Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1996-10-01COA\1996-10-01 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 1, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. J. Gothard, S. Kay, D. McKnight, W. Dahms and A. Galloway. Mr. J. Willmer, Intermediate Planner and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary- Treasurer. Mr. J. Gothard, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of September 10, 1996, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried MINOR VARIANCE UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No. A 52/96 - Ed & Kim Entz, 181 Oxford Street, Kitchener Ontario Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Part Lot 95, Registered Plan 660, 181 Oxford Street, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. E. Entz 108 Oxford Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is proposing to construct a mudroom addition onto the southerly side of the existing home and are requesting permission for a sideyard on the addition of 0.98 m (3.21 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to build an addition in the southerly side yard with a setback of 0.98 m (3.21 ft.) rather than the required setback of 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The proposed addition is an entry way "mud room" on the side of the existing single dwelling. It is the applicants' belief that if they were to comply with the side yard bylaw requirement of 1.2 m (3.94 ft.), this would cause the addition to be too narrow to be functional. It should be noted that this will be the primary COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 197 OCTOBER 1, 1996 access into the dwelling. The metal shed as shown on the submitted survey has been demolished. The parking space required for the dwelling can be accommodated ahead of the proposed addition. This parking space would comply with the required 6.0 m (19.69 ft.) setback from the front property line and the parking space width also complies. 1. Submission No. A 52/96 - Ed & Kim Entz - cont'd The proposed entry way would not appear to disturb the abutting property owners enjoyment of their property and therefore meets the general intent of the bylaw. Additionally, the proposed 0.98 m (3.21 ft.) side yard would still allow for outside maintenance of the structure and can be considered minor in nature. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the application as submitted. 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 new addition. Further, a wall located less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) from the property line shall have a forty-five minute fire rating. The Committee noted the comments of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Ed and Kim Entz requesting permission to construct a mudroom addition onto the southerly side of the existing single family dwelling with a sideyard of 0.98 m (3.21 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Part Lot 95, Registered Plan 660, 181 Oxford Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to he following condition: 1. That the applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the addition. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 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 54/96 - Drewlo Holdinqs, R.R. #3, Komoka, Ontario Re: Lots 147, 148 & 159, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract & Part Lot 1 and Lots 2-5, Registered Plan 38, 22 Courtland Avenue West, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Mr. B. Clarkson MacNaughton, Hermsen, Britton, Clarkson Planning Limited 171 Victoria Street Kitchener, Ontario Mrs. E. Scholtz 31 Courtland Avenue West Kitchener, Ontario Mr. P. Blain 25 Courtland Avenue West Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 198 OCTOBER 1, 1996 Mr. M. Brenner 51-53 David Street Kitchener, Ontario Mr. T. Lynk 3-465 Phillip Street Waterloo, Ontario 2. Submission No. A 54/96 - Drewlo Holdinqs - cont'd WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Mr. B. Clarkson MacNaughton, Hermsen, Britton, Clarkson Planning Limited 171 Victoria Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: Mrs. E. Scholtz 31 Courtland Avenue West Kitchener, Ontario Ms. A. Chafe & Mr. P. Blain 25 Courtland Avenue West Kitchener, Ontario Ms. C. Blackstock 25 Courtland Avenue West Kitchener, Ontario Mr. L. Sauer 21 Courtland Avenue West Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 14 storey, 218 unit apartment building on this property with a floor space ratio of 4.45 rather than the permitted 4.0. This would mean that the floor area of the building would be 4.45 times the lot area. The Committee also noted that, at its meeting of September 10, 1996, it had agreed to consider an amendment to the application to allow for a building setback of 9.5 m from the Courtland Avenue streetline and an enclosed parking ramp to be setback 3.9 m from the Courtland Avenue streetline rather than the required 12 m setback. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the subject lands are located on the north west corner of Courtland Avenue West and Queen Street South and are presently vacant. The applicants propose to construct one new 14 storey, 218 unit apartment building with access to both Courtland Avenue and David Street and a service access to Queen Street. The subject lands were formerly designated High Density Commercial Residential in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan and zoned C3-DC7 and R2-DC7 according to Zoning By-law 4830. The former owners of the property have previously received both site plan and minor variance approvals to allow for a high density residential development for which construction has not yet occurred. The site plan previously approved by the City would permit the construction of two, 22 storey residential apartment buildings together with 20 townhouses fronting David Street and located 8.23 metres from the David Street streetline. The former proposed development contained 300 dwelling units and would have seen development occur very close to David Street and Victoria Park. Since the issuance of site plan approval for the former development proposal, the property has come under new ownership and both the Municipal plan and Zoning By-law designations for the subject lands have changed. The present Victoria Park Secondary Plan still designates the subject lands as High Density Commercial Residential but with a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 4.0 and the lands are now zoned according to Zoning By-law 85-1 as Commercial Residential Three (CR-3) Zone. The intent of the Secondary Plan designation is to permit high density mixed use development in excess of 200 units per COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 199 OCTOBER 1, 1996 hectare in the vicinity of the Queen Street/Courtland Avenue intersection while respecting neighbouring properties and nearby Victoria Park by the imposition of a 13.5 metre height restriction within 30 metres of the David Street streetline. Both the Secondary Plan and the Zoning By-law impose a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 4.0 for the subject lands, meaning the building floor area should not exceed more than four times the lot area. The intent of the FSR is 2. Submission No. A 54/96 - Drewlo Holdinqs - cont'd to control the physical bulk and massing of new development and has no relationship to the unit density permitted. The FSR of 4.0 was developed as being a reasonable figure for which most high density development in Kitchener would generally conform. The applicant has submitted a new proposal to the City of Kitchener to substantially reduce the size and scale of the proposed development on the subject lands. However, in order to construct the number and size of units deemed necessary to make the development viable, the applicant has requested two minor variances to the Zoning By-law. The first variance would permit the FSR of 4.0 to be exceeded to a maximum of 4.45. The second variance would reduce the required setback of 12.0 metres from an arterial road (Courtland Avenue) to 9.76 metres. The proposed variance to the maximum FSR has been requested in order to permit the applicant to construct the number of units needed to make the development viable without having to reduce the size of individual apartment units. An even greater number of units could be achieved within the required maximum FSR of 4.0 by creating smaller units geared primarily to single persons. However the applicant wishes to market a number of larger, two bedroom apartments within the 14 storey building without reducing the number of overall units proposed. The addition of a large number of family sized units thus creates the need to exceed the maximum floor space ratio. Therefore, the requested increase in FSR is not necessarily tied directly to the number of units able to be achieved on the site, but rather the size of the units to be constructed. Both of the proposed variances can be considered to be minor and in conformity with the general intent of both the Victoria Park Secondary Plan and the Zoning By-law. In addition, the proposed variances can be considered desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands for several reasons. Firstly, the City's Municipal Plan emphasizes increasing densities close to the Downtown and adjacent to transit routes. Secondly, the proposed building height at 14 storeys is well within what can be considered a reasonable height for a high density residential development. Thirdly, the bulk of the development would be concentrated towards Queen Street with approximately 34 metres immediately adjacent to David Street being landscaped instead of developed with residential buildings. Finally, the variances would allow for a development which is substantially smaller in terms of scale and number of units than the previously approved site plan. It should also be noted that the subject property is located physically within the boundaries of, but is specifically excluded from, the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan. While the development of the site is not subject to the requirements of the Heritage Conservation District Plan, its development should account for the setting of the area. Accordingly, the applicant has indicated a willingness to work with staff and the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee to achieve a design which is suitable for the characteristics of the area and sympathetic to identified heritage elements. In this regard, discussions have taken place between the applicant and heritage planning staff in respect to achieving a suitable design. Additionally, the proposed new development would be subject to site plan approval by the City. All site servicing elements and traffic issues such as congestion, road widenings, access points, landscaped areas, parking areas, etc., will be addressed through that process. Any required site improvements will be required prior to or as part of the issuance of a building permit. For all of the reasons outlined above, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 54/96. The Department of Planning and Development recommends that the Committee of Adjustment approve, without conditions, Minor Variance Application A 54/96, being a variance to permit a left side yard of 9.76 metres and a maximum floor space ratio of 4.45 relative to the development proposal generally proposed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 200 OCTOBER 1, 1996 within site plan application SP 961301CNL. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division, dated September 9, 1996, in which they advised that they were deferring comment on this application as review of the site plan application is outstanding. 2. Submission No. A 54/96 - Drewlo Holdinqs - cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that, at this location, Courtland Avenue has an existing road allowance width of 60 ft. and a designated road allowance width of 86 ft.; therefore, a 13 ft. road widening is required along the Courtland Avenue frontage. A twenty-five foot daylighting triangle is also required at the intersection of Courtland Avenue and Queen Street and another at Courtland Avenue and David Street. Although the site plan appears to correctly show the required road widening and daylighting triangles, it may not be appropriate to acquire them under this application. Prior to submission of a formal site plan application to the City of Kitchener, they requested that the applicant discuss the access configuration with both Regional and City staff. The applicant shall also be notified that they may be required to undertake a traffic analysis of Courtland Avenue in the area of David Street and Queen Street to assess the traffic operations at these intersections and also at the proposed accesses, as a result of this development. At the site plan approval stage a lot grading and storm water management report will also be required. The Chairman advised that he wished to have some preliminary information prior to hearing any representations for or against this application. He questioned the requested setback variance of 9.5 m from Courtland Avenue rather than the required 12 m and whether this setback is from the existing road allowance or the widened road. Mr. Clarkson advised that the setback is relative to the existing road allowance. The Chairman then commented that the setback would be even less once the road widening is taken. The Chairman questioned whether the site plan is the same as the one submitted with the application. He advised of his concern about approving the variances for developments which require site plan approval. He stated that he does not like to find that ultimately the variances change and perhaps other variances are required. Also, he advised that he was not comfortable dealing with variances in a general sense and leaving the specifics to staff to approve, as this denies the neighbours having input and the public hearing process. Mr. Clarkson advised that the City's Project Review Committee dealt with the site plan for this proposed development last week and what is on the site plan before the Committee today, is the final proposal. Mr. Clarkson then explained that this proposal is for a fourteen storey, 218 unit apartment building which will have a high number of two and three bedroom units. The purpose of this is to attract families to the downtown. These units will be very large, resulting in the need for the variance to the floor space ratio. The by-law, with respect to floor space ratio, could be complied with, if the units were to be smaller. Mr. Clarkson went on to explain that this proposal is unique as the property abutts a heritage conservation district and it includes a number of features which are compatible with the heritage conservation district. Mr. Clarkson explained these features and circulated an elevation drawing to the neighbours in attendance and to the Committee members. Mr. Clarkson then clarified that the variances being requested are an increase in the floor space ratio, a setback from Courtland Avenue for the building and a setback from Courtland Avenue for the enclosed ramp entrance. He advised that the property is designated High Density Residential in the Official Plan and in the zoning by-law. This is the type of development the City wants on this property. He then spoke of the previous development proposed for the property, which was approved by the City and the Committee of Adjustment, with the Committee's decision being upheld by the Ontario Municipal Board. He explained that the current proposal is less intensive than that previously approved. Further, the owner intends to move the building closer to Queen Street and they propose a heavy landscaped feature towards the David Street side of the site. Mr. Clarkson then addressed the concerns of the neighbours, as they have been presented in Mr. L. Sauers written submission and at a neighbourhood meeting, which had been held the previous week. With respect to the traffic concerns, the development purposes two entrances, one on Courtland Avenue and one on David Street. Further, the Region is requiring right turn taper lanes for right turns into the parking garage. Concerning the sunlight issues, the City wants this to be a high density residential use, so there will be some blockage of the sun no matter what it built on this property. The neighbours concerns about grading and drainage will be dealt with through the required grading 2. Submission No. A 54/96 - Drewlo Holdinqs - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 201 OCTOBER 1, 1996 control plan. Finally, with respect to construction vehicles, the owner is prepared to work the City and the Region to provide the least possible impact to the neighbours. Mr. Clarkson gave the opinion that this application does meet the four tests set out in the Planning Act. The current proposal is of a lesser impact to the neighbourhood than what was previously approved for the site. Further, Drewlo has agreed to work with L.A.C.A.C. to design a building which is compatible with the adjacent heritage conservation district. Mr. Lynk addressed the Committee advising that he is appearing on behalf of Mr. L. Sauer who has submitted his concerns in the form of a letter and the letter still stands. Mr. Lynk then referred to the third point in Mr. Sauer's letter. It was his opinion that the variance requested is a large variance and not a minor variance and therefore out of the jurisdiction of this Committee. Mr. Blain then addressed the Committee thanking the Committee for the opportunity to restate his concerns as noted in his letter. Mrs. Sholtz also advised that her letter, as submitted, still stands. Mr. Brenner advised that he owns the property at 51-53 David Street and what he is looking for is a noise and dust barrier to be erected between the two properties during construction. Mr. Clarkson then addressed some of the concerns outlined in Mr. Sauer's written submission, stating that the subject property is outside the heritage conservation district. Concerning the floor space ratio, Mr. Clarkson stated that the purpose of the variance is not to allow more density but to allow for larger units. Further, the variance for the setback is to provide a service lane at the back of the building so that service deliveries will not be made on Courtland Avenue side of the buiding. Concerning the setback variance for the ramp, Mr. Clarkson explained that the variance required is for the ramp enclosure and not the ramp itself. If this variance is not approved then the enclosure will not be built. Mr. S. Kay questioned the objectors as to whether their objections are as strong today, since hearing Mr. Clarkson's submissions, as they were intially. Mr. Lynk indicated that the whole thing needs to be looked at and although the proposal is better than the last one, there may be an even better proposal brought forward should this one not be approved. Mr. Clarkson again explained the floor space ratio and the mass of the building, noting that they could have the number of units proposed with smaller floor areas and comply with the by-law. A discussion then took place on unit sizes and the number of people who could live in the larger units. It was suggested by the Committee that, by increasing the floor space ratio, there could be more people living in each unit because the units are larger. Mr. D. McKnight advised that he still has some concerns with the application. He referred to the traffic concerns expressed by the objectors, noting traffic congestion on Courtland Avenue. He also referred to the Region's comments about a 13 foot road widening and that the ramp enclosure would have a 0 m setback from the widened street. He felt that the application was premature until the traffic studies have be done and dealt with. Mr. Clarkson responded that Regional staff have since determined that the traffic study is no longer required. The Region has no comments regarding traffic circulation on site. They will want a road widening for right-in lanes on the street, otherwise they will not be physically widening the road. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Willmer advised that a road widening of thirteen feet will eventually be required from both sides of Courtland Avenue. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he orginally had concerns with this application; however, during the discussions and through Mr. Clarkson's presentation, his concerns have been addressed. Mr. Galloway put forward a motion to approve the application to a certain height and size of building specific to the site plan before the Committee and to delete the word "generally" from the Planning Department's recommendation. 2. Submission No. A 54/96 - Drewlo Holdinqs - cont'd The Chairman stated that, with regard to Mr. Lynk's earlier suggestion that the variances may be beyond the Committees jurisdiction, consideration of "minor" is not just a numeric calculation but impact on the neighbourhood must also be included. The Chairman then reviewed the four tests set out in the Planning Act, which must be considered by the Committee and stated that all four tests must be met for an application COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 202 OCTOBER 1, 1996 to be approved. Mr. S. Kay then stated that, in his opinion, the four tests have been met. It was his opinion that the traffic problem which relates to the bottleneck at David and Courtland will be looked after by the two accesses, one on Courtland and one on David. A discussion then took place concerning the wording of a condition. It was generally agreed by the Committee that minor changes to the site plan would be allowed provided that the variances were not changed or increased. It was also agreed that the approval would be limited to a fourteen storey, 218 unit apartment building. Mr. Clarkson requested that the word maximum height of fourteen stories and maximum of 218 apartment units be used by the Committee in their decision. It was generally agreed by the Committee that this wording would be used. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Drewlo Holdings requesting permission to construct an apartment building with a maximum height of fourteen stories and a maximum of 218 apartment units, with a floor space ratio of 4.45 rather than the permitted 4.0; a building setback from Courtland Avenue of 9.5 m (31.17 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.) with a parking ramp enclosure being setback 3.9 m (12.8 ft.) from Courtland Avenue rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.) on Lots 147, 148, and 159, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract and Part Lot 1 and Lots 2 - 5, Registered Plan 38, 22 Courtland Avenue West, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the development as shown on the drawing prepared by R. Tome & Associate Inc., dated May 7-96 and revised August 6-96; with minor changes being permitted, provided that these changes do not increase or change the variances to the Zoning By-law. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is 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 The Chairman stated that he is opposed to this application because he is not satisfied that compliance with the by-law is impossible and he is not certain that the test with respect to "minor" has been explored. APPLICATIONS 1. Submission No. A 55/96 - Nicolino Perrella, 34 Ellen Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. Re: Part Lots 66 & 67, Registered Plan 376, 46 Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario. 1. Submission No. A 55/96 - Nicolino Perrella - cont'd APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. N. Perrella 34 Ellen Street East Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 203 OCTOBER 1, 1996 CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert this rooming house to a 4 unit apartment building and requires the following variances to the current zoning requirements: Permission for a lot width of 14.75 m (48.5 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.22 ft.) and a southerly sideyard of 2.4 m (8.14 ft.) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.) The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that application to the Committee of Adjustment has been made for Minor Variance to an existing dwelling, to be converted to a four unit dwelling located at 46 Waterloo Street. Specifically, the applicant has requested a lot width of 14.75 m (48.5 ft.) whereas the zoning by-law requires a minimum lot width of 15 m (50 ft.) for the multiple dwelling. In addition, the applicant has requested a minimum southerly side yard of 2.48 m (8.14 ft.) whereas the zoning by-law requires a minimum side yard of 2.5 m (8.2 ft.). In review of the application, the Department notes that the requested lot width variance is not necessary as Section 5.15 (e) (Vacuum Clause) applies, however the requested variance to the sideyard is required as a fourplex has a greater sideyard requirement than a lodging house. The application therefore should be revised to delete the requested lot width variance. The applicant has advised that the previous use of land was for a six room lodging house and the applicant now wishes to convert the existing dwelling to a four unit multiple dwelling. The applicant has also advised that the interior renovations to convert the dwelling from its previous lodging house to the four unit multiple dwelling have been completed. In addition, required parking areas have been developed to the rear of the existing dwelling, however, this parking area occurred several years ago and has been appropriately developed as confirmed by a recent site inspection. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan application file no. SP 96/27ANNL. The Site Plan application will ensure that appropriate parking areas, required fencing, lighting and landscaping has been completed for this proposed development. The Department of Planning and Development is of the opinion that the side yard variance is minor in nature and satisfies the four tests as set out in Section 45 of the Planning Act. Therefore, the Department of Planning and Development has no concerns with the approval of application A-55/96. That Committee of Adjustment application A-55/96 be approved as revised, conditional upon the following. That the applicant receive final approval of Site Plan Application SP 96/27ANNL from the Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment. That the applicant obtain a Fire Inspection from the City's Fire Department, and obtain any necessary Building Permit and complete any works to satisfy the Ontario Fire Code. 1. Submission No. A 55/96 - Nicolino Perrella - cont'd That the applicant shall satisfy conditions 1 and 2 herein by April 1, 1997. No extensions to this date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Manager of Community Planning and Development Review, prior to the completion date set out in this decision. The Committee noted the comments of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required for any construction intended to be carried out. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 204 OCTOBER 1, 1996 Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Nicolino Perrella requesting permission to convert a rooming house to a four unit apartment building with a southerly sideyard of 2.4 m (8.14 ft.) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.) on Part Lots 66 & 67, Registered Plan 376, 46 Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the applicant shall receive final approval of site plan application SP 96/27/WNL from the Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment. That the applicant shall obtain a fire inspection from the City's Fire Department and obtain any necessary building permit and complete any works to satisfy the Ontario Fire Code. That the above conditions shall be satisfied no later than April 1, 1997. No extension to this date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Manager of Community Planning & Development Review, prior to the completion date set out herein. It is the opinion of this Committee that: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 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 56/96 - Lidia DeSousa, 161 Driftwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Part Lot 32, Registered Plan 959, 245 Thaler Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario. CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Ms. M. DeSousa 161 Driftwood Drive Kitchener, Ontario NONE Neighbourhood Petition NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to make an addition to the existing carport. The resulting rearyard would be 3.66 m (12 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). The rearyard on this property is the yard opposite from Fairway Road. 2. Submission No. A 56/96 - Lidia DeSousa - cont'd The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the rear yard set back from 7.5 metres to 3.66 metres to widen the existing car port. The intent of the expansion of the carport is to allow two vehicles to park side by side. The subject land is located on the east corner of Thaler Avenue and Fairway Road and houses one dwelling which has two dwelling units. The adjacent dwelling to the southeast of the subject land has a considerably large side yard on both sides of its property. The amenity area for the adjacent property is located on the east side of the existing dwelling and therefore does not abut the subject lands. Additionally, the wall of the abutting dwelling which faces the carport does not have an access door. On COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 205 OCTOBER 1, 1996 this basis the impact of the addition on the adjacent property and the surrounding properties is seen to be minor. Also, the reduction in the side yard to 3.66 metres meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as the distance separation between the two abutting dwellings is adequate. Further, the subject lands has a well screened amenity area to the west and the east of the dwelling and the expansion of the proposed carport will not impact on these lands. In view of this, the variance requested is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of variance application A 56/96 without conditions. 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 new carport. The Committee noted the comments of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that, at this location, Fairway Road has an existing road allowance width of 66 ft. and a designated road allowance width of 100 ft.; therefore, a 17 ft. road widening and 25 ft. daylighting triangle are required. However, it may not be appropriate to request the road widening and daylighting triangle under this application. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Lidia DeSousa requesting permission to construct a carport addition with a rearyard of 3.66 m (12 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Part Lot 32, Registered Plan 959, 245 Thaler Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the carport addition. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is 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 3. Submission No. A 57/96 - Shell Canada Limited, 45 Vogell Road Suite 700, Richmond Hill, Ontario. Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Part Lots 23 & 24, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 4574 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Mr. G. Dell 223-1140 Burnamthorpe Road West Mississauga, Ontario CONTRA: NONE Submission No. A 57/96 - Shell Canada Limited - cont'd NONE NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is proposing to develop this site with a gas bar, car wash and a retail building having a gross floor area of 148.9 m2 (1,602.8 sq. ft.) and is requesting the following variances: Permission for a rearyard of 3 m (9.85 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.)(The rearyard on this property is the yard opposite from Gateway Park Drive.) Also, the applicant is requesting permission to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 206 OCTOBER 1, 1996 provide 10 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 18 off-street parking spaces and permission not to provide the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) daylighting triangle at the corner of King Street and Gateway Park Drive. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant has requested permission to reduce the rear yard set back from 7.5 metres to 3.0 metres and to reduce the parking requirement from 18 to 10 and permission to allow an access within the 7.5 metre daylight triangle. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan Application which is being processed concurrently for approval to develop a drive-thru car wash and a gas bar with a convenience retail establishment that has a drive thru pick-up window for a coffee shop. The subject lands are located in a Highway Commercial designation and zone which areas are more frequented by clientele using automobiles. As a result of a review of the site plan staff recommended a number of changes to the original plan submitted. One which realigns the access driveway so that it no longer encroaches into the 7.5 metre daylight triangle and another that changes the location of the driveway leading to the order board and drive thru window, which results in a greater number of waiting spaces being provided on site. The proposed site design accommodates nine vehicles in sequence from the order board for the drive-thru window. The current standard is seven in sequence from the order board. The applicant is aware of the recommended changes and has submitted a revised site plan which reflects the above changes. Staff are also recommending some further changes which will increase the on-site parking arrangement from 10 spaces to 14 spaces, as illustrated on the red lined plan dated September 25, 1996. The actual number of off-street parking spaces required, including the additional vehicle waiting spaces for the automatic car wash is 19. Staff are also recommending an amendment to the application as it relates to the requested reduced parking requirements. The amendment and the basis for the amendment is outlined below. Convenience retail is typically permitted in service station zones as an accessory use without a parking requirement. In this case the convenience retail use is not considered an accessory use due to its size; however it is not the dominant use of the site. In this regard, due to the multiple uses on the property and the shared facilities a reduction in the parking requirement is supportable. On this basis, a reduction in the parking requirement for the convenience retail use from 8 to 5 meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and is considered minor in nature. For the car wash, the by-law requires 10 vehicle waiting spaces in sequence, plus an additional 10 vehicles waiting spaces on site for employee vehicle storage and customer cleaning and vacuuming. The automatic car wash proposed is fully automated and does not require employees to run it. In addition, the applicant has advised that cars are air dried. As a result, a reduction in the number of waiting spaces required for employee parking and cleaning is supportable. On this basis a reduction in the number of additional waiting spaces from 10 to 8 meets the general intent and purpose of the zoning By-law and further the reduction is considered minor. 3. Submission No. A 57/96 - Shell Canada Limited - cont'd In view of the foregoing, Application A 57/96 should be amended to reflect the above noted changes. For the committee's convenience the variances required are all noted below: 1. A reduction in the rear yard set back from 7.5 metres to 3.0 metres; 2. A reduction in the parking requirement for convenience retail from 8 to 5 and; 3. A reduction in the number of additional vehicle waiting spaces for the automatic carwash, which spaces are used for employee vehicle storage, customer cleaning and vacuuming, from 10 to 8. The proposed development is oriented toward King Street rather than Gateway Park Drive as there is a larger lot frontage along King Street and as a result the rear yard functions as a side yard and the side yard functions as a rear yard. In this regard, the variance to reduce the rear yard is technical and the general intent and purpose of separation of buildings between properties is being maintained. Additionally, the property abutting the subject land to the east fronts King Street. Therefore, both properties will be oriented to King Street and the minimum distance separation between the two properties is 6.0 metres. Based on the above the impact of the reduced rear yard on the abutting property will be minimal. Staff has spent considerable time reviewing the site design and are satisfied that the rear yard and parking variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands based generally on the attached site design; however staff would still prefer that a condition be imposed which allows some flexibility in the design of the site rather than approving it strictly in accordance with the attached plan. The COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 207 OCTOBER 1, 1996 recommendation section reflects this and will allow minor changes to the design of the site at a future date if it is required. The Department of Planning & Development recommends approval of Application A 57/96 as amended, generally in accordance with the site plan to be finally approved under application SPR76/44/01. The Committee noted the comments of the Ministry of Transportation in which they advised that the application has been considered and reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Provincial Highway Access Control Policy. The application does not affect the highway system and Ministry permits will be available. The Ministry has no objection to relief requested. The Committee noted the comments of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that, at the present time, this road falls under the jurisdiction of the M.T.O.; however, it is anticipated to be reverted to the Region of Waterloo in the near future. As a result, this application should be circulated to the M.T.O. for their comments. Although the applicant appears to be requesting relief from the requirement for a 7.5 m daylighting triangle, if Highway 8 were a Regional Road we would prefer to consider a reduction in the size of the daylighting triangle to accommodate the development rather than eliminating it altogether. We would also suggest that both accesses operate as two-way access rather than one direction, as motorists do not obey single movement driveways. The applicant should also be notified that at such time as King Street falls under Region of Waterloo jurisdiction and signals become warranted at the intersection of King Street and Gateway Park Drive/Limerick Drive, the northerly access to the service station may be required to operate as right-in, right-out only due to a raised median on King Street. We understand that it may not be appropriate to impose these conditions under this application. Mr. Willmer provided the Committee with a copy of the site plan referred to in the Department of Planning & Development comments. Mr. Willmer advised that the site plan is now at the stage where it is ready for approval and any changes will be extremely minor. Mr. Dell addressed the Committee requesting permission to amend the application to include only the following variances: a rearyard setback for the carwash of 3 m rather than the required 7.5 m, 5 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 8 off-street parking spaces for the convenience retail and 8 car drying spaces rather than the required 10 for the carwash. 3. Submission No. A 57/96 - Shell Canada Limited - cont'd Mr. Dahms questioned what is on the properties at the rear of the subject property. Mr. Willmer advised that the properties fronting Gateway Park Drive are currently vacant and are proposed for big box retail. Mr. A. Galloway questioned the drive-thru for the convenience retail and was advised that the drive-thru would be a coffee shop. Mr. Galloway then put forward a motion to approve the application subject to final approval of the site plan application. 3. Submission No. A 57/96 - Shell Canada Limited - cont'd Mr. S. Kay disagreed with the recommendation of the Department of Planning & Development, specifically the words "generally in accordance with the site plan". He felt that the Committees decision should be based on the information presented. Mr. A Galloway accepted this amendment to the decision. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Shell Canada Limited requesting permission to develop a gas bar, carwash and convenience retail building with a rearyard setback of 3 m (9.85 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.); to provide 5 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 8 off-street parking spaces for the convenience retail and 8 vehicle waiting spaces for the carwash rather than the required 10 on Part Lot 23 & 24, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, 4574 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the development as shown on the site plan provided by the Department of Planning & Development to the Committee of Adjustment on October 1, 1996. 2. That the applicant shall receive final approval of site plan application SPR76/44/01. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 208 OCTOBER 1, 1996 The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 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 1. Submission No. B 57/96 - Kenmore Homes (1987) Inc., 2-79 Rankin Street, Waterloo, Ontario. Re: Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 1790, Being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-9455, 4 Westmeadow Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. S. McKechnie 124 King Street North Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide Lot 1, Registered 1790 into two lots for single detached dwellings. The land to be severed contains a single family dwelling. The proposed severed lot would have a width, along Westmeadow Drive, of 9.41 m (30.88 ft.) by a depth of 36.469 m (119.65 ft.) and having an area of 332 m2 (3,573.74 sq. ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land from a lot located on the corner of Westforest Trail and Westmeadow Drive which houses an existing single detached dwelling. The existing dwelling has been constructed on the lands to be severed. The retained lands are vacant. The existing lot was originally intended to house one semi- detached dwelling. The proposal to sever the lot will allow two single detached dwellings instead of one semi-detached dwelling. The proposed lot width of the land to be severed is 9.41 metres and the lot area proposed is 332 square metres; the proposed lot width of the land to be retained is 18.162 metres with a proposed lot area of 496 square metres. Corner lots are required to be larger as a result of the increased land area required to accommodate the side yard set back requirement for yards adjacent to a street and to allow for an adequate set back for an access driveway. Both the land to be severed and the land to be retained comply to the minimum Zoning By-law requirements. In addition, the applicant has faxed a drawing which illustrates the proposed building location for a single detached dwelling which is proposed for the lands to be retained. The proposed building layout meets all the minimum Zoning By-law requirements. The Department of Planning and Development has no objections to the request to sever the land for the purposes of constructing two single detached dwellings rather than one semi-detached dwelling as the proposed development will comply to both the City's Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. In view of the foregoing, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of severance COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 209 OCTOBER 1, 1996 application B 57~96 subject to the following conditions: That satisfactory 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 Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that small portions of both the proposed severed and the retained parcels fall below the regulatory floodline of Detweiller Creek. Any construction or other alteration in the area below the Regulatory Floodline will require the prior issuance of a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority. This area is considered a one zone policy area for floodplain planning which does not support new development within the floodplains; however, there appears to be sufficient area outside the floodplain for the construction of a dwelling. Mr. Dahms noted that one of these parcels is a corner lot and brought to Mr. McKechnie's attention the problems with fences on corner lots. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of Kenmore Homes (1987) Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width along Westmeadow Drive of 9.41 m (30.88 ft.) by a depth of 36.469 m (119.65 ft.) and having an area of 332 m2 (3,573.74 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 1790, Being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R- 9455, 4 Westmeadow Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following condition: That the applicant shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. Pursuant to Subsection 20 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. 1. Submission No. B 57/96 - Kenmore Homes (1987) Inc. - cont'd 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 1, 1998. 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. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried 2. Submission No. B 58/96, B 59/96 & B 60/96 - Carol Bretz, 23338 Ironwood Drive, Elkart, Indianna Re: Part Lots 43 & 44, Small Lots North of Peter Horning's Tract, 168 Bloomingdale Road, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE NONE Mr. & Mrs. W. McCutcheon 145 Bloomingdale Road Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 210 OCTOBER 1, 1996 CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever three new residential lots from this property. Each of the lots will have frontage on Bloomingdale Road. The proposed use for these properties is residential. The lots will have the following dimensions: Submission No. B 58/96 Lot width - 19.812 m (65 ft.) Lot depth - 33.84 m (111.03 ft.) Lot area - 670.4 m2 (7,216.37 sq. ft.) Submission No. B 59/96 Lot width - 13.716 m (45 ft.) Lot depth - 33.84 m (111.03 ft.) Lot area - 464.2 m2 (4,996.77 sq. ft.) Submission No. B 60~96 Lot width - 17.31 m (56.8 ft.) Lot depth - 33.84 m (111.03 ft.) Lot area - 582.6 m~ (6,271.26 sq. ft.) The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they recommended that these applications be deferred to the meeting of December 10, 1996 in order to determine if the preparation of a block plan is necessary or if other alternatives may be available for the comprehensive development of the subject lands and adjoining lands. 2. Submission No. B 58/96, B 59/96 & B 60/96 - Carol Bretz, 23338 Ironwood Drive, Elkart, Indianna The Committee questioned staff as to whether they knew why no one had appeared in support of these applications. Mr. Willmer stated that staff had spoken with the applicant's agent advising of the recommended deferral; however no mention was made of attendance at this meeting. The Committee agreed to defer consideration of these applications to the meeting scheduled for December 10, 1996. 3. Submission No. B 61/96 - Kevin Renouf/Nicole Pinhorn, 442 Prospect Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario. Re: Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 267, 442 Prospect Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. G. Brooks 10 Broadview Court Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Ms. N. Pinhorn 442 Prospect Avenue Kitchener, Ontario NONE NONE NONE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 211 OCTOBER 1, 1996 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever off a portion of their backyard, having a width of 12.19 m (40 ft.) by a depth of 6 m (20 ft.), to convey to the owners of 10 Broadview Court, as a lot addition. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicants are requesting consent to sever a small portion of their rear yard to convey as a lot addition to an abutting property owner. The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential within the Municipal Plan and are zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is presently developed with a single detached dwelling and detached garage. The lands to be retained would continue to conform to all applicable regulations of the R-3 Zone based on the vacuum clause contained within the Zoning By-law. The abutting property for which the severed lands would be added are located on Broadview Court and are also Zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The proposed lot configuration is not ideal due to the severed lands being offset approximately 6.1 metres from the lands it will be added to. However, it is recognized that the lots on Broadview Court have limited depth and the lots on Prospect Avenue are more than twice as deep. It is also recognized that the proposed lot addition is to be used solely for rear yard purposes and not intended to increase the development potential of the recipient lands. Accordingly, the Planning and Development Department recommends approval of the consent application. The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Consent Application B 61/96 be approved, subject to the following conditions. That any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvements be paid to the City of Kitchener. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Land Use Planning and Protection Act. 3. Submission No. B 61/96 - Kevin Renouf/Nicole Pinhorn - cont'd Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Kevin Renouf & Nicole Pinhorn requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width of 12.19 m (40 ft. ) by a depth of 6 m (20 ft.) as a lot addition on Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 267, 442 Prospect Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvements charges. That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands; with any subsequent conveyance of the lands to be severed complying with subsections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act. Pursuant to Subsection 20 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted 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 1, 1998. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 212 OCTOBER 1, 1996 Carried Submission No. B 62~96 - Cameo Building Corporation, 26 Pentland Crescent, Kanata, Ontario Re: Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Part Lot 391, Registered Plan 1426, Being Part 4, Reference Plan 58R-3153, 31 Meadow Woods Ms. R. Little c/o Madorin, Snyder 235 King Street East Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever two semi-detached dwelling units so that each half may be sold separately. The severed unit, 31 Meadow Woods Crescent, will have a lot width of 9.19 m (30.15 ft.) by a depth of 32 m (105 ft.) and will have an area of 294.4 m2 (3,165.75 sq. ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that application has been made to the Committee of Adjustment which proposes the severance of a parcel of land which is currently developed with one semi-detached dwelling. At the present time 4. Submission No. B 62~96 - Cameo Buildin,q Corporation - cont'd both dwelling units are owned under the same ownership and the owner wishes to sever the dwellings in order to facilitate transfer of title of one or both of the units in the future. The applicants had previously applied for consent application B-13/92 for essentially the same request, however, did not act upon its approval within the two year time period. The dwelling was developed on the subject lands in September of 1978. Both units comply with the zoning by-law regulations in every respect and staff have no concern with the request for the proposed severance. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Consent Application B-62/96, as submitted, conditional upon the following. 1. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Cameo Building Corporation requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Meadow Woods Crescent of 9.19 m (30.15 ft.) by a depth of 32 m (105 ft.) and having an area of 294.4 m2 (3,165.75 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 391, Registered Plan 1426 being Part 4, Reference Plan 58R-3153, 31 Meadow Woods Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following condition: That the applicant shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvements charges. Pursuant to Subsection 20 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 213 OCTOBER 1, 1996 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 1, 1998. 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 63~96 - Canadian National Railway Company, 277 Front Street West Suite 930, Toronto, Ontario Re: Part Lot 33, Municipal Compiled Plan 763, Wellington Street North, Victoria Street North, Conestoga Parkway and Johnston Street, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. W. Dahms declared a conflict of interest with this application as his law firm acts for the proposed purchasers of the severed property and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. S. Rocco cio Frazer & Beatty First Canadian Place Toronto, Ontario 5. Submission No. B 63~96 - Canadian National Railway Company - cont'd CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Ms. K. Frazer C.N. Rail 277 Front Street West Toronto, Ontario CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for the land to be severed as a width of 407.231 m (1,336.06 ft.) by a depth of 57.872 m (189.87 ft.) and an area of 19,590 m2 (210,871.91 sq. ft.). It is to be conveyed to Electrohome as a lot addition. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicants are requesting consent to sever a 1.96 hectare parcel from the existing railway right-of-way to convey as a lot addition to the abutting property owner. The subject lands are designated General Industrial within the North Ward Secondary Plan and are zoned General Industrial Zone (M-2) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The subject lands are presently part of the rail corridor and are undeveloped The abutting property to which the severed lands would be added is owned by Electrohome Limited and are municipally addressed 809 Wellington Street North. The present property owned by Electrohome has a severe parking deficiency in relation to the size of building and existing uses. The lands to be severed would be added to the existing Electrohome property to provide additional off-street parking as required by the Zoning By-law. The Planning and Development Department has been working with Electrohome for several years to find a solution to the present parking deficiency and recommends approval of the consent application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 214 OCTOBER 1, 1996 The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Consent Application B 61/96 be approved, subject to the following conditions. That any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvements be paid to the City of Kitchener. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Land Use Planning and Protection Act. That a revised site plan be prepared for the Electrohome property at 809 Wellington Street North, showing the addition of the lands to be severed and the configuration of parking spaces, general grading and storm water drainage on the lot addition, and be submitted for the approval of the Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. R. Ward, Corridor Control Technician, Ministry of Transportation in which he advised that this application has been considered and reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the Provincial Highway Access Control Policy. The application has some affect on the highway system and Ministry permits will only be available subject to certain conditions. The Committee noted the written submission of Ms. K. Frazer, C.N. Rail in support of the application. Upon questioning by the Committee, Mr. Willmer explained the need for the site plan on the Electrohome property. Mr. Rocco advised that the condition is acceptable. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay 5. Submission No. B 63~96 - Canadian National Railway Company - cont'd That the application of the Canadian Nation Railway Company requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width of 407.231 m (1,336.06 ft.) by a depth of 57.872 m (189.87 ft.) and having an area of 19,590 m2 (210,871.91 sq. ft.) as a lot addition on Part Lot 33, Municipal Compiled Plan 763, Wellington Street North, Victoria Street North, Conestoga Parkway and Johnston Street, Kitchener Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the applicant shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvements charges. That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands; with any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed complying with subsections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act. That a revised site plan shall be prepared for the Electrohome property at 809 Wellington Street North showing the addition of the lands to be severed and the configuration of parking spaces, general grading and storm water drainage on the lot addition, to be submitted for the approval of the Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment. Pursuant to Subsection 20 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted 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 1, 1998. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 215 OCTOBER 1, 1996 The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. ADJOURNED On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. Carried Dated at the City of Kitchener this 1st, day of October 1996. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment