Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1995-10-24COA\1995-10-24 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 24, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. D. McKnight, J. Gothard, W. Dahms, A. Galloway and S. Kay. Mr. R. Morgan, Zoning Administration Co-ordinator, Ms. J. Given, Planner, and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. D. McKnight, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. Senior MINUTES Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of October 3, 1995, as mailed to the members, be accepted. MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS Carried Submission No. A 103/95 - J. E. Kaufman, 773 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lots 2 & 29, Registered Plan 394 and Part Lots 5 & 27, Registered Plan 393, 103 Ontario Street South, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. D. David 8 Yarwood Place Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a refreshment stand which has a building height of 2.74 m (9 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant requests a variance to reduce the minimum facade height requirement of the D-1 Zone from 6.0 metres to 2.74 metres to recognize the existing refreshment stand. The stand was recently placed on site on the basis of Temporary Occupancy approved by City Council. The site is a through lot developed as a motor vehicle repair business fronting Queen Street, and commercial uses fronting Ontario Street with parking between the building and the street. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 300 OCTOBER 24, 1995 The proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and the official plan, which is that new development be in conformity with the characteristic built form. The characteristic built form on this section of Ontario Street is very different from the majority of the Core. The west side of the block is dominated by the Transit Terminal, which has no building oriented to Ontario Street. The subject property, with its substantial 1. Submission No. A 103/95 - J. E. Kaufman - cont'd building setback, occupies a major portion of the east side of the block. The variance is minor and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land as the building is relatively insignificant in terms of the overall streetscape, based on its small size and location well back from the street. In the opinion of staff, the proposal meets the four tests set out in Section 45 (1 of the Planning Act. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 103/95. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of J. E. Kaufman requesting legalization of a refreshment stand with a facade height of 2.74 m (9 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) on Part Lots 2 & 29, Registered Plan 394 and Part Lots 5 & 27, Registered Plan 393, 103 Ontario Street South, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 104/95 -Tomas & Brigitta Hohbaum, 140 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario Lot 312, Subdivision of Part of Lot 17 German Company Tract, 140 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of their driveway which is 1.84 m (6.04 ft.)wide instead of the required 3.048 m (10 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the applicants request legalization of an existing driveway which is 1.84 m (6.04 ft) wide instead of the required 3.048 m (10 ft). This request should be amended to accurately reflect the requirements of By-law 85-1. Where a driveway is located, the minimum side yard required is 3 m (9.843 ft). Staff have researched the property and it has been determined that the above noted variance is not necessary as it is deemed to comply as a result of the vacuum clause, being Section 5.15. la) of By-law 85- 1. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 301 OCTOBER 24, 1995 Therefore, the Department of Planning and Development advise that this request for a variance is not required. 2. Submission No. A 104/95 - Tomas & Briqitta Hohbaum - cont'd Based on the comments of the Department of Planning & Development, this application was dismissed. Submission No. A 105/95 - Sreto Ubiparip, 150 Montgomery Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 173, Registered Plan 651,150 Montgomery Road, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mrs. S. Ubiparip 150 Montgomery Road Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Mr. & Mrs. D. Hanke 144 Montgomery Road Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a detached garage in the rear yard with a southerly sideyard of 0.6 m (2 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that an application to the Committee of Adjustment has been made which requests a variance to the required side yard of 1.2 metres (4 feet) relative to a proposed accessory building. Specifically the applicant proposes to construct a three-bay detached garage with a proposed side yard of 0.6 metres (2 feet). The subject lands are currently developed with a triplex dwelling. The required parking for the existing triplex is currently located to the rear of the existing building in the general area of the proposed three-bay garage. The applicant has previously submitted a site plan application which did propose a side yard of 4 feet; however, the garage has not yet been constructed. Discussions with the applicant has revealed some concern with the vehicle manoeuvrability on site, as the subject land narrows in width toward the rear of the property. Given the reduced width of the property to the middle and rear of the lands and concerns with vehicle access to the proposed garage, the applicant has requested the subject variance application. The Department of Planning and Development is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature, given the nature of the proposed building and a side yard setback will remain that will