Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1995-12-12COA\1995-12-12 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 12, 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 9:35 a.m.. Senior MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of November 21, 1995, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN & VICE CHAIRMAN Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That Mr. J. Gothard be appointed Chairman of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 1996. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That Mr. S. Kay be appointed Vice Chairman of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 1996. MINOR VARIANCE UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No. A 119/95 - Muntaz Ally, 27 Peter Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Part Lot 48 Registered Plan 393, 27 Peter Street, Kitchener, Ontario. CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: NONE Mr. M. Ally 27 Peter Street Kitchener, Ontario NONE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 211 DECEMBER 12, 1995 IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a driveway and provide off-street parking in the driveway, to be located in front of the house. The existing front porch and steps will be removed and replaced with steps to the front door and the proposed driveway having an approximate width of 3.66 m (12 ft.). The By-law currently requires parking to be no closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the front lot line. 1. Submission No. A 119/95 - Muntaz Ally - cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the subject lands are located at 27 Peter Street within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood and are presently zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are currently developed with one semi-detached dwelling unit. The Zoning By-law requires that the driveway not exceed 50 percent of the lot width with the required off- street parking space to be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from the streetline. The applicant is seeking permission to construct a driveway such that the required off-street parking space would be located 0.74 metres from the streetline with the driveway itself comprising 66 percent of the lot width. The existing lot is only 5.5 metres in width and the dwelling has been constructed with a 0.44 metre sideyard. Given the small size of lot and the location of the dwelling, it is not possible for the applicant to construct a driveway in compliance with the Zoning By-law. Do to unique circumstances associated with properties in the inner-city, particularly with respect to lot size, building placement and absence of garages, it is often not possible to meet the off-street parking requirements of the Zoning By-law. While requests such as this are often considered where an inner-city location dictates that all regulations of the Zoning By-law cannot be met, each situation is reviewed on it's merits. In this particular instance, due to the location of the travelled surface of the roadway being almost immediately adjacent to the property line and no existing sidewalk, only 0.74 metres would separate a vehicle parked in the proposed driveway and a vehicle travelling on the roadway. In addition, the topography of the subject property would require that the applicant excavate the parking area and construct retaining walls on either side of the proposed driveway. The height of the retaining walls would obstruct views and this together with the extremely small separation between parked and travelling vehicles would in all likelihood create an unsafe situation. For this reason, the Planning and Development cannot support the request. That Minor Variance Application A 119/95 requesting permission to construct a driveway comprising 66 percent of the lot width and provide the required off-street parking space 0.74 metres from the streetline be refused. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that a permit is required to remove the front porch. The Committee considered the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that the development of the proposed driveway in front of the subject residence would entail the construction of retaining walls given the existing grading in the front yard. These retaining walls would obstruct the view of on-coming traffic on Peter Street for motorists exiting the proposed driveway. This condition is augmented by the minimal separation from the roadway. From a traffic safety aspect, it is recommended that this application be refused. Mr. Ally addressed the Committee advising that everyone on Peter Street has a retaining wall. On Peter Street from St. George to Courtland all the properties are at a higher elevation than his and all their retaining walls go to the street. Further, Mr. Ally advised that there is no land beside his house for a driveway. He also advised that he would not lower the elevation of the proposed driveway very much, as he would not be able to see very well when exiting the driveway if he did that. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Ally advised that he would be removing his portion of the front porch and putting up steps to his front door. He would also have to provide supports for his neighbours portion of the front porch. Mr. Ally also advised that he and his neighbour are the only properties on the street without driveways. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 212 DECEMBER 12, 1995 When questioned by the Committee about his current parking arrangements, Mr. Ally advised that he had been able to park at 86 George Street; however, that it no longer possible. He has made arrangements to park at 25 Peter Street but that is only a short term arrangement. 1. Submission No. A 119/95 - Muntaz Ally - cont'd Mr. Gothard advised that he had been out to look at the property and realizes it is a difficult situation. He stated that although he sympathizes with Mr. Ally's need for parking, he could not support the application as, in his opinion, it is not appropriate development and not a minor variance. Mr. Gothard advised that he agrees with the staff comments. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Muntaz Ally requesting permission to install a driveway and to provide parking closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the property line along Peter Street on Part Lot 48, Registered Plan 393, 27 Peter Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are not minor in nature. 2. This application is not 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 not being maintained on the subject property. Carried APPLICATIONS Submission No. A 121/95 -lan Cook Construction Limited, B-1 169 Lexington Court, Waterloo, Ontario Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 1790, Being Part 20, Reference Plan 58R-9482, Westforest Trail and Westmeadow Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. I. Cook 169 Lexington Court Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate the driveway 9 m (29.53 ft.) from the intersection of Westmeadow Drive and Westforest Trail rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the Application for Minor Variance has been submitted requesting a variance to the required 12 metre setback of a proposed driveway from the intersection of Westforest Trail and Westmeadow Drive. Specifically, the application proposes a driveway setback of 9 metres from the intersection of Westmeadow Drive and Westforest Trail, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a setback of 12 metres. The proposed driveway leads to an attached garage which would accommodate one parking space, for the proposed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 213 DECEMBER 12, 1995 single-detached dwelling. The applicants have suggested that the variance is requested as the existing grade of the subject lands is such that it requires the driveway to be in the proposed location. In regard to the existing grade, the Ontario Land Surveyor who prepared the proposed building location plan, has confirmed that the lot is approximately 1.3 metres higher at the rear lot line (the lot line opposite 1. Submission No. A 121/95 - lan Cook Construction Limited - cont'd of Westmeadow Drive) than the elevation at the proposed driveway. In relation to the existing grade, coupled with the proposed raised bungalow housing design intended for the subject lands, the garage and driveway are located at the lower elevation end of the subject lands. The Department understands that the proposed house design is required to have the garage at the lower elevation level of the lot. However, if the design cannot be changed, then the location of the house on the lot should be designed to comply or come into closer conformity with the By-law. The Department cannot support the subject application as submitted, as it is our opinion that the proposed driveway location and dwelling is not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands, as Westforest Trail is designed as a four lane Collector Road. The purpose of the setback is to minimize conflicts between through traffic and traffic slowing for the driveway. The Department recommends that the applicants consider a housing location which would better comply with the regulation for setback from the intersection. The Department recommends that if the applicants revise their variance application to increase the proposed setback from the corner of Westmeadow Drive and Westforest Trail to 11 metres by moving the proposed building 2 metres south, the application would be more in conformity with the zoning by-law and create a more desirable setback from this intersection. This would also satisfy Traffic and continue to maintain the required rear yard. If this can be achieved, the Department would support the revised application as the variance would be minor and maintain the intent of the By-law. The Department of Planning and Development recommends refusal of variance application A 121/95 as submitted. However, the Department would be in favour of a revised application proposing a setback of 11 metres rather than the required 12 metres from the intersection of Westmeadow Drive and Westforest Trail. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that he has no concerns or comments with respect to this submission. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that a Westforest Trail has been designed and constructed as a four lane major collector road to carry significant traffic volumes in this community, it is imperative that driveways be located in such a manor as to minimize conflict with traffic flow, hence the requirement of a 12 m setback from intersection. As such, it is recommended that the house be situated on the lot such that the driveway meets the required setback. Mr. I Cook addressed the Committee advising that, as he is not a traffic expert, he cannot respond to the staff comments concerning traffic. He explained his position to the Committee from an aesthetic and grading point of view explaining the difference in grade on the lot and the intent to construct a raised bungalow with a basement garage. The location of the house on the lot has been chosen to construct the garage where it would be below grade and take advantage of the elevation. It also the intention not to have the setback of the house noticeably out of line with the other houses along these streets. Different options were then discussed including providing a greater setback for the driveway and having the driveway come in from Westmeadow Drive. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of lan Cook Construction Limited requesting permission to locate a driveway 9 m (29.53 ft.) from the intersection of Westmeadow Drive and Westforest Trail rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) on Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 1790, Being Part 20, Reference Plan 58R-9482 Westmeadow Drive and Westforest Trail, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 214 DECEMBER 12, 1995 1. Submission No. A 121/95 - lan Cook Construction Limited - cont'd 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 Mr. W. Dahms requested that Mr. Cook explain to the proposed purchaser the requirements of the fence by- law for corner lots and Mr. Cook responded that he would be installing the fence for the proposed purchaser and will comply with the requirements of the fence by-law. Submission No. A 122/95 - Kenmore Homes (1987) Inc., 79 Rankin Street Unit #2, Waterloo, Ontario Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 1805, Being Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-9536, Michelle Court, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. J. Kaufman c/o Kenmore Homes 2-79 Rankin Street Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: Mr. W. Kennedy 1 Michelle Court Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling with a northerly sideyard of 0.61 m (2.01 ft.) and a maintenance easement on the abutting property of 0.59 m (1.94 ft.). The current zoning by-law requires either a 1.2 m (4 ft.) sideyard or a sideyard of 0 m with a 1.52 m (5 ft.) wide maintenance easement on the abutting property. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. W. Kennedy and questioned the secretary as to whether there had been any problems with the circulation of Notice of Hearing for this application. The Secretary advised that phone calls had been received from two residents of Michelle Court stating that they had not received Notice. It appears as though the assessment roll does not reflect the most recent property ownership information. It was further noted that planning staff have been discussing this proposal with the applicant and the applicant wishes to amend the application for a 4 ft. maintenance easement and that he must submit an Application for Consent for the creation of the easement as well. The Committee agreed to defer consideration of this matter to the meeting of January 30, 1996. The applicant must submit revised drawings to show the new easement and an Application for Consent to create the easement and further, the new and revised applications are to be recirculated to the property owners and public agencies for comment. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 215 DECEMBER 12, 1995 CONSENT UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No. B 75/95 - J. Mark Hood, 1420 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part 6, Reference Plan 58R-9299, 1398 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario. - and - Submission No. B 76/95 - Samuel J. Hood, 162 Concession Street, Cambridge, Ontario Re: Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-9299, 1404 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario. The Committee was in receipt of a request from Mr. S. Hood to defer consideration of these applications to the meeting to be held on February 27, 1996 and the Committee agreed to this request. ADJOURNED On Motion, the meeting adjourned. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 12th, day of December 1995. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment