the lands.The proposed variances will legalize the existing dwelling and width of the driveway, and will permit the proposed addition. This will allow the current owner to make improvements and enhancements to the property and the existing duplex dwelling. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the addition is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Given that the shared driveway situation has existed for some time, Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposal for a reduced driveway width of 2.3m. There is also no change to the number of units on the subject property which means there will be no additional traffic to and from the site. While a 2.3m driveway should be able to accommodate most passenger vehicles, it should be of note to the applicant that a shared access agreement/easement would be beneficial to both parties long term as this would formalize the ongoing agreement should ownership change in the future for either properties.This agreement would not, however, be a condition of this application. Engineering Comments: Engineering has no comments or concerns. RECOMMENDATION That application A2020-089requesting relief from section 39.2 to permit a side yard setback of 2.3 m whereas 3.0 m is required; and from section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) b) to permit a driveway to have a minimum width of 2.3 m rather than 2.6 m,be approved. Katie Anderl, MCIP, RPP Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Senior Planner October 28, 2020 Holly Dyson City of Kitchener File No.: D20-20/ 200 King Street West VAR KIT GEN P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Dyson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications October 2020, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2020-087 380 Grand River Boulevard No Concerns. 2) A 2020-088 339 Rosemount Drive No Concerns. 3) A 2020-089 34 Dunham Avenue No Concerns. 4) A 2020-090 305 Driftwood Drive No Concerns. 5) A 2020-091 12 Rose Street No Concerns. 6) A 2020-092 180 Grand Flats Trail No Concerns. 7) A 2020-093 41 Valleybrook Drive No Concerns. 8) A 2020-094 53 Valleybrook Drive No Concerns. 9) A 2020-095 236 Woodhaven Road No Concerns. 10) A 2020-096 919 Eaglecrest Court No Concerns. 11) A 2020-097 923 Eaglecrest Court No Concerns. 12) A 2020-098 928 Eaglecrest Court No Concerns. 5ƚĭǒƒĻƓƷ bǒƒĬĻƩʹ ЌЍЍЌЋВЏ tğŭĻ Њ ƚŅ Ћ 13)A 2020-09980Westwood DriveNo Concernsto the application.However, the applicants please be advised that any redevelopment application for any noise sensitive land use on these lands e.g. a Consent / Condominium would have impacts from the transportation (rail) noise in the vicinity. 14) A 2020-100 9 -11 Samuel Street No Concerns. 15) A 2020-101 8 Devon Street No Concerns. 16) A 2020-102 89 Water Street South 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 P (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 C (226) 753-0368 November 4, 2020 Holly Dyson, Administrative Clerk Via email only Legislated Services, City of Kitchener 200King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Dyson, Re:November 17, 2020 Committee of Adjustment Meeting ______________________________________________________________________ Applications for Minor Variance A2020-080335Lancaster Street WestA2020-09453Valleybrook Drive A2020-087380Grand River BoulevardA2020-095236Woodhaven Road A2020-088339Rosemount DriveA2020-096919Eaglecrest Court A2020-08934Dunham AvenueA2020-097923Eaglecrest Court A2020-090305Driftwood DriveA2020-098928Eaglecrest Court A2020-09112Rose StreetA2020-09980WestwoodDrive A2020-092180Grand Flats TrailA2020-1009-11Samuel Street A2020-09341Valleybrook DriveA2020-1018Devon Street A2020-10289Water Street South Applications for Consent B 2020-042101-103Schweitzer Street B 2020-043440Lancaster Street B 2020-044956Glasgow Street The above-noted consent 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 at 519-621-2763 ext. 2228 or aherreman@grandriver.ca. 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 Page 1of 1 the Grand River Conservation Authority.