sufficiently permit maintenance of the proposed garage and roof drainage to occur on the subject lands. The neighbouring property is developed with a driveway adjacent to the proposed garage. The requested variance is appropriate for the development of the subject lands as the proposed building and existing development comply with the zoning by-law in all other respects and the existing development along with the proposed garage is typical of other triplex dwellings existing in the immediate area. The requested variance and proposed garage complies with the general intent and purpose of both the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law pertaining to the subject lands as the Municipal Plan permits the existing triplex and the R-6 zoning also permits the existing triplex, which complies with all the regulations of the zoning by-law. Accordingly, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of minor variance application A-105/95 as submitted. The Committee reviewed the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Technician, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that the proposed garage location does not provide adequate aisle width to meet City parking design standards. As such, turning radius for vehicles entering the proposed garage would be restricted. This condition could create some difficulty for motorists in entering and exiting the garage. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 302 OCTOBER 24, 1995 3. Submission No. A 105/95 - Sreto Ubiparip - cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit was issued on August 15, 1995 to construct a garage with a 4 ft. sideyard. He advised there shall be no openings in a wall located less than 4 ft. from the property line and walls less than 4 ft. from the property line shall be of non-combustible construction and have a 1 hour fire resistance rating. Mr. J. Gothard referred to the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections and questioned whether the applicant was aware of these comments. Mr. Ubiparip advised that he had read these comments. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Sreto Ubiparip requesting permission to construct a detached garage, in the rearyard, with a southerly sideyard of 0.6 m (2 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Lot 173, Registered Plan 651, 150 Montgomery Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That there shall be no openings in a wall located less that 4 ft. from the property line and such wall shall be constructed of non-combustible cladding with a 1 hour fire resistance rating. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 106/95 - Raymond and Joanne Applebaum, 83 Onward Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 17, Registered Plan 299, 83 Onward Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. & Mrs. R. Applebaum 83 Onward Avenue Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to provide their legal parking space in their driveway, closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the front lot line. The reason is that they wish to convert the existing garage into living space. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the subject lands are located at 83 Onward Avenue and are presently zoned Residential Five (R-5) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is proposing to convert the garage area of the home to living space to accommodate a relative. The garage now fulfils the requirement for a legal off-street parking space. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 303 OCTOBER 24, 1995 4. Submission No. A 106/95 - Raymond and Joanne Applebaum - cont'd The Zoning By-law specifies that in the case of a single detached dwelling, the required off-street parking space must be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from the streetline. The existing driveway cannot be used as a legal parking space for the single detached dwelling as such space would be located 1.84 metres from the streetline. The intent of the regulation requiring the legal off-street parking space to be a minimum of 6.0 metres from the streetline is twofold. In terms of new development, it attempts to maintain a streetscape which is not totally dominated by garages. In terms of existing development, the intent is to ensure that if the garage area is used for other purposes or if there is a second vehicle using the driveway, parking would not occur in such a way as to overhang the sidewalk. The Zoning By-law does however permit non-required vehicular parking within 6 metres of the streetline provided it does not overhang public lands. Therefore, as long as one parking space is located in accordance with the Zoning By-law, a second vehicle could always be parked within 6 metres of the streetline without being contrary to the By-law. Permitting the required off street parking space 1.84 metres from the streetline would not detract from the streetscape and would not cause a situation which would not exist should the applicant choose to use the garage area for any purpose other than parking or living area, the intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained. That Minor Variance Application A 108/95 requesting permission to provide the required off-street parking space 1.84 metres from the streetline be approved. The Committee reviewed the comments from Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Technician, Traffic & Parking Division in which he advised that with regard to the conversion of garages to living space or home occupation uses in residential areas, we would caution that the elimination of the legal parking space could create a potential on-street parking problem in cases where there is not enough room in the driveway/garage to park all of the vehicles. As on-street overnight parking is prohibited residents are required to make alternate parking arrangements on private property. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to convert the garage into living space. Mr. S. Kay questioned whether the garage is a single car garage and Mr. Applebaum advised that it was. In response to further questioning, Mr. Applebaum advised that the driveway is twenty-four feet long between the front wall of the garage and the sidewalk and that they own one vehicle. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of Raymond and Joanne Applebaum requesting permission to provide the required off- street parking space in their driveway 1.84 m (6.04 ft. from the street line rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) on Lot 17, Registered Plan 299, 83 Onward Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 107/95 - Beaver Fuels Management Limited, 151 Superior Blvd., Unit 20, Mississau.qa, Ontario Lots 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 and Part of Lots 11, 12 and 15, Registered Plan 418, 101 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 304 OCTOBER 24, 1995 5. Submission No. A 107/95 - Beaver Fuels Manaqement Limited - cont'd APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. W. Shortis 151 Superior Blvd. Mississauga, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a new kiosk and will be removing the old kiosk. The kiosk is proposed to be located 15 m more or less (49.22 ft. more or less) from Oak Street whereas the By-law permits only a 2 m (6.57 ft.) setback from Oak Street. The kiosk will be 2.743 m (9 ft.) high whereas the By-law requires a height of 6 m (19.69 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the applicant requests variances to reduce the minimum facade height requirement of the D-6 Zone from 6.0 metres to 2.7 metres and to increase the maximum yard abutting a street, to permit a new gas bar kiosk. The site occupies the entire block of Victoria Street, from Joseph Street to Oak Street, with the exception of the City-owned parkette at the corner of Victoria and Joseph. The application requests that the maximum yard abutting Oak Street be increased from 2.0 metres to 15.0 metres. The application should be amended to request two additional variances increasing the maximum yard to 21 metres abutting Victoria Street and 65 metres abutting Joseph Street. The Warehouse District is characterized by multi-storey industrial buildings typically built close to the street. The general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and official plan is to encourage new development that is complementary to this design and siting. The proposed gas bar, which is a permitted use in the by-law, does not require or readily lend itself to a multi-storey construction or to having the kiosk built close to the street, particularly as this lot has frontage on three streets. The general intent and purpose does not readily apply to this use. The variance is minor and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land as the gas bar occupies only a small portion of the site, leaving the majority of the site available for new development. In the opinion of staff, the proposal meets the four tests set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 107/95, as amended to request two additional variances increasing the maximum yard abutting a street to 21 metres on Victoria Street and 65 metres on Joseph Street. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required for the kiosk. At the request of Mr. Shortis, the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application in accordance with the Planning Department comments. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of Beaver Fuels Management Ltd. requesting permission to erect a gas bar kiosk having a height of 2.7 m (8.86 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) to be located approximately 15 m (49.22 ft.) from Oak Street rather than the required 2 m (6.57 ft.), 21 m (68.9 ft.) from Victoria 5. Submission No. A 107/95 - Beaver Fuels Manaqement Limited - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 305 OCTOBER 24, 1995 Street rather than the required 2 m (6.57 ft.) and 65 m (213.26 ft.) from Joseph Street rather than the required 2 m (6.57 ft.) on Lots 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 and Part Lots 11, 12 and 15, Registered Plan 418, 101 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 108/95 - Waldemar & Heidi Betker, 439 Lexington Crescent, Waterloo, Ontario Lot 4, Registered Plan 1093, 95 Woodhaven Road, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Mrs. M. & Ms. H. Betker 95 Woodhaven Road Kitchener, Ontario NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Mr. C. Pedrosa 30 Fennings Street Toronto, Ontario CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to convert the existing garage into space for a hairdressers and are seeking permission to provide the required two off-street parking spaces, for the home business and the dwelling, side by side in the existing driveway, closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the front lot line. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the subject lands are located at 95 Woodhaven Road and are presently zoned Residential Three (R-3) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is proposing to convert the garage area of the home to workspace for a personal service (hairdresser) as a home business. Two parking spaces are required to be provided in accordance with the regulations. The garage now fulfils the requirement for a legal off-street parking space for the dwelling only. The Zoning By-law specifies that in the case of a home business associated with a single detached dwelling, the required off-street parking space must be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from the streetline. The existing driveway cannot be used as a legal parking space for either the single detached dwelling or the home business as such space would be located 2.41 metres from the streetline. The intent of the regulation requiring the legal off-street parking space to be a minimum of 6.0 metres from the streetline is twofold. In terms of new development, it attempts to maintain a streetscape which is not totally dominated by garages. In terms of existing development, the intent is to ensure that if the garage area is used for other purposes or if there is a second vehicle using the driveway, parking would not occur in such a way as to overhang the sidewalk. The Zoning By-law does however permit non-required vehicular parking within 6 metres of the streetline provided it does not 6. Submission No. A 108/95 - Waldemar & Heidi Betker - cont'd overhang public lands. Therefore, as long as one parking space is located in accordance with the Zoning By-law, a second vehicle could always be parked within 6 metres of the streetline without being contrary to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 306 OCTOBER 24, 1995 the By-law. The subject property presently has a driveway of sufficient width to provide parking for two vehicles side by side. Since permitting the two required off- street parking spaces 2.41 metres of the streetline would not detract from the streetscape and would not cause a situation which would not exist should the applicant choose to use the garage area for any purpose other than parking or a home business, the intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained. That Minor Variance Application A 108/95 requesting permission to provide the two required off-street parking spaces 2.41 metres from the streetline be approved. The Committee reviewed the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Technician, Traffic & Parking Division, in which they advised that the conversion of garages to living space or home occupation uses in residential areas, we would caution that the elimination of the legal parking space could create a potential on-street parking problem in cases where there is not enough room in the driveway/garage to park all of the vehicles. As on-street overnight parking is prohibited residents are required to make alternate parking arrangements on private property. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to convert the garage to business space. The Committee considered the written submission of Mr. C. Pedrosa in which he advised that he had no objection to the application as long as his property remains untouched. Upon questioning by the Committee, Ms. Betker advised that she read the Traffic Division comments. The hours of operation for her business would be 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 6 p.m.. The conversion of the garage has not taken place yet. There will be no employees and there is only one car being parked on the premises now. Ms. Betker also advised that she would like to have one sign advertising the home business. Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, advised that home businesses are not permitted signage. Mr. W. Dahms questioned Ms. Given on the difference in the staff comments on this application as compared to those for Submission No. A 113/95. Ms. Given responded that the property in Submission No. A 113/95 is zoned Commercial. Mr. A. Galloway questioned whether a home business is permitted in this zone and Ms. Given responded that it is. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Waldemar and Heidi Betker requesting permission to provide two off-street parking spaces for a dwelling and home business, in the existing driveway, 2.41 m (7.91 ft.) from the street line rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) on Lot 4, Registered Plan 1093, 95 Woodhaven Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 109/95 -William Poole & Louise Dzuryk, 14 Huntingwood Kitchener, Ontario Lot 6, Registered Plan 1710, 14 Huntingwood Court, Kitchener, Ontario Court, APPEARANCES: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 307 OCTOBER 24, 1995 IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing accessory shed and deck having 0 m sideyards rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the applicants request legalization of an existing accessory shed which is located 0.12 m from the rear lot line and an attached frame deck which has a set back of 0 m from the side lot line, instead of the required 1.2 m (4ft). This application was made as a result of a request for a Letter of Compliance processed on July 5, 1995 identifying the non-complying situation, under By-law 4830, which required a set back for the shed and deck of 2 feet (.6 m). At that time Stage 7 of the City's Comprehensive By-law was also in effect but in its hiatus period. In this regard, as the more stringent regulation was the required 2 feet under By-law 4830 this was the regulation used for analysis thereby resulting in a non-complying situation. On August 28, 1995 the Ontario Municipal Board granted full effect to By-law 94-183 being Stage 7 of the City's Comprehensive By-law. This by-law allows for accessory buildings with a maximum floor area of 9.3 m2 to be located up to the property lines. The shed in question has an area of 6.12 m2 and therefore is now deemed to comply. Additionally, the regulations for decks have also changed in that they are now allowed up to the lot line provided that the maximum height of the deck is 0.6 metres above the finished grade level. In this respect, the deck now also complies to the by-law. That Submission A 109/95 be no longer required as By-law 94-183 was granted effect on August 28, 1995 retroactive to October 11, 1994 which has deemed this request in compliance with By-law 85-1. Based on the comments of the Department of Planning & Development, this application was dismissed. Submission No. A 110/95 - Blaze Development, 420 Weber Street North, Unit Waterloo, Ontario Part Lot 60, German Company Tract, 9 Macville Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario 104, APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. J. Given Senior Planner City of Kitchener CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mr. & Mrs. J. Leffler 136 Woolwich Street Kitchener, Ontario IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE 8. Submission No. A 110/95 - Blaze Development - cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to build on a lot which fronts on a street having a width of 6 m (19.69 ft.). The City's By-law requires that a lot must front a public street having a minimum width of 12.19 m (40 ft.) before the lot can be developed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 308 OCTOBER 24, 1995 The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the applicant has requested permission to build on a lot which fronts on to a street having a width of 5.4 metres (17.7 feet) rather than the required minimum right-of-way of 12.19 metres (40 feet). The subject property is currently vacant and was created as a result of a severance application considered by the Committee under Application B-12/92 and approved by the Committee on July 28, 1992 subject to certain conditions of development which have been fulfilled and the lot has been legally created. At the same time, a zone change applying to the property allowed for a reduced lot width, a reduced lot area and allowing for the lot to be built on the street having less than 12.19 metre right-of-way. With the completion of the City's Comprehensive Zoning By-law, the subject property was rezoned to R-3 with special regulation provision 181R and while another special regulation dealing with road width (179R) was applied to the neighbouring properties, the zoning map affecting this area did not include this special regulation on this property, while it was intended to. Accordingly, the application is being made by the City on behalf of the owner who has a conditional sale of the property and the prospective purchaser is interested in receiving a building permit immediately to start construction this fall. The variance is appropriate, minor, and maintains the intent of the zoning by-law. Accordingly, the Department recommends approval of the variance without conditions. As noted in the Department of Planning & Development comments the street width of Macville Avenue is in fact 5.4 m (17.7 ft.) and the Committee agreed to amend the application accordingly. Mr. Leffler addressed the Committee advising of his concern that there should be no more construction on Macville Avenue as the street is to narrow and there is too much traffic. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Leffler advised that he lives at 136 Woolwich Street, which backs on to the subject property. He then advised the Committee that he is concerned about the type of construction and how many people would live in the building. Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, advised that it was an oversight on the part of the Department of Planning & Development not to include this property in the special by-law provisions which apply to all other properties on this street. In response to Mr. Leffler's concerns, Ms. Given advised that to the best of her knowledge a Building Permit Application has been made for a single family dwelling. Mr. S. Kay advised Mr. Leffler that a zone change has previously taken place on this property. Mr. Leffler advised that he had no knowledge of the zone change. Ms. J. Given responded that, given the location of Mr. Leffler's property, he should have been circulated concerning the zone change. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Blaze Development requesting permission to building on a lot having frontage on a street which has a width of 5.4 m (17.7 ft.) rather than the required 12.19 m (40 ft.) on Part Lot 60, German Company Tract, 9 Macville Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. Submission No. A 110/95 - Blaze Development - cont'd This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 309 OCTOBER 24, 1995 Submission No. A 111/95 - Mr. & Mrs. Peter Mayo, 280 Bankside Drive, Ontario Lot 67, Registered Plan 1796, 280 Bankside Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Kitchener, APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. P. Mayo 280 Bankside Drive Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a deck onto the rear of the existing house. The proposed deck will have a rear yard of 4.11 m (13.49 ft.) whereas the by-law the requires a rear yard of 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). The applicants request permission to reduce the rear yard set back from 7.5 metres to 4.11 metres to construct a second stow deck. After reviewing the application, it has been identified that the applicants do not require a minor variance for the construction of the proposed deck. Section 5.6.A.4 c) of By-law 85-1 requires a rear yard set back of 4.0 metres for decks greater than 0.6 metres above the finished grade. In this case, the applicants are proposing a 4.11 metre rear yard set back for a deck greater than 0.6 metres in height and therefore the proposed deck can comply to the existing Zoning By-law regulations. Based on the comments of the Department of Planning & Development, this application was dismissed. Mr. Mayo advised that this application had been made at the direction of Building staff and he requested a refund of the fee. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application fee for Submission No. A 111/95 be refunded. Carried 10. Submission No. A 112/95 - Doug & Cathy Antoniak, 129 Cedar Crest Street, Kitchener, Ontario Lot 41, Registered Plan 1463, 129 Cedar Crest Street, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. S. Grant c/o Mandorin, Snyder 235 King Street East Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE 10. Submission No. A 112/95 - Douq & Cathy Antoniak - cont'd WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Ms. J. Davidson 130 Cedar Crest Street Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 310 OCTOBER 24, 1995 CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission for their driveway to be located 4.27 m (14 ft.) from the intersection rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.). The driveway will also be located 4.27 m (14 ft.) from the lot line along Cedar Crest Street (flanking side) rather than the required 6.09 m (20 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing driveway located approximately 4.26 m (14 ft.) from the intersection of the property lines abutting Cedar Crest St. rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) Secondly, a portion of the driveway location appears to be located within the corner visibility triangle. This triangular area of the driveway located within the corner visibility triangle is 3.4 m (11.15 ft.) x 3.2 m (10.49 ft.) x 5 m (16.40 ft.). Thirdly, the legal parking space is setback 4.7 m (15.41 ft.) from the side lot line abutting Cedar Crest St. rather than the required 6.0 m (20 ft.) setback. A building permit for a single family dwelling and garage was issued back in 1984; however, a final building inspection was never completed for the dwelling. After an inspection by staff, it was confirmed that there is no garage/carport on this property. In most cases, on a corner lot such as this an attached garage provides the required legal parking space. The current setback for a legal parking space from the longer lot line abutting Cedar Crest St. is 6.0 m (20 ft.). According to the revised drawing by staff, the parking space is setback 4.7 m (15.41 ft.) rather than the required 6.0 m (20 ft.). This parking space however, does not cause a visibility problem because the applicant is able to park one vehicle behind the facade of the dwelling and still comply with the 6.0 m (20 ft.) setback required from the front lot line abutting Cedar Crest St. The driveway which is 3.35 m (11 ft.) wide was originally installed by the builder incorrectly at the time the dwelling was constructed. The applicants were not the original owners of the house and therefore the driveway existed in this location when the applicants purchased the dwelling. The corner visibility triangle is the triangular area formed within a corner lot by the intersecting street lines or the projections thereof and a straight line connecting them 7.5 m from their point of intersection. It appears that from the drawings submitted with the application that a small portion of the driveway immediately abutting the shorter lot line along Cedar Crest St. is within this visibility triangle. It is staffs opinion that the driveway location as it exists does not cause visibility problems for vehicular traffic at this corner. Cedar Crest St. is not a heavily travelled street and this corner is rounded allowing safe visibility for traffic. There have been no complaints in the past regarding the driveway location and it appears that the driveway is suitably located. Even with a portion of this driveway being located within the corner visibility triangle, it is staffs opinion that this variance can be considered minor in nature and meets the general intent of the bylaw. Staff have revised the application and plan to show the amended dimensions. The applicant has been notified of the revisions contained within this report and plan and the application should be amended accordingly. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variances only as amended in this report. The Committee considered the written submission of Ms. J. Davidson advising that she has no concerns with this application. 10. Submission No. A 112/95 - Douq & Cathy Antoniak - cont'd At the request of Mr. Grant, the Committee agreed to consider amendments to the application in accordance with the comments of the Department of Planning & Development. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of Doug & Cathy Antoniak requesting legalization of an existing driveway having a setback from the intersection of 4.26 m (14 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.), partially located within the required corner visibility triangle and legalization of the required off-street parking space setback 4.7 m COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 311 OCTOBER 24, 1995 (15.41 ft.) from the side Iotline along Cedar Crest Street rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) on Lot 41, Registered Plan 1463, 129 Cedar Crest Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried 11. Submission No. A 113/95 - Flamina Cioci, 124 Rossmull Crescent, Woodbrid.qe, Ontario Part Lot 27, Registered Plan 231, 1232 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. E. Szenyi 1232 King Street East Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to provide 2 off-street parking spaces, one on the southerly side of the property, one for the proposed home business and one for the dwelling unit. In total, it is proposed that there will be 3 off-street parking for this building, 1 for the home business and 1 for each of the 2 apartments. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the subject property is located on King Street East, one property away from its intersection with Sydney Street. The property is developed with a duplex dwelling, which is legal, non-conforming. It is proposed that a personal service business be established in the building which would be operated by the tenant. The property is developed with a driveway on each side of the property, accommodating the parking for the two dwelling units, and the personal service use would require one additional parking space, which would have to be provided in tandem with one of the other parking spaces, which the By-law does not allow. The rear yard of the property was once proposed to be developed for parking for a commercial use, but such use was never established on the property. The rear yard is now fully occupied by transport trailers and a recreational vehicle, seemingly in association with the motor vehicle repair business next door, on the corner of Sydney Street and King Street East. If development were 11. Submission No. A 113/95 - Flamina Cioci - cont'd contemplated on the subject property and a development agreement were required, the parking would be required to be provided in the rear yard. Comments from Traffic and Parking Services indicate that it is their recommendation that traffic be able to exit the site in a forward motion, and that reversing in the driveway onto King Street may create a traffic problem. However, given that no development is contemplated, and this tenant is able to occupy without entering into a site plan agreement, and the By-law does not contain a regulation requiring the exiting of the site in a forward motion, the use of the driveway for the three required parking spaces must be considered in the context of this minor variance application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 312 OCTOBER 24, 1995 The zoning by-law already permits tandem parking for the duplex, which would mean both spaces devoted to the duplex could be parked in one driveway, and the other space could be devoted to the personal service use. However, it is the understanding of staff that the applicant would like to continue to use one driveway for each residential tenant and the third space on site, the one devoted to the commercial use, would park in the driveway to the right of the building, in tandem with one space provided for the dwelling. It is noted that all parking spaces must not extend closer than 10 feet from the King Street East property line. Given that the business is operated by a tenant of the building, the actual demand on parking may be less, and the ability to manoeuvre vehicles, if necessary, may also be easier. Accordingly, the intent of the by-law that independent access be gained by each vehicle is generally maintained. Because the three parking spaces could already be arranged on site in a similar fashion, only the two in tandem would be for the duplex, the variance is minor and allows for the appropriate development of the property. The personal service use, being a permitted use is allowing the property to be developed more in keeping with the by-law and Municipal Plan than the existing legal, non-conforming duplex. On the basis of the above, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variance to permit one parking space for a personal service use only to be arranged in tandem with the parking space for the duplex located on the southeasterly side of the building, and only provided the personal service owner/operator lives on the premises. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division in which he advised that, in terms of traffic operation, a parking design which requires vehicles to reverse onto King Street is undesirable. It is recommended that the required parking be located in the rearyard which would enable motorists to exit the site in a forward motion. Ms. Szenyi addressed the Committee advising that the area behind the building is rented to OK Tire and she has no control over that use, as she is a tenant and not the owner. Further, upon questioning, she advised that the property to the right is currently vacant and the one to the left is occupied by OK Tire and that there are no fences between these properties. Mr. S. Kay advised that he was concerned about the Traffic Division comments and about backing out onto King Street. He further advised that regardless of what exists now, things can be changed. Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, advised that if the property was used as a duplex the tenants would be allowed to park in tandem. If the property was to be redeveloped, then the development would have to receive site plan approval. Mr. D. McKnight questioned why the By-law could not be complied with. He did not think that the proposed parking arrangement was appropriate. Ms. Szenyi explains that she did not realize that there was a parking problem when she started planning her business. She also started planning her business after the rear yard parking had been committed to someone else. She advised that her customers would be seen only by appointment and that there would be no signs. She further advised that she has been backing out onto King Street for three years now, with no problem and that King Street has recently been widened in this area. 11. Submission No. A 113/95 - Flamina Cioci - cont'd Mr. J. Gothard questioned whether there is on-street parking available and Ms. J. Given advised that it is not available on this side of King Street and she wasn't aware if it was permitted on the other side of the street. Mr. A. Galloway questioned whether the condition requested by staff would limit the approval to this tenant and Ms. Given responded that it wouldn't apply to this tenant only but to this type of arrangement. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Flamina Cioci requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in tandem, on the southeast side of the building, for one dwelling unit and a personal service business on Part Lot 27, Registered Plan 231, 1232 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 313 OCTOBER 24, 1995 condition: 1. That the personal service owner/operator shall live on the premises. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT APPLICATIONS Submission No. B 79/95 - Freure Doon Settlement, 501 Krug Street, P.O. Box 640, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, Being Parts 3 & 4, Reference Plan 58R-7422 Pinnacle Drive at Doon Valley Drive, Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was in receipt of a request from the applicant's agent to revise this application. The Secretary advised that the revision will be circulated for comment in time for November 21, 1995 meeting. Submission No. B 80/95 -Viceroy Homes Ltd., 30 Melford Drive, Scarborouqh, Ontario Re: Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 4296 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. C. Penney Viceroy Homes 4296 King Street East Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE 2. Submission No. B 80/95 - Viceroy Homes Ltd. - cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on King Street East of 20.5 m (67.26 ft.) by an average depth of 94 m (308.4 ft.) and having an area of 0.2806 hectares (0.693 acres). The proposed use of the property is commercial. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development for the City of Kitchener in which they advised that the applicant, Viceroy Homes Limited, has submitted a consent application to permit the severance of a portion of their lands. The subject lands are located at 4296 King Street East and are within the Pioneer Tower East Planning Community. The policies of the Municipal Plan permit the severance of lots on this section of King Street East. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 314 OCTOBER 24, 1995 The applicant was previously given consent to sever the subject lands by the Committee of Adjustment on August 9, 1994. However, the condition of approval requiring payment of two percent of the value of the lands in lieu of parkland dedication was not fulfilled within the stipulated one year period. As a result, the Committee's previous consent approval lapsed requiring the applicant to re-apply for the severance. Both the lands to be retained and the lands to be severed would meet all of the regulations of the Service Commercial (C-6) Zone. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Consent Application B 80/95 subject to the following conditions: That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to two percent (2%) of the value of the lands to be severed. That satisfactory financial arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that the Waterloo Regional Health Unit defers comments on this application until such time as a complete professional engineers geotechnical investigation is undertaken to determine the soil suitability for private, in-ground sewage disposal systems. She further advised that Regional staff have no concerns with the approval of the application subject to the condition that the professional engineers geotechnical study be undertaken and that the decision of the Committee lapse two years from the date of approval. The Committee was in receipt of two letters from Mr. R. Ward, Corridor Control Technician, Ministry of Transportation, one dated October 17, 1995 and the second one dated October 23, 1995. It was noted that the first correspondence from Mr. Ward suggested that the application affects the safety/efficiency of the highway system and Ministry permits will not be available. Subsequent to that letter the applicant provided the Ministry with a revised site plan showing the parcel to be severed having a frontage of 32 m on the highway and the Ministry's correspondence of October 23, 1995 reflects the new site plan and advises that permits will be available subject to certain conditions and that should the application receive consent the owner contact the district office of the Ministry of Transportation prior to commencing any new construction of buildings and or entrances. At the request of Mr. Penney the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application for the severed parcel to have a 32 m street frontage on King Street East as was provided to the Ministry of Transportation. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Viceroy Homes Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on King Street East of 32 m (105 ft.) by an average depth of 94 m (308.4 ft.) and having an approximate area of 2,957.17 m2 (31,831.76 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 4296 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 2. Submission No. B 80/95 - Viceroy Homes Ltd. - cont'd That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 2% of the value of the lands to be severed. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangement with the City's Department of Finance for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner shall complete a professional engineer's geotechnical investigation for the proposed severed lot to be approved by the Waterloo Regional Health Unit. That the owner shall supply the Secretary-Treasurer with a letter from the Ministry of Transportation advising that they have met the Ministry's requirements. Pursuant to Subsection 20 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 315 OCTOBER 24, 1995 conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 22 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2 years from the date of approval, being October 24, 1997. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of Subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried Submission No. B 81/95 - Deer Ridge Golf Club, 300 Pioneer Tower Road, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, Being Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-9320, 300 Pioneer Tower Road, Kitchener, Ontario As no one appeared in support of the application, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the meeting of Tuesday November 21, 1995. ADJOURNED On Motion, the meeting adjourned. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 24th, day of October 1995. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment