The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-20-212 - B 2020-047 - 50 Brookside CresStaff Repod KN- 16 URENER Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 8, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD: 7 DATE OF REPORT: November 30, 2020 REPORT NUMBER: DSD -20-212 SUBJECT: Application B2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent Owner/Applicant — Michael Krause Defer Subject Property: 50 Brookside Crescent Staff Report KN NEx Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca Background: On April 17, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment approved consent application B2018-025 to sever the easterly portion of 50 Brookside Crescent to create a new lot which has been recently developed with a duplex dwelling. Report: The Owner is now proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and sever the property to create a new lot for a semi-detached dwelling. The existing dwelling on the retained lands is proposed to be retained. The proposed severed lands have a lot width of 16.2 metres, a depth of 33.5 metres, and a lot area of 542.7 square metres. The retained lot is proposed to have a lot width of 30.4 metres (at the street line), a depth of approximately 43 metres and a lot area of approximately 1490 square metres. Planning Comments: The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The designation of the property was made a condition of a previous consent application (82018-025) to sever the eastern portion of the property. Planning Staff is recommending this application be deferred to the February 16, 2021 meeting to allow additional time to investigate any cultural heritage value and/or significance of the detached garage structure that is proposed to be demolished. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on November 20, 2020 r li■fy''R` �� S � f i Q "", e tiRr N14*4r Region of Waterloo Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reglonofwate rloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 D20-20/20 KIT November 26, 2020 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2020-045 to 62020- 048 Committee of Adjustment Hearing December 8, 2020 CITY OF KITCHENER B2020-045 145 and 155 Ann Street Karen McKiel and William Finlay The owner/applicant is proposing to sever two adjacent part lots municipally known as 145 and 155 Ann Street. These properties merged on title previously and the owner/applicant wishes to sever the lot. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. Water Services: Regional Staff advise that he subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 327.9 mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2020. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: Document Number: 3474109 Version: 1 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. B2020-046 50 Fifth Avenue Amarjit Singh The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to create a new residential lot. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created, prior to final approval of the consent. Water Services: Regional Staff advise that the subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 327.9 mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2020. Noise: The proposed severed and the retained lots are located within 200 metres of a high traffic & high speed King Street Bypass and within 500 metres of Conestoga Parkway (Highway 7/8) and would have impacts from transportation noise sources in the vicinity. Regional Staff require the following noise attenuation measures be implemented through a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener, for both, the severed and the retained lands: a) The dwelling units(s) must be installed with air -ducted heating and ventilation system, suitably sized and designed with provision of adding a central air- conditioning. b) The dwelling unit(s) on the proposed severed and retained lands will be registered with the following noise warnings clauses on title: Purchaser/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on King Street Bypass & Conestoga Parkway (HWY 7/8) may on occasions interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment Conservation & Parks (MOECP)." ii. "This unit has been designed with the provision of adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will Document Number: 3474109 Version: 1 allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment Conservation & Parks (MOECP)." The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 2) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include the following noise mitigation/warning clauses in all Offers of Purchase and Sale, lease/rental agreements and condominium declarations for all dwellings on the severed and retained lands: a. The dwelling units(s) must be installed with air -ducted heating and ventilation system, suitably sized and designed with provision of adding a central air-conditioning. b. The dwelling unit(s) on the proposed severed and retained lands will be registered with the following noise warnings clauses on title: Purchaser/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on King Street Bypass & Conestoga Parkway (HWY 7/8) may on occasions interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment Conservation & Parks (MOECP)." ii. "This unit has been designed with the provision of adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment Conservation & Parks (MOECP)." Document Number: 3474109 Version: 1 B2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent Michael Krause The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to permit a semi-detached dwelling. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created, prior to final approval of the consent. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. B2020-048 53 Candle Crescent William Shafer The owner/applicant is proposing an easement over a portion of 53 Candle Crescent in favour of part of 55 Candle Crescent to permit legal access to the rear yard. The Region has no objection to the proposed application. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Matthew Colley, Planner Document Number: 3474109 Version: 1 Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca November 26, 2020 Holly Dyson, Administrative Clerk Via email only Legislated Services, City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Dyson, Re: December 8, 2020 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2020-103 840 Stirling Avenue South A 2020-104 114 Peach Blossom Crescent A 2020-105 39 Water Street North A 2020-106 1031 Victoria Street North A 2020-107 236 Margaret Avenue Applications for Consent B 2020-045 145-155 Ann Street B 2020-046 50 Fifth Avenue B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2020-048 53 Candle Crescent 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 aherremana_grand river. 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 1 of 1 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River 50 Brookside Crescent — Proposed Severance to Create 52/54 Brookside Crescent Petition Some of the residents of Brookside Crescent are concerned about what is happening with the property at 50 Brookside Crescent. We were not in the know about what was happening when the property was severed and a duplex constructed on the east side. Now, we are concerned about the severance of the lot and the construction of semis on the west side. We maintain that the detached garage should be part of the heritage designation that goes along with the farmhouse. This building used to be the smokehouse and is an original building. It was refurbished in the 70s, not constructed then. The coachhouse (at the back of the property) is not original and was constructed in the late 80s by the Madill family. We need to clarify the existing stone "storage" building (as per the plan) on the lot of the heritage home as it is currently being used as a rental unit. It is now occupied by a tenant. Is this compliant? Garett Stevenson from Planning is looking into this for us. As per the HIA, what outbuilding is being protected under the heritage designation along with the house and summer kitchen wing? Is it the storage building (coachhouse) that is to remain and the garage to be demolished? We think that is backwards as we know the coachhouse was built in the late 80s and the smokehouse/detached garage was an original structure. Unfortunately, there was no building permit obtained to build this. The owner at the time stated that to the owner of when he was building it. It is the detached garage out front that is original. Our question would be why would anyone build a smokehouse in the 70s in the middle of a subdivision? It was already there, and merely refurbished in the 70s. The City registrar says the- bought in 1972, but they were already there well before that. As per== bought the farm on April 1, 1956 from the-. I have the purchase offer to by Dutchman homes in 1964. Costain bought the property from Dutchman Homes before 1971." OFFER TO PURCHASE t_ eg7p,"Ja M. t Ll1llt[d. a IY pini, p V�l " W1* mod P M EL�EILMUr _ .t#n L-10trMnet I+evehiar ■7SOMMIL � if xrrihc,uarerX fIi�raG.�, sei lleMw�1BNeb0i� SRjipturW t0thbwl S rt 'SID Waso iris, r,ni �yrryg IlY t143 :.r.r+414 fCf4ie i1 darrllyd In d -W rylrcrrlW IP thr -Kwq}IrewV ID fa s toK� #rrrq plvfirlan Of tM Count of Mrtarioo, in S-14 n tai fwlrzrbrp of �IilrCrrloo. list' *ran-'�ii t acres oil lJrd on gtrlw:l+ 1111 oa t -461 - the ,Vedcw r• farm hosris"MQh shutl 40 Irr L40 IMEd tae E;I hk f�ba11 �4. 7r �44� �Ys & f put a Flop of lAbdivItIono PFICO GI at az rrlrtl mous -..,-- 00.110a U&JI&P6 -or lawFwl l� !t LaLt haat �B, klu of ,Il,,P�aFegIN uxn altti hwoks Ich fo.-� rwWs Or 4k6■ o#Ise u I'Met: r YYai.� • e" lir "A bilk w a va tur- a W wT1 f— iM '�p-I� phi L •..i rerwi. M aYe nx'. +.2 Nw �wwr F.,e g,.ypwr ee! eYe{ ,YtiewJ In 1d M! 3eY .� Y.1 •eaeesw� �w� L7Y a+ .ew rI _d � tll'H u 1. lL ..iur z, l 1uGerwe..e YYe +lull w lir .iea�.�.-... - eunY.re f��y-.}, +[wswk .e ."_._yr, i✓Qauyf rtue y Yw j r .9r. reF"i H rhY x�l '.La..rA .1 yln u �q>ae8 L1 LH cah4.i " fi;+ cNf°ryy'E'lttn lauF„rr,}x-awl/#/k,'IHIt'�n r lT4ir}al I �J,-f 'f.�l.s=.a r -s OFFER kl From "When they bought the farm in 1956, it was a standalone building as most smoke houses were. The original farm was much different than the pictures we have sent you - more like the old style farm buildings made of wood so smoke houses were always separate from that. The closest building to it was a driving shed and then the main barn past that. Unfortunately, there was a fire in the main barn caused by a tractor parked in there and being too hot. The main building and the drive shed were burned by the fire but not the smokehouse... because it was closer to the house. Ironic actually since it was a "smokehouse”. u 4 Top building — House, middle building — garage/driving shed, front building — barn. The driving shed was built onto the smokehouse. Above picture 1962, no coachhouse, but does show detached garage. i "loom ►: •mow V ! it t 'i'1��,r+,}[��.i/lll�f�'f. 'J'r°rf'��✓'//#' � l'2}f/'/Ill _.� y. iL etuarwr r.. ...rrn m 4#uj— •j�+.+.r�T.. 9..,..us Nexe. nc.'.�.I'�il :.3 Apparent ,ly the Balt- to ynu by the fg�ily is suoposed to be earr-pleted On the lot Qf' Aprill of co4rse, is a Sunday no that it Will probably be a day or tura later befare the deal call be Clased— Era the meantime i afl� �L � ,.emenG 'jf e ti bus;�azs r€ cgived from,M solicitors havi h tQ R :. wi11 e � Cs� heu the dei l it -aMC)Unt na-.I,L ]Lr -.t. me kno what k' e'� rl emerts tlu ars �ak3 . r. ... Liil�"tgago 1f1DReY .`'*�T t l i:, ] h9T } S • r1Y�ifa� . Yours truly. 1Jk6Tj.L�C{ i llam;Ffi b. 1 i k� - sold to_ family in 1956. I- �-�F.JW•'.O- AWes•-.P- '0' IJ Mid 1980's, angle from 58 Brookside clearly showing no coachhouse in the backyard of 50 Brookside From "Beside the house on the left hand side there is not a building in where we always had a large vegetable garden. Whatever building that is there now was put in after_ sold the house. The old smokehouse / garage is under the shed roof in front of the house to the left." If you have any questions, please contact any of the following. They lived at 50 Brookside Crescent. In the package that was received from Victoria Grohn, Planning, on page 2, it is stated at the bottom that "the owner has indicated that the proposed semi-detached units will be designed and constructed in a style and manner similar to the duplex residence being constructed now to ensure compatibility with the retained house lot and adjacent residential properties". We do not need another structure similar to the new build in the neighbourhood. The duplex is squished in beside the house next to it and sticks out further than the other houses on the street, impeding their sight lines. As we believe the current owner of 50 Brookside does not recognize the heritage or historical value, we need to preserve our street scape. In our opinion, the current new build diminishes the historical heritage of the farmhouse, does not enhance the character of the neighbourhood, and is not compatible with the other houses in the vicinity. The neighbour on the east side of the new build is very distressed about the style of the new build as it has hindered her sight lines and the height is also questionable... in the planning information the official plan designation is "low rise residential". If the new build is approved, how much input do the surrounding neighbours have on the style of the new build? We need to question the height, setback and building elevation of proposed new build, sufficient parking, etc. The proposed plan indicates a setback of 6.0 m (approx. 20 feet). 58 Brookside extends approx. 30 feet which means the new proposed build would extend 10 feet beyond, impeding sight lines at 58 Brookside. In the cHc letter dated October 26, 2020, it is recommended new construction be limited in height to 1 or 1 1/2 storeys. The current new build (under construction) is 2 stories as it is a duplex. The City of Kitchener Official Plan 3.4 notes "the City will encourage and support the mixing and integrating of innovative and different forms of housing to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form". Is this not contradictory to having similar type houses on the street? Additionally, in the original letter and copy letter from the Progressive Services Ltd. both dated October 29, 2020, there is a discrepancy regarding the zoning. The original letter indicates the proposed housing units will abide by the required setbacks under the R-5 zoning but the copy letter refers to the setbacks under R-4 zoning. The dimensions are the same for both zoning. In conclusion, we are asking that the Heritage Committee please reconsider the detached stone garage and grant it the same heritage designation as the farmhouse based on all of this information. We are requesting that 50 Brookside Cres be removed from the agenda of the Committee of Adjustment meeting that is currently scheduled for Tuesday December 8 while a possible heritage designation is revisited. Thank you, Concerned citizens of Brookside Crescent NO& IbI6 mh� 006= mm� 006��