Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1996-07-30COA\1996-07-30 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 30, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. J. Gothard, D. McKnight, S. Kay, W. Dahms and A. Galloway. Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. J. Gothard, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:30 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 July 9, 1996, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried MINOR VARIANCE UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is proposing to construct a 120 m2 (1,291.72 sq. ft.) play place addition and is requesting permission for a reduction in parking. The parking requirement is 95 off- street parking spaces and the applicant will only be able to provide 60 off-street parking spaces. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised the applicant has requested a reduction in the parking requirement for a restaurant from 95 spaces to 60 spaces, to allow for a 120 square metre play area addition. The 95 spaces are calculated based on the parking requirements in By-law #85-1, which requires one space for every 7.5 square metres of gross floor area. This application was deferred from the meeting of July 9, 1996 pending receipt of additional information to determine whether there was any legal, con-conforming status for the existing restaurant floor area. At the time the building permit was issued for the main buildings and 4 additions, the parking was calculated on the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 146 JULY 30, 1996 basis of seating area in the restaurant. Information has been received indicating that the seating area in the restaurant in 1985 when the by-law requirement changed, was 104.20 square metres (1,121.67 sq.ft.) The parking requirements, at that time, were one 1. Submission No. A 42/96 - McDonald's Restaurant of Canada Limited - cont'd space for every 3.71 square metres of seating area in the restaurant. This would result in a parking requirement of 28 spaces for the restaurant. As the parking requirements in By-law 85-1 have increased, this number of spaces would be considered legal non-conforming. The proposed addition is 120.10 square metres and requires one space for every 7.5 m2 of gross floor area. This would result in an additional parking requirement of 16 spaces. The total parking required for the site would be 44 spaces and 60 spaces have been proposed. Therefore, a minor variance for this project is not required. The Chairman questioned Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, as to whether the applicants knew of the staff recommendation. Ms. given responded that the applicants were made aware of the staff recommendation but to the best of her knowledge, no one from staff had advised them not to come. Mr. S. Kay questioned Ms. J. given as to why, when the building is being changed, does the applicant not have to comply with the new zoning requirements. Ms. Given responded that the applicant only has to provide 28 parking spaces for the building which existed on the day the by-law was passed to change the requirement. Only the new portion of the building will have to meet the new parking requirement. The Committee then discussed what should happen with the application and the following motion was passed. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of McDonald's Restaurant of Canada Limited requesting permission to provide 60 off- street parking spaces rather than the required 95 off-street parking spaces for the existing restaurant and proposed 120 m2 (1,291.72 sq. ft.) play place addition on Part Lot 38, Municipal Compiled Plan 786, 431 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario BE DEFERRED to the meeting of September 10, 1996, pending an opinion from the City's Legal Department on the application of legal non-conforming status to this proposal. Carried MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS 1. Submission No. A 43/96 -Anil Chadha, 14 Yellow Birch Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 158, Registered Plan 1463, 14 Yellow Birch Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mrs. A. Chadha 14 Yellow Birch Drive Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 147 JULY 30, 1996 Mr. S. Kay declared a conflict of interest with this application and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to install a bay window in the rear wall of the existing house. The rearyard, measured from the bay window, would only be 6.56 m (21.5 ft.) whereas the By-law requires a rearyard of 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). 1. Submission No. A 43/96 - Anil Chadha - cont'd The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a bay window onto the rear of the existing dwelling to have a setback of 6.55 m (21.5 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.60 ft.). The existing bay window which the applicant is intending to extend complies with the rear yard setback requirement. The present 2.13 m (7 ft.) wide bay window is setback 8.38 m (27.5 ft.) from the rear property line whereas the bylaw requires a minimum of 7.5 m (24.60 ft.). It is the applicant's intent to extend the bay window by 1.83 m (6.0 ft.) to enlarge the floor area for additional living space. The width of the window would remain 2.13 m (7 ft.). The intent of the by-law is being met and the variance is considered minor in nature because the reduced rear yard setback and proposal would not appear to affect the privacy and enjoyment of this property or the neighbouring properties. Further, this setback would still allow for the outside maintenance of the structure. 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 an addition to the house. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. B. Erb, Technologist I, Engineering Department, Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which he advised that he has no comments with respect to this application. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of Anil Chadha requesting permission to install a bay window in the rear wall of the existing house with a rear yard of 6.56 m (21.5 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) on Lot 158, Registered Plan 1463, 14 Yellow Birch Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. 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 2. Submission No. A 44~96 - Larry Dreher, 984 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 19, Registered Plan 763, 984 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. P. Kalbfleisch 420 Erb Street West Waterloo, Ontario Mr. L. Dreher 984 Guelph Street Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 148 JULY 30, 1996 CONTRA: NONE 2. Submission No. A 44~96 - Larry Dreher - cont'd WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide two of the four off-street parking spaces on this property in tandem, beside the building, rather than side by side and is also requesting permission for cars to reverse out of the property onto Guelph Street rather than leaving the property in a forward motion. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the property has been used by a furniture upholstery business since 1981 and has one parking space available in front of his building and room for three parking spaces in tandem at the east side of the building. The building was originally constructed 1728 square feet (160.5 sq. m) in size and the owner added a mezzanine in the 1980's, of approximately 864 square feet (280 sq. m), totalling 2592 square feet (240 sq.m.). The building contains a large front door for vehicular access into the building. The property is located in an industrial area but is immediately surrounded on either side by single-detached dwellings which are legal non-conforming The applicant is requesting approval to provide 2 parking spaces in tandem on the east side of the building and relief from the requirement to exit from a parking lot in a forward motion. When the application was filed, four parking spaces in total were shown, however, it was determined that it is practical to provide only one space in front of the building and two in tandem to the side. The owner has had the property listed for sale since last year and has been unable to obtain any offers due to the difficulty in providing the required parking for many of the uses permitted under the M-2 zoning. The owner and his real estate agent have met with staff to review the list of permitted uses and their parking requirement. Since filing the application, the owner has asked for consideration of additional variances related to the actual number of parking spaces required, not just the location. It should be noted that the application does not request variances to the number of parking spaces and the circulation to neighbouring property owners has not included such request. Staff question the appropriateness of the additional request without re- circulation of all variances, given the potential impact of the additional variances on neighbouring properties. The owner recently received an offer of purchase from a person wishing to repair and restore vehicles on the property, for which the parking requirement is 4 parking spaces per service bay. The owner has requested approval, on behalf of the prospective purchaser, of a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 4 spaces per bay to 2 or 3 spaces per bay, suggesting that the restoring of vehicles does not generate a high turnover in vehicles. It was indicated that some vehicles for repair could be stored internally or at the side of the property and not affect customer parking. The extent of relief requested for such use is not clear since staff do not know how many "service bays" could be provided in the building. It would appear as though at least four service areas may be established within the building, for which the parking requirement would be 16 spaces, resulting in a significant variance to the by-law. Staff are concerned with the potential problems often associated with vehicle repair services and are concerned that such a variance to permit such a use could result in the parking of vehicles under repair on the street or in undesignated areas on the site, especially given the neighbouring residential uses. If the building could only physically accommodate one vehicle, staff would be able to view the variance differently, however since the building can accommodate more than one service bay and the enforcement of any approvals restricting the use to one service bay would be difficult if not impossible, staff cannot support a variance to the number of spaces for motor vehicle repair. If the owner wishes to offer other alternative solutions, staff are willing to consider a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 149 JULY 30, 1996 deferral. 2. Submission No. A 44/96 - Larry Dreher - cont'd In addition, the owner is interested in having the number of required parking spaces for other permitted uses reduced, so that any use requiring 6 or fewer spaces would be permitted to provide only 3 spaces. This would provide the flexibility of being able to sell the property and satisfy the parking requirement for other uses if the offer fails. Staff have reviewed the parking requirements for the M-2 uses and find that a number of permitted uses require a large number of parking spaces, requiring a variance, the extent of which staff would be unable to support. However, there are some uses in the M-2 Zone that would generate 6 or less spaces and these could be considered as potential viable uses. Subject to the Committee's determination of whether to support an amendment to the application to deal with a reduction in the parking requirement, staff could support a reduction in parking for any use requiring 6 spaces or less, to provide 3 spaces, given the restriction posed by the re-use of the existing building. The reduction in parking requirement would provide more opportunity for more permitted uses to be located within this building without compromising the parking requirement for this property. By providing only three spaces on site, the relief from the by-law requirement to exit the site in a forward motion is not a requirement, as 3 parking spaces do not constitute a "parking lot". The variance for parking two spaces in tandem is minor and provides for the re-use of the existing building while offering a viable parking solution. Finally, since a change in use of the property is contemplated, the legal, non-conforming status of the lot width, rearyard and sideyard would cease and the application would have to be amended to permit a lot width of 40 feet (12.19 metres), a rearyard of 24.33 ft (7.42 metres) instead of the required 24.6 feet (7.5 metres) and a sideyard of 8.52 feet (2.6 metres) instead of the required 9.84 ft (3.0 metres) for any permitted M-2 use, to provide full flexibility to reuse the building for any use other than manufacturing, which the upholstery business would be classified. Accordingly, the Department supports variances to permit two vehicles in tandem; to reduce the parking requirement from any use requiring 6 spaces or less except motor vehicle repair, to 3 spaces; a rearyard of 7.42 metres, an easterly sideyard of 2.60 metres, and a lot width of 12.19 metres, for any permitted use. The Committee noted the comments of K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division in which he advised that he has no concerns regarding the proposed tandem parking. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that he has no concerns or comments. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. B. Erb, Technologist I, Engineering Department, Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which he advised that he has no comments with respect to this application. The Committee discussed the additional variances noted in the comments of the Department of Planning & Development and agreed that they would constitute a new application, which would have to be recirculated. Mr. Kalbfleisch addressed the Committee advising that 4 parking spaces are required to satisfy the offer of purchase and sale. The purchaser is someone who would use the property for motor vehicle repair and needs 4 spaces for this use. Mr. Kabfleisch advised that it was hoped that 2 parking spaces could be provided in tandem, beside the building and 2 could be provided in front of the building. Mr. A. Galloway put forward a motion to approve the application as submitted. It was his opinion that if additional variance are required, that would have to come before the Committee in a separate application. Mr. W. Dahms seconded this motion. 2. Submission No. A 44/96 - Larry Dreher - cont'd Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner advised the Committee that a plan had been received from the applicant, after COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 150 JULY 30, 1996 the application was submitted, showing a concrete retaining wall. With the retaining wall, only 1 parking space can be provided in front of the building and still allow access to the garage door. Mr. Kalbfleish addressed the Committee advising that the concrete retaining wall is, in fact, a flower garden which can be removed. It was his opinion that there is approximately 16' from the lot line to the garage door. Mr. J. Gothard, Chairman, clarified what was asked for in the original application. Mr. Kabfleisch provided the Committee members with a copy of the survey of this property. A discussion took place regarding the approval of the submitted application and whether that would facilitate the sale of the property. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Larry Dreher requesting permission to provided 2 parking spaces in tandem, on the east side of the existing building, rather than side by side and permission for relief from the by-law requirement that cars exit from a parking lot in a forward motion on Part Lot 19, Registered Plan 7634, 984 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. 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 3. Submission No. A 45~96 - Frederick Victoria Business Centre Inc., 596 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 6, Registered Plan 712 and Block B, Registered Plan 928, 935 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. M. Cline cio Whitney & Company 560 Parkside Drive Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting an interpretation that the permitted use of "sale or rental of furniture and electric or electronic appliances and electric or electronic equipment" would include the "wholesale and retail of fitness equipment". The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the property is developed as a plaza complex, within which a business involving the "wholesale and retail of fitness equipment" wishes to locate. The application is seeking approval from the committee to permit a use of the building for a use which conforms with the uses permitted in the by-law, where such by- law is defined in general terms. 3. Submission No. A 45~96 - Frederick Victoria Business Centre Inc. - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 151 JULY 30, 1996 This Committee previously granted approval of an identical request for 842 Victoria Street, to permit the retail establishment for the same fitness equipment. The committee supported staff's position that such use could be deemed to be similar to the "sale or rental of electronic equipment", which is a permitted use. Many of the fitness products to be retailed are electronically operated. Further, the City is initiating a comprehensive change to the zoning by-law to expressly permit the sale of sporting goods in the C-6 zone, in accordance with the provisions of the new Municipal Plan. Staff support the application as an appropriate interpretation of the by-law. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that he has