Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1996-07-09COA\1996-07-09 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: REGRETS: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, D. McKnight, W. Dahms and A. Galloway. Mr. J. Gothard Mr. R. Morgan, Zoning Administration Co-ordinator, Ms. Planner, and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Vice-Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.. J. Given, 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 June 18, 1996, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS 1. Submission No. A 38/96 - Rita Johnston, 19 Belton Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Lot 13, Registered Plan 1110, 19 Belton Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. N. O'Rourke 19 Belton Drive Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached carport on the easterly side of the existing house to have a sideyard of 0.78 m (2.5 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 the applicant is requesting permission to construct a carport on the easterly side of the existing house having a side yard of .78 meters (2.56 feet) instead of the required 1.2 meters (4 feet). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 138 JULY 9, 1996 No building drawings were submitted as part of the application for the carport. A site visit was conducted and a meeting was held with the applicant's agent on site. He advised that the carport will extend from the front of the building to the rear of the building, a distance of approximately 12 meters (40 feet) and the posts supporting the carport will be located approximately 0.1 meters (4 inches) within the existing asphalt driveway at 2.4 meters (8 foot) intervals. The edge of the roof of the carport will be .78 meters (2.56 feet) from the property line, as noted in the application, in line with the driveway 1. Submission No. A 38/96 - Rita Johnston - cont'd edge. The carport will be open at both ends and partially enclosed with a 0.9 - 1.2 meter (3 - 4 foot) high wall along it's entire length with the upper portion being open. The applicant indicated that he wishes to build a carport in a very similar design as that of his next door neighbour. Further, he indicated that the runoff from rain will be collected in the eaves and directed onto his property at the front and rear downspouts. The proposed carport will tie in with the existing pitch of the roof and slope towards the side lot line, similar to his neighbour's carport. Maintenance of the carport can be achieved from all sides. The proposed carport would not appear to adversely affect the enjoyment of the adjoining property as the carport, which is the main portion of the proposed structure, will not to be fully enclosed and it would not appear to have any negative visual impact. Based on the information above, it is the opinion of staff that the variance is minor in nature and the general intent of the By-law is being met. The Department recommends approval of the variance application as shown on the attached survey submitted by the applicant. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the proposed carport. Further, the supports for the carport and the gable ends must be clad with non-combustible cladding and the applicant must ensure that drainage of roof water is not directed onto adjacent property. The Committee considered the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that they have no objection to the proposed carport provided that the carport is behind the present location of their meter equipment. The Committee drew to the attention of Mr. O'Rourke the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Rita Johnston requesting permission to construct an attached carport to have an easterly sideyard of 0.78 m (2.5 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Lot 13, Registered Plan 1110, 19 Belton Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the carport only to the extent as shown on the plan submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested 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 2. Submission No. A 39/96 - Max Choppick, 110 Highland Crescent, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 139 JULY 9, 1996 Re: Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 1308, Designated at Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-5091, 110 Highland Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. B. Young 110 Highland Crescent Kitchener, Ontario 2. Submission No. A 39/96 - Max Choppick - cont'd CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is proposing to have a home business as a Registered Massage Therapist in his home and is requesting permission for a variance to the parking requirement. The applicant is requesting permission to provide one parking space in the garage with the second parking space in the driveway. The parking space in the driveway would be 2.21 m (7.25 ft.) from the Iotline along Highland Crescent rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to legalize an existing massage therapy home business which requires variance approval to legalize parking deficiencies. The applicant providing the massage therapy service is a registered health professional. The applicants are requesting permission to provide two off- street parking spaces in tandem. One of the parking spaces would be provided in an attached garage whereas the other parking space would be located in the driveway setback 2.21 m (7.21 ft.) from the front lot line abutting Highland Crescent rather than the required 6.0 m (19.68 ft.) setback. The parking deficiencies requiring variance approval were identified by staff when processing an occupancy permit for the existing massage therapy home business. The By-law requires two legal off-street parking spaces, one space for the dwelling and one space for the home business. According to the applicants there will be no non-resident employees. There is a single garage attached to the dwelling which would accommodate one legal off-street parking space. The By-law prohibits parking spaces to be arranged in tandem for a home business. Additionally, the By-law requires parking spaces for home businesses to be setback a minimum of 6.0 m (19.68 ft.) from the front property line. The applicants confirmed that only one vehicle belonging to the applicant is parked at this property daily. The vehicle is parked in the garage at all times. The applicant also indicated that because she only has one client at the premises at any one time, there is only one customer parking at the property at a time, as the format for her daily appointments does not cause there to be two clients at the property at once. This procedure eliminates the possibility of one client waiting to enter the property while the other client is still parked in the driveway. The tandem parking arrangement as requested with this application can be considered minor in nature and the general intent of the bylaw and Municipal Plan are being met as this small, one person operation would appear to function suitably with a two car tandem parking arrangement. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the application and plan as submitted in the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Technician, Traffic & Parking Division in which he advised that the Division has no concerns regarding the proposed parking arrangement. Ms. Young, responding to a question from the Committee, advised that her home business was started in 1985 and she was not aware that she needed this variance. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 140 JULY 9, 1996 2. Submission No. A 39/96 - Max Choppick - cont'd Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of Max Choppick requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in tandem, for the residence and home business, rather than two parking spaces side by side and permission for one of the parking spaces to be located 2.21 m (7.25 ft.) from the Iotline abutting Highland Crescent rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) on Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 1308, Designated as Part 2, Reference Plan 58R- 5091, 110 Highland Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the parking arrangement only as shown on the plan submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested 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 40/96 - Robert & Charlene Shaw, 1774 Old Mill Road, Kitchener, Ontario Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, Designated as Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-3555, 1774 Old Mill Road, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. M. Coilings 16 McBride Court Brantwood, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a garden shed, inside the fence, to be located 0.72 m (2.35 ft.) from the Iotline along Roos Street rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to reduce the westerly side yard from 1.2 metres to 0.71 metres to allow the construction of a shed. The proposed shed is to be located adjacent to the existing single detached dwelling adjacent to Roos Street and within a fenced yard. The side yard required adjacent to Roos Street is 4.5 metres since it is a side yard adjacent to the street. In this regard, the variance required is a reduction in the side yard from 4.5 metres to 0.71 metres and the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 141 JULY 9, 1996 application should be amended to reflect this. The impact on the streetscape is a major consideration for any reduction to the minimum sideyard abutting a street and in this particular instance, Roos Street is a short street which has one single detached dwelling which fronts it as well as providing access to a church at the end. Because of the nature of this street, the impact on the streetscape is minor. The intent of the By-law and Municipal Plan are met, since a side yard is proposed which is acceptable to accommodate the provision of maintenance and will not have and adverse impact on the look of the street. The variance requested is also considered 3. Submission No. A 40/96 - Robert & Charlene Shaw appropriate for the development of the subject lands since the shed cannot be constructed in compliance with the by-law due to severe grading at the rear of the site and the proposed shed is set back 19.0 metres from the intersection of Old Mill Road and Roos Street and will not interfere with traffic visibility at this corner. The owner should be advised that the survey submitted indicates that the 1.82 metre wood fence adjacent to Roos Street is encroaching onto City property. In addition, the maximum height of a fence adjacent to a street is 0.91 metres unless it is set back 4.57 metres from the property line, which in this case it is not. A separate variance would be required to legalize the location of the fence. The Department of Planning & Development recommends approval of Application A 40/96 for the reduction in the westerly sideyard from 4.5 metres to 0.7 metres to allow the construction of a shed as generally shown on the survey plan submitted with the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the proposed shed. The Committee questioned Mr. Coilings with respect to the fence and he advised that he will make the owners aware of the need for a fence variance. The Committee questioned the height of the shed and Mr. Coilings advised that it would be 10 ft. to the roof peak. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Robert & Charlene Shaw requesting permission to erect a garden shed to be located 0.72 m (2.35 ft.) from the Iotline along Roos Street rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.) on Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, Designated as Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-3555, 1774 Old Mill Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed shed generally as shown on the plan submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested 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 4. Submission No. A 41/96 -Trukat Ltd., 122 Edgehill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lots 7 & 8, Registered Plan 332, 155 Frederick Street & 10 Irvin Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. B. Shantz COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 142 JULY 9, 1996 CONTRA: 490 Dutton Drive Waterloo, Ontario NONE 4. Submission No. A 41/96 - Trukat Ltd. - cont'd WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: NONE NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to reconstruct the porches on these two buildings and needs the following variances: For 155 Frederick Street the porch will be set back 1.524 m (5 ft.) from the Iotline at the corner of Frederick Street and Irvin Street rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.); For 10 Irvin Street the porch will be set back 2.32 m (7.6 ft.) from Irvin Street rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the subject property is at the southeast corner of Frederick Street and Irvin Street. The lot contains three buildings built as single detached dwellings and converted to office and residential use. All three buildings are included on the Inventory of Heritage Buildings and are within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood, which is included in the Heritage Conservation District Programme as a potential Conservation District. City records indicate that there are a total of 9 residential units and approximately 229 square metres (2,468 square feet) of commercial space some of which is vacant. The applicant intends to reconstruct the front porches of the buildings addressed as 155 Frederick Street and 10 Irvin Street and requests variances to reduce the side yard abutting a street (Irvin Street) from 3.0 metres to 1.52 metres and 2.32 metres respectively. An additional variance is required to reduce the minimum setback from an arterial road (Frederick Street) from 12.0 metres to 4.8 metres. The existence of two parking spaces between the buildings and Irvin Street detracts from the heritage streetscape and is contrary to the regulations of the current zoning by-law. Provided these two spaces are removed and the areas are landscaped, the variances are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land as the proposed porches should improve the architectural authenticity of the building facades. With the reinstatement of the landscaping in front of the buildings, the proposal would maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and official plan as there will be an adequate setback of buildings from both streets and an appropriately landscaped streetscape within the reduced setback. The impact of both proposed porches is considered to be minor as they are very similar to the setback of the existing porches. In the opinion of staff, the proposal would meet the four tests set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act, provided the two parking spaces located between the buildings and Irvin Street are removed and landscaped. There has been an ongoing problem with the shortage of parking spaces on site and previous parking variance applications have been refused. Depending on the uses proposed, full occupancy of the built space would require approximately 15 to 18 spaces, whereas there are only 9 useable spaces on site located in compliance with the by-law. Submission A 41/96 does not request variances in this regard. Staff do not find that the setback variances are related to the site's parking problems and therefore COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 143 JULY 9, 1996 recommend approval of the application. The proposed porches do not increase the amount of useable floor area requiring parking, nor do they make a substantial difference to the likelihood of redevelopment. Given the heritage interest in the buildings, parking solutions other than partial demolition should be considered. For example, the by-law allows for an agreement to ensure the provision of off-site parking within 300 m of the site. 4. Submission No. A 41/96 - Trukat Ltd. - cont'd The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 41/96, as revised to include an additional variance reducing the minimum setback from an arterial road (Frederick Street) from 12.0 metres to 4.8 metres, subject to the following conditions: That the two parking spaces located between the buildings and Irvin Street be removed and landscaped, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the porches. Mr. Shantz addressed the Committee advising that the current owners purchased this property in January 1996 and the property is located across from the Regional headquarters. The owners are attempting to improve the appearance of the buildings, both internally and externally and the renovations are being done in keeping with the historic character of the buildings. The current variances are a result of the road widening and daylighting triangle taken by the Region. Mr. Shantz requested an amendment to the application as noted in the comments of the Department of Planning & Development and the Committee agreed to consider this request. The Committee pointed out the parking issue presented in the Planning Department comments. Mr. Shantz pointed out that the owners have voluntarily brought this application to the Committee and are voluntarily complying with the heritage requests. He advised that he is opposed to staff's requests for landscaping design approvals, as this is not a redevelopment. Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, advised that staff thought long and hard about their comments in considering if this variance was appropriate. The setback area was never intended for parking. Staff would not be in support of this application if there is no way to assure that the parking spaces at the front are removed. These are not legal parking spaces and never have been. The Vice-Chairman questioned why the parking deficiency was not being dealt with at this time. Mr. Shantz responded that the owners don't know what they are going to do in the future, so they don't know what will be required. At present, the existing uses will continue. The Vice-Chairman stated that staff's recommended condition is placing the Committee in the position of policing illegal parking. Ms. J. Given responded that staff are of the opinion that the parking is related to the requested variance and that staff will be able to enforce the parking. The Committee stated that they did not see the relationship between the parking and the porches. Ms. J. Given stated that the purpose of the setback is for landscaping to provide a pleasant streetscape. Mr. Dahms questioned whether the asphalt at the front of the buildings is illegal and Ms. J. Given responded that it is not, provided that it is not used for parking. Mr. D. McKnight stated that these are heritage properties which were in existence long before the Region and Regional roads and he did not think that he should be penalized because of a Regional road widening. Ms. J. Given advised that staff are not concerned about the setback from Frederick Street, as it is only for the porch. Mr. Dahms stated that, in view of the owners overall plans for the property and the improvement it will make to the downtown area, he was prepared to put forward a motion to approve the amended application without conditions. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of Trukat Ltd. requesting permission to reconstruct the porch, at the property at 155 Frederick Street with a setback from the corner of the lot at Frederick Street and Irvin Street of 1.524 m (5 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and a setback from Frederick Street of 4.8 m (15.75 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.) and permission to reconstruct the porch at 10 Irvin Street with a setback from Irvin Street of 2.32 m (7.6 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) on Part Lots 7 & 8, Registered Plan 332, 155 Frederick Street & 10 Irvin Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 144 JULY 9, 1996 4. Submission No. A 41/96 - Trukat Ltd. - cont'd It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. 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 42/96 - McDonald's Restaurant of Canada Limited, 1 McDonald's Place, Toronto, Ontario Part Lot 38, Municipal Compiled Plan 786, 431 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario. The Committee was in receipt of a request from the applicant to defer consideration of this application to the meeting to be held on July 30, 1996 and the Committee agreed to this request. ADJOURNED On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 9th, day of July 1996. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment