Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1996-05-28COA\1996-05-28 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. J. Gothard, D. McKnight, W. Dahms, S. Kay and A. Galloway. Ms. J. Given, Mr. R. Morgan, Zoning Administration Co-ordinator, Planner, and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. J. Gothard, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.. Senior MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of May 7, 1996, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS 1. Submission No. A 25/96 - Jerzy & Grazyna Siudylo, 21 Bismark Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Part Lot B, Registered Plan 386, 21 Bismark Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. J. Siudylo 21 Bismark Avenue Kitchener, Ontario Mr. W. Van Miltenburg 27 Bismark Avenue Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to convert 1-1 1/2 storey home to a full two stories and need approval because the easterly sideyard is only 1.04 m (3.4 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). They are also requesting legalization of the existing covered patio at the rear of the house, which has a sideyard of 0.3 m (1 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) and are requesting permission to enclose the front porch which is setback 1.97 m (6.47 ft.) from the property line along Bismark Avenue rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 96 MAY 28, 1996 The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the subject lands are located at 21 Bismark Avenue and are presently developed with a single detached dwelling together with detached garage. The lands are zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. 1. Submission No. A 25~96 - Jerzy & Grazyna Siudylo - cont'd The zoning by-law requires that all buildings, structures and enclosed porches be constructed with a minimum 4.5 metre front yard and 1.2 metre side yard. The existing dwelling has been constructed 3.25 metres from the street line with a porch located 1.97 metres from the street line. An "existing covered patio" to the rear of the dwelling has been constructed with a 0.34 metre left sideyard. Any structures existing on October 11, 1994 are deemed to comply; however additions must meet the by-law regulations. The applicants are seeking minor variances to the regulations of the zoning by-law to allow for the addition of a second storey to the existing 1-1/2 stow dwelling and to enclose the existing covered porch with a front yard setback of 1.97 metres as well as to legalize the "existing covered patio" with a left side yard of 0.34 metres. Since the application would allow for a second storey addition with a setback the same as the first storey and renovations to an existing dwelling to enclose an existing porch, the proposed variances can be considered within the intent of the provisions of both the Municipal Plan and the zoning by-law. Further, in relation to the existing development on neighbouring properties, the proposed variances can be considered both desirable and minor in nature. It is not clear from the application what the applicants intend to do in the rearyard and what variance, if any, is actually necessary in order to "legalize the existing covered patio". Staff were unable to reach the applicant during regular office hours in order to clarify this. The existing situation is really that an "unfinished" carport has been constructed and is used to park vehicles. If no change to this structure is contemplated and it can be proven that the structure existed on or before October 11, 1994, then it would be deemed to be legal by virtue of the vacuum clause (Section 5.15.1) contained within the Zoning By-law. However, if the covered patio was not constructed until after October 11, 1994 or changes to the structure are contemplated, then a variance would be required in order to legalize its location. If it is determined that a variance is required to legalize the location of the structure, the applicants must clarify the intent. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 25/96 to reduce the front yard requirement to 1.97 metres, without conditions. Further, that the applicant confirm for the Committee what their intent is relative to the structure at the rear of the building, at which time the Department can comment. The Chairman read aloud the Planning Department comments concerning the rear covered patio. Mr. Siudylo responded that the covered patio was built before October 1, 1994 and he did not obtain a building permit. He advised that the contractor is going to have a look at the covered patio and determine what needs to be done to improve it. Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, stated that it is not clear what the intended use is. She questioned whether it will be used as a carport or a patio. Mr. Siudylo responded that he didn't think he would park cars there, as it his intention to use it as a porch. Ms. J. Given then advised that the variance, as applied for, is required. Mr. W. Van Miltenburg addressed the Committee advising that he was not opposed to the application as long as everything remains on the applicants' own property. He requested that the applicants' property be surveyed so that he can be sure. He advised the Committee of a situation on another property on Bismark Avenue where the property owner built a garage partly on his neighbours' property. Mr. W. Dahms questioned staff as to whether they support the variance for the covered patio and Ms. Given advised that the staff supports the variance. Mr. Dahms then put forward a motion to approve the requested variances. Mr. A. Galloway then clarified the variances being requested. Mr. Dahms then questioned staff as to whether the use of the rear covered area as a carport or patio was of consequence. Ms. Given advised that the sideyard variance would be the same either way. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 97 MAY 28, 1996 1. Submission No. A 25~96 - Jerzy & Grazyna Siudylo - cont'd Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of Jerzy & Grazyna Siudylo requesting permission to enclose an existing front porch with a setback of 1.97 m (6.47 ft.) from Bismark Avenue rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.), permission to convert a one and a half storey house to a two storey house with a setback from Bismark Avenue of 3.25 m (10.66 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.) and legalization of an existing covered patio at the rear of the house with a sideyard of 0.34 m (1.12 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Part Lot B, Registered Plan 386, 21 Bismark Avenue, 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 Submission No. A 26~96 - Sowa Tool & Machine Company Limited, 334 Manitou Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Parts 5,6,7, and 8 Reference Plan 58R-6301, 334 Manitou Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. M. Janecek 213 Breithaupt Street Kitchener, Ontario Mr. G. Dejeuner c/o Sowa Tool & Machine Company Limited 334 Manitou Drive Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition onto the southerly side of the existing building. The addition will follow the line of the existing building, at the rear, and will have a rearyard of approximately 2.44 m (8 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition onto the southerly side of the existing building. The addition will follow the line of the existing building, at the rear, and will have a rear yard of approximately 2.44 m (8 ft) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 98 MAY 28, 1996 2. Submission No. A 26/96 - Sowa Tool & Machine Company Limited - cont'd The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing building to provide additional space for offices and warehouse. The addition is 835.73 sq. m. (8996 sq.ft.) and is to be located so as to provide a rear yard of at least 2.44 m (8 ft) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft). As shown on the submitted site plan this would align the rear wall of the addition with that of the existing building. Two previous applications, A 108/74 and A 96~79, have been considered by the Committee of Adjustment regarding the rear yard setback. It appears the building constructed relative to the first Submission, A 108/74, was built in non-compliance to the variance granted. Consequently, Submission A 96/79 was then applied for and received approval for a reduction in the rear yard to 2.44 m (8 ft) for both the 1974 and 1979 additions. However, it should be noted that the approval was conditional on the applicant supplying a survey plan showing the actual location of buildings. To date no such survey has been received by this Department. Therefore Submission A 96/79 is considered null and void. This application should be amended to request legalization of the previous two additions (1974 and 1979) and the proposed addition. Therefore the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing building and a proposed addition to have a rear yard of 2.44 m (8 ft) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft). The proposed setback will be developed in line with the existing building and therefore appears suitable for the appropriate development of the lot. In addition, the building has existed for approximately seventeen years without the City receiving any complaints. The proposed variance would not appear to adversely affect the usability of the abutting properties. Based on the above, the variance requested could be considered minor in nature and meets the general intent of the by-law. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variance, as amended, applying to the site plan prepared Paramount Construction Ltd. and dated January 1996. The Committee considered the comments of Mrs. E. Caston, Senior Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority, in which she advised that there is no objection to the proposed minor variance; however, it is noted that the property backs onto a steep slop. It may be advisable for the applicant to provide geotechnical support from a qualified engineer to ensure that the stability of the slope is not adversely impacted by the proposed construction. At the request of Mr. Janecek, the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application in accordance with the Planning Department comments. Mr. D. McKnight questioned Mr. Janecek concerning the slop referred to in the G.R.C.A. comments. Mr. Janecek advised that the slope is behind the existing building, which has been there for twenty five years. Further, the slope behind the proposed addition is in line with the slope behind the existing building. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Sowa Tool & Machine Company Limited requesting legalization of an existing industrial building with a rearyard of 2.44 m (8 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) and permission to construct an addition onto the southerly side of the existing building to have a rearyard of 2.44 m (8 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Part Lot 34, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1525 and Part Lot 3, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1521, 334 Manitou Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the buildings only as shown on the site plan prepared by Paramount Construction Ltd., dated January 1996. 2. Submission No. A 26/96 - Sowa Tool & Machine Company Limited - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 99 MAY 28, 1996 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 27/96 - Robert & Kim Mercer, 174 Cedarcrest Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 149, Registered Plan 1463, 174 Cedarcrest Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mrs. K. Mercer 174 Cedarcrest Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a 3.66 m (12 ft.) by 4.27 m (14 ft.) shed within their fenced rearyard. The shed would be located 1.71 m (5.6 ft.) from the Iotline along Yellow Birch Drive rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a garden/utility shed 1.67 m (5.5 ft.) from the property line along Yellow Birch Drive rather than the required 4.5m (14.76 ft.). The subject property is located at the corner of Cedar Crest Street and Yellow Birch Drive. The property is zoned under By-law 85-1 which requires a 4.5m (14.76 ft.) setback from the lot line along Yellow Birch Drive. The proposed shed will be located in the sideyard abutting Yellow Birch Drive approximately 26.8m (88 ft.) from the intersection, behind a 6 foot high fence previously approved through application #F9/91. If the subject shed were to be in a location that complies with by-law requirements it would have to be located in an area occupied by the swimming pool. The variance requested is minor in nature and the general intent of the by-law is being met as the location of the shed would not appear to pose a visibility problem or adversely affect the streetscape as it will be located behind an existing fence which received approval from the Committee on January 31,1995. In regards to the above the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of this application. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that, as the shed would be located behind the existing fence, the Division has no concerns with this application. Upon questioning by the Committee, Mrs. Mercer advised that the pool has not yet been installed and the old shed is to be removed. Further, Mrs. Mercer advised that the fence shown on the plan is an existing fence. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 100 MAY 28, 1996 3. Submission No. A 27/96 - Robert & Kim Mercer - cont'd Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Robert & Kim Mercer requesting permission to erect an accessory shed to be located 1.67 m (5.5 ft.) from the Iotline along Yellow Birch Drive rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) on Lot 149, Registered Plan 1463, 174 Cedarcrest 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 Submission No. A 28/96 - McCrory & Associates Ltd., 2600 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lots 18 & 22 and Lot 19, Registered Plan 1004 and Part Lots 93 & 94, Registered Plan 786, 438 and 446 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario. This application was considered in conjunction with Submission No.'s B 28~96 & B 29~96 as described in the Minutes for Consent. 5. Submission No. A 29/96 - Bankside Construction Ltd., P.O. Box 20039 Pioneer Park, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 91, Registered Plan 1823, 6 Branwood Place, Kitchener, Ontario. 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. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Reinhart 824 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a new single family dwelling and garage on this lot. Because of the shape of the lot, the proposed rearyard, at the right rear corner, would be 6.27 m (20.57 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.); however, the rearyard gets larger, as you go to the left rear corner of the house and rearyard at that point will be 9.39 m (30.81 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the application seeks approval of a rear yard for a proposed single detached dwelling of 6.27 metres rather than 7.5 metres. The variance is only required for a small corner of the dwelling, since the rear lot line is diverging from this corner of the house. Throughout the majority of the rear yard, the setback complies or exceeds the minimum. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 101 MAY 28, 1996 There is no impact on the usability of the rear yard or on neighbouring properties and it is the opinion of staff that the variance is minor and appropriate and maintains the intent of the zoning by-law and Municipal Plan. 5. Submission No. A 29/96 - Bankside Construction Ltd. - cont'd That the minor variance be approved only to the extent of the variance shown on the drawing submitted with the application. Mr. W. Dahms questioned whether the foundation had been poured and Mr. Reinhart advised that it has not been poured. Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Bankside Construction requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling with a rearyard of 6.27 m (20.57 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Lot 91, Registered Plan 1823, 6 Branwood Place, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed development only as shown on the sketch prepared by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson & Donaldson Ltd., O.L.S., dated April 24, 1996. 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 6. Submission No. A 30/96 - MTD Products Limited, 97 Kent Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 486, Registered Plan 262 and Part Park Lot 25, Registered Plan 904, 97 Kent Avenue and 60 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. W. Dahms declared a conflict of interest with this application as his law firm acts for the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: The Committee was Mr. G. Kraehling c/o Paragon Engineering Ltd. 871 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario NONE NONE NONE advised that the applicant is proposing to construct an overhead, enclosed corridor/conveyor across Borden Avenue to join the building at 97 Kent Avenue with their building at 60 Ottawa Street South. The variance to the Zoning by-law is that there will be no setback from the street provided as the conveyor will go over the street. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 102 MAY 28, 1996 The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that application to the Committee of Adjustment for a Minor Variance has been made to permit the development of a proposed overhead conveyer/corridor building, within the subject lands and across Borden Avenue. The corridor would link the second storey of each existing building and would be elevated in its entirety. Specifically the variance requests a 0 side yard 6. Submission No. A 30/96 - MTD Products Limited - cont'd along Borden Avenue whereas the required sideyard abutting the street is 4.5 metres. The lands in the area of the proposed conveyor belt addition are zoned Existing Use Zone (E-l), according to By-law 85-1. The existing operation is currently located on both sides of Borden Avenue and is a manufacturing operation, involved in the manufacturing of lawn equipment, snow removal equipment and associated shipping & receiving. The proposed overhead conveyor will substantially improve the existing shipping and receiving operation and manufacturing operations of the existing business. The owners have submitted a required Site Plan Application which is currently being processed. The site plan will address conditions of approval from other departments and agencies such as KVV Hydro, as provisions for relocating existing hydro lines will occur as a result of the proposed conveyor, the required approval of a fill and alteration to waterways permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority and entering into an "Air Rights Agreement" with the City of Kitchener, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. As the area of the requested variance is limited in nature and all required agreements and comments will be addressed by the requirement of a Site Plan Approval for the proposed development the Department is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature and meets the four tests as set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act. Accordingly the Department of Planning & Development recommends approval of the requested variance, conditional upon the following: 1) That the owner receive site plan approval for the proposed overhead corridor building from the Manager of Design, Heritage & Environment, generally in accordance with the plan submitted with the application by Paragon Engineering Ltd. and dated April 1996 The Committee noted the comments of the Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that the Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns, provided that the minimum hydro clearance requirements will be maintained to the satisfaction of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro. The Committee noted the comments of Mrs. E. Caston, Senior Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority, in which he advised that almost all of the subject properties are below the elevation of the regulatory floodline of Schneider Creek and consequently are regulated under the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation as the Authority has not yet processed a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways permit for the construction of the proposed conveyor, she recommended that consideration of the application be deferred until one is processed. The Chairman questioned whether the site plan has been approved. Mr. Kraehling advised that it has not been approved yet. They are still finalizing the conveyor entry to the buildings. They have applied to the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro to have the hydro lines moved and they have applied to the Grand River Conservation Authority for a fill permit. Also, Mr. Kraehling advised that there will be a slight realignment change for the Kent Avenue property and there will be a meeting this date to determine whether the entry to Ottawa Street building needs to be moved slightly south. Mr. Kraehling stated that these changes may be necessary for engineering reasons and also some are due to materials flow within the building. He referred to the description of the variance as contained in the Notice of Hearing and advised that the corridor will link the top of the first storey and not the second storey. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Kraehling advised that an Air Rights Agreement with the City has been applied for and will be considered by Council shortly. The Chairman questioned the timing on this project and Mr. Kraehling advised that it is contingent upon getting the hydro lines moved, as construction can not begin until then. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 103 MAY 28, 1996 6. Submission No. A 30/96 - MTD Products Limited - cont'd Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of MTD Products Limited requesting permission to construct an overhead enclosed corridor/conveyor across Borden Avenue with setbacks from Borden Avenue of 0 m rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) on Part Lot 486, Registered Plan 262 and Part Part Lot 25, Registered Plan 904, 97 Kent Avenue and 60 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the owner shall receive site plan approval for the proposed overhead corridor building from the Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment, generally in accordance with the plan submitted with this application by Paragon Engineering Ltd., dated April 1996. 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 7. Submission No. A 31/96 - Marie Peever, 735 Hidden Valley Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: East, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Part Lots 1 & 2, Registered Plan 100 and Lots 9, 10 and 11, Registered Plan 323, 550 King Street Mr. P. Britton 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario Ms. M. Peever 735 Hidden Valley Road Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Mr. & Mrs. H. Karenbrock 9 Cameron Street North Kitchener, Ontario Mr. N. Antonelli 8 Betzner Avenue North Kitchener, Ontario NONE Mr. R. Grein The Committee was advised that the applicant is proposing to use 650.3 m2 (7,000 sq. ft.) of this building as a health clinic and is requesting permission to provide 24 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 43 off-street parking spaces. The applicant would also like to expand the health clinic, in approximately 1 year, to 929 m2 (10,000 sq. ft.) of floor area. At that time it is proposed that the house on this property will be COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 104 MAY 28, 1996 demolished, enabling the applicant to provide 6 additional off-street parking spaces. The variance at that time will be a 929 m2 (10,000 ft.) health clinic with 30 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 61 off-street parking spaces. 7. Submission No. A 31/96 - Marie Peever - cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that this application for minor variance is being made to request a reduction in the parking requirement to allow the reuse of the existing building for a health clinic which is a more parking intensive use than the previous office use. The specific variance is being requested in 2 stages. The first is to allow 650 square meters (7,000 square feet) of the existing building to be occupied by a health clinic with only 24 parking spaces rather than the required 43 spaces and then at such time as the existing single family dwelling located on the property is demolished, to allow 920 square metres (10,000 square feet) to be occupied with 30 parking spaces rather than required 61 parking spaces. The Department of Planning and Development has carefully reviewed this request and while we would not normally be inclined to support such a variance to parking, in this particular situation we believe it to be supportable for the following reasons. The property is located adjacent to the downtown and there is a large provision of public parking in the immediate area including on-street metered parking directly in front of the building. Additionally, the owner of the premises, who will also be one of the practitioners in the clinic, has arranged for the lease of 30 parking spaces in a nearby privately operated commercial parking lot for the staff associated with the clinic. Although this parking cannot be counted towards satisfying the parking required by the by-law (since this lease will not be registered on title pursuant to the requirement in the by- law), it can be considered as part of the justification for the reduction on-site. In addition, the parking requirements for properties only two blocks away have recently been reduced to allow the full occupancy of any existing building for any use requiring only that parking which currently exists on the property - this zoning initiative was approved to support the reuse of existing structures within the formal downtown area and to implement the policies of the City's Municipal Plan which encourage the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Given the location of this property in proximity to the downtown and the fact that it is a reuse of an existing building, it is reasonable to suggest that the principle is the same and can be applied in this case. For these reasons, the requested variance is seen to maintain the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The reasons for requesting the variance in 2 stages is related to the recent conditions of purchase of the property. The new owner has agreed to retain the lease for the existing dwelling on the property for one year. Upon the expiration of this period; however, the Department will expect that the owner will make every effort to supply more parking on the property by removing the existing structure which has been contemplated through previous approvals granted for the development of this property in the past. The 2 staged variance approval will ensure that these parking improvements are undertaken by aligning the parking reduction with the maximum floor area which can be occupied. The Department of Planning and Development recommend that Minor Variance Application A 31/96 as requested (a reduction in the parking requirements to allow a health clinic to occupy 650 square meters with only 24 parking spaces and to subsequently occupy 920 square meters with only 30 parking spaces) be approved since it is deemed to be appropriate for the use of the property and maintains the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The Committee considered the written submission of Mr. R. Grein in opposition to this application. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that it is the Division's concern that overflow parking generated by this use would occur on adjacent residential streets. Limited metered parking is available on King Street and parking on adjacent side streets is restricted. It is noted that there is traffic related problems occurring on these streets which are created by an existing business on King Street in this vicinity. The shortfall of 31 spaces could result in traffic circulating the neighbourhood searching for parking and could result in traffic operational problems. He stated that the Division is opposed to this application. 7. Submission No. A 31/96 - Marie Peever - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 105 MAY 28, 1996 Prior to any of the delegations addressing the Committee, the Chairman asked that the information contained in the application be confirmed; specifically, he questioned whether there currently are twenty-four parking spaces on site. Mr. Britton advised that that information is correct. The Chairman then advised that the site plan submitted with the application shows twenty off-street parking spaces with the house and he asked Mr. Britton to address this point in his presentation. Mr. P. Britton then addressed the Committee displaying a location plan showing the subject property in relation to the surrounding streets, the main King Street corridor and the downtown area. Mr. Britton pointed out that King Street is the transit corridor with the heaviest transit service. Concerning the number of parking spaces on site, Mr. Britton advised that there are in fact twenty-four off- street parking spaces on site. In 1989, Barr Developments got approval of an expansion proposal. The Committee of Adjustment, at that time, approved twenty-four off-street parking spaces for 10,000 sq. ft. office space. Mr. & Mrs. Peever have acquired this property with the intention of changing the use from an insurance office to a health office and they were not aware of the increase in the parking standard. As part of their discussions, the applicants have been able to secure thirty parking spaces off-site. Mr. Britton then showed the Committee members a copy of the site plan which was approved in 1989. Mr. Britton went on the explain that the City's Municipal Plan contains support for adaptive reuse which supports the proposal for this property. Mr. Britton also explained the relationship between the intensity of use and the transit corridor. Mr. Britton advised that the applicants have made arrangements for use of thirty additional parking spaces off-site. They have a letter to confirm this, although the owner of the spaces is not prepared to register a lease on title. There is also on-street parking available on King Street and some of the side streets. The applicants will make their clients aware of the location of the additional parking available. Concerning the occupancy of the building, Mr. Britton advised that the 5,000 sq. ft. in the bottom floor will be occupied by a rehabilitation clinic. There will only be three practitioners as a large space is needed for this use, this is not an intensive use. Further, he stated that the parking needs to be reflective of the type of practice. Mr. D. McKnight stated that the term health clinic is generic. He questioned what else would be in the building besides the rehabilitation clinic. Mr. Britton advised that the upstairs will be occupied by three general practitioners, one chiropractor and support staff. Mr. W. Dahms then questioned whether the existing residential building is occupied. Mr. Britton advised that it is occupied by a commercial use. Further, Mr. Britton advised that, in 1989 Council approved of the demolition of this building and when the existing tenant leaves, the applicant proposes to demolish this structure. Mr. W. Dahms then questioned the off-site parking referred to earlier in Mr. Britton's presentation. Mr. Britton advised that he has canvassed the availability of parking in this area and there is ample; however, people don't want to register a lease on title. Mrs. Peever advised that the local representatives of the parking lot owner gave her a letter of approval. Mr. Dahms questioned whether the thirty spaces are guaranteed. Mrs. Peever advised that there is no lease but a letter of understanding that there will be thirty spaces available as long as necessary. Mr. S. Kay questioned the location of the off-site parking and also questioned the site plan agreement on title and whether it is still valid. Mr. Britton advised that he thought the agreement was still valid but he was not sure. Mr. W. Dahms then referred to the difference between the Planning Department comments and the Traffic comments. He questioned whether any staff from the Traffic & Parking Division were in attendance. Ms. J. Given advised that no one from Traffic was in attendance. To the best of her knowledge their comments are final; however, they were not aware of the thirty off-site parking 7. Submission No. A 31/96 - Marie Peever - cont'd spaces. Mr. Britton confirmed that he had spoken with Mr. K. Mayer this morning and he was not aware of the thirty off-site parking spaces. Mr. Britton continued that two unofficial surveys have been conducted concerning the off-street parking on King Street and on each occasion the parking was not used. Mr. Britton went on to explain that, from a logistic point of view, staff will not park on-site and clients will be advised of where additional parking can be found. Mr. S. Kay questioned that, given the type of patients COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 106 MAY 28, 1996 who will be coming to the clinic, how many will logically take the bus. Mrs. Peever responded that her husband currently has a clinic further along King Street and many of his patients walk or take the bus. He currently has twelve parking spaces and there are always spaces available. Mr. D. McKnight stated that he believes the proposed use to be a good one; however, he sees a problem with a fifty percent reduction in the required parking. He advised that he would like to see a definite commitment, a legal document, at least coming close to what the by-law requires. The Chairman questioned where the closest traffic signals are to this property and was advised that there are traffic signals at King & Cedar and King & Stirling. The Chairman then referred to the written submission of Mr. R. Grein and questioned where his property is and was advised that it on Charles Street. The Chairman advised that he would allow the opposition as much time to speak as the applicant and her agent had had. Mrs. Karenbrock addressed the Committee advising that she and her husband live at 9 Cameron Street North, next door to the parking lot on the subject property. She stated that there are only twenty parking spaces and not twenty-four. Further, they are working on the building already they don't even have half of the parking spaces they need. It was her opinion that she and her husband will suffer from the noise pollution and automobile pollution and all her windows are on the side of the house adjacent to the subject property. Mrs. Karenbrock stated that they already have to suffer from the pollution and noise from Budget Rent-A-Car and this proposal will be detrimental to her health. Mr. Karenbrock then addressed the Committee advising that his wife suffers from asthma, high blood pressure and allergies. Due to some of the existing businesses in the area they already suffer from noise and air pollution. He questioned how this Committee could deal with this situation when they don't have any experience in this area. They already have problems with existing businesses in this area, particularly Budget Rent-A-Car. Mr. Karenbrock advised that they have lived in this house for thirty years. Before Dalton, there were houses along this block of King Street. When Dalton moved in they lost privacy and now they must suffer from noise and air pollution from the existing car rental and car wash and this new situation will only make matters worse. Mr. Antonelli then addressed the Committee stating that the owners should have to comply with the by-law. He is of the same opinion as Mr. & Mrs. Karenbrock. Mr. S. Kay questioned what buffer is on the site now. Mr. Britton responded that the zoning requires a solid wood fence on the Iotline when the house is demolished and the house is due to be demolished in one year. There is no buffer there at this time. Mr. Kay then questioned the square footage to be occupied and what square footage is in the existing house. Mr. Britton advised that the square footage of the existing commercial building is 10,000 sq. ft. Currently, including the house, the square footage of building on the site is 11,400 sq. ft., so that when the house comes down, they will be reducing the square footage on site. The Chairman questioned what parking is now used for the use in the existing house and Mr. Britton advised that he did not know that but the twenty-four parking spaces are for the Dalton building only. 7. Submission No. A 31/96 - Marie Peever - cont'd Mr. A. Galloway questioned the renovations taking place on site now and Mrs. Peever advised that they have a permit for three doctors upstairs. Mr. W. Dahms stated that he believes that the Committee is sensitive to the comments of the neighbours being adjacent to commercial property. He believed; however, that their seems to be adequate parking for the use in the area. Mr. Dahms put forward a motion to approve the application as submitted, which did not receive a seconder. Mr. A. Galloway put forward a motion to refuse the application which was seconded by Mr. S. Kay. The Chairman spoke to the motion stating that he has had some difficulty with both sides of the question. He complimented Mr. Britton on his presentation. He stated that he had sympathy for the neighbours but felt there real problem was being too close to a commercial area. Mr. Gothard advised that his position on this matter was based on the impact on the neighbourhood and that the variance requested is not minor in COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 107 MAY 28, 1996 nature and therefore did not meet all four tests set out in the Planning Act. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Marie Peever requesting permission for a 650.3 m2 (7,000 sq. ft.) health clinic with twenty-four off-street parking spaces rather than the required 43 off-street parking spaces and permission to expand the health clinic to 929 m2 (10,000 sq. ft.) with 30 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 61 off-street parking spaces, once the existing house is demolished, on Part Lots 1 & 2, Registered Plan 100 and Lots 9, 10 and 11, Registered Plan 323, 550 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are not minor in nature. 2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property. Carried CONSENT 1. Submission No. B 26/96 - Marianne Kessler, 61 Thorndale Drive, Waterloo, Ontario Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Part Lot 10, Registered Plan 439, 97 Park Street, Kitchener, Ontario. Ms. M. Kessler 61 Thorndale Drive Waterloo, Ontario Mr. H. Epp 79 Sommerset Crescent Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE 1. Submission No. B 26/96 - Marianne Kessler - cont'd The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a portion of land at the rear of this property to sell to the abutting property owner at 101 Park Street. The land to be severed would have a width of 12.2 m (40 ft.), a depth of 17.8 m (58.4 ft.) and an area of 217.16 m~ (2,337.57 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a portion of land at the rear of 97 Park Street to convey as a lot addition to the abutting property owner at 101 Park Street. The land to be severed would have a width of 12.2 metres (40 feet) by a depth of 17.8 metres (58.4 feet) and an area of 217.16 square metres (2337.57 square feet). The property at 97 Park Street is owned by Marianne Kessler and 101 Park Street is owned by the Estate of Conrad Kessler. Both properties are occupied with duplex dwellings. The property at 101 Park Street also has a 190 m2 (2,000 sq. ft) building which was used for a furniture reupholstery operation by Mr. Kessler COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 108 MAY 28, 1996 from 1979 until last year. The applicant has no intent to develop the properties any further. The purpose of the lot addition is to provide parking for the commercial/industrial building, which now has no on-site parking. Staff have considered whether the severance would make 97 Park Street unviable for future commercial use. Given the greater amount of building floor area, the 101 Park Street property has a greater need for parking spaces. Re-use of the building at 97 Park Street is still possible, but would be limited by having only four spaces. On this basis the Department has no objection to the proposal. The Department of Planning & Development recommends that the application be approved subject to the following condition: 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 Planning Act, 1983. The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no objection to the approval of this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that the proposed severance would create a single lane driveway for both properties at 97 Park Street and 101 Park Street. This would be acceptable for a residential use at 97 Park Street; however, given the potential for more intense use of the building at 101 Park Street, a single lane driveway may be inadequate to accommodate traffic movements on this property and particularly any truck movements which may be generated by future uses. It may also be necessary to widen the driveway entrance at 101 Park Street to address traffic movement problems at Park Street. It is further noted that any modifications to the existing driveways would require approval by the Region. Mr. J. Gothard, Chairman, questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the Traffic & Parking comments and Mr. Epp advised that they have and that the property has been there in its present state for an extremely long time. Further, he advised that what is being added now improves the property. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Marianne Kessler requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 12.2 m (40 ft.) by a depth of 17.8 m (58.4 ft.) and having an area of 217.16 m2 (2,337.57 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to 101 Park Street on Part Lot 10, Registered Plan 439, 97 Park Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following condition: 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. 1. Submission No. B 26/96 - Marianne Kessler - cont'd 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 May 28, 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 109 MAY 28, 1996 2. Submission No. B 27/96 - Nikiforos Tsimpragos, 14 Hudson Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 405, 45 St. George Street, Kitchener, Ontario. The Committee was in receipt of a letter from the applicant's agent requesting permission to defer consideration of this application to the meeting to be held on June 18, 1996 and the Committee agreed to this request. Re: Submission No.'s A 28/96 & B 28/96 - McCrory & Associates Ltd., 2600 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lots 18 & 22 and Lot 19, Registered Plan 1004 and Part Lots 93 & 94, Registered Plan 786, 438 and 446 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario. - and - Submission No. B 29/96 - Golden Triangle Oils Ltd., 260 King Street East, Ontario Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Part Lot 92, Registered Plan 786, 426 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario. CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mr. B. Wilson Kitchener, NONE IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised these properties are located side by side. 54 Maywood Road Kitchener, Ontario The property at 426 Highland Road West contains a gas bar and carwash. The property at 438 and 446 Highland Road West used to contain the Sunoco Gas Station and a Tim Horton's coffee shop which have both vacated this property. The property addressed as 438 and 446 Highland Road West is to be developed with two new commercial buildings; one to contain a bank and the other to contain a restaurant. The bank will be located on the easterly side of the property and the restaurant will be located on the westerly side of the property. 3. Submission No.'s A 28/96 & B 28/96 - McCrory & Associates Ltd. - cont'd - and - Submission No. B 29/96 - Golden Trianqle Oils Ltd. - cont'd Through Submission No. A 28/96, the applicant is requesting permission to construct the bank building with an easterly sideyard of 0 m rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.). They are also requesting permission to erect a restaurant with a westerly sideyard of 0.9 m (2.63 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.). For this property, the applicant is also requesting permission to provide a total of 97 off-street parking spaces for the combined uses of restaurant and bank rather than the required 101 off-street parking spaces. Submission No. B 28/96 also pertains to the property at 438 and 446 Highland Road West. In this application, the applicant is requesting permission to lease three off-street parking spaces, at the southeast corner of the property, for use by the gas bar/carwash at 426 Highland Road West, as well, to give that property a right-of-way in order to use the entrance/exit onto Highland Road. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 110 MAY 28, 1996 Submission No. B 29~96 pertains to the property at 426 Highland Road West (gas badcarwash). The applicant is requesting permission to lease 16 off-street parking spaces at the rear of the property to the owners of the bank and restaurant at 438 and 446 Highland Road West. They also are requesting permission to give a right-of-way to the property at 438 and 446 Highland Road West, so that cars may enter and exit the property from the property at 426 Highland Road West. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that application has been made to request consent for access right-of-way which will be shared by two properties municipally addressed as 426 Highland Road West and 438/446 Highland Road West, as well as permission for leasing arrangements for parking on both of these properties. In addition, there are three minor variances requested for the property municipally addressed as 438/446 Highland Road West for a reduction in parking and a reduction in both side yard set backs. Concurrent site plan applications have been submitted for both properties which are currently in the review process. There are some on site design issues with regard to on site circulation that are currently being reviewed which may affect parking and access configuaration, as well as the placement of buildings. In view of the forgoing, the Department of Planning and Development recommends deferral of these applications until the June 18, 1996 meeting so that the on site design issues can be resolved first, through the site plan approval process. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they recommended approval of these applications subject to several conditions. The Committee noted the comments of Ms. E. Caston, Senior Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority, in which she advised that they have had an opportunity to review this proposal and information currently available at the office indicates that the subject properties are above the elevation of the Regulatory Flood Line of the Henry Strum Greenway and consequently are not regulated their Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation. Consequently a Fill, Construction and Alterations to Waterways Permit is not required from them for the alterations to the site. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division in which he advised with regard to the parking deficiency of four spaces, that on street parking is prohibited on Highland Road and there are no alternative public parking facilities in this area. As such, overflow parking generated from the proposed uses could occur on adjacent properties which could create operational concerns. 3. Submission No.'s A 28/96 & B 28/96 - McCrory & Associates Ltd. - cont'd - and - Submission No. B 29/96 - Golden Trianqle Oils Ltd. - cont'd Mr. B. Wilson addressed the Committee and advised that there are changes to be made to the application. Ms. J. Given stated that, as the Committee would see in the comments, staff originally recommended deferral of these applications; however, they have worked with the applicants to make changes and are now prepared to make the revisions and recommend approval. Ms. P. Bacon addressed the Committee and advised that, with respect to Submission No. A 28/96, there are no changes to be made to the sideyard variances; however, there is a further parking reduction to 95 spaces. Further, Submission No. B 28/96, for the same property, should be amended so as not to include a lease for 3 parking spaces but should include only the right-of-way to the benefit of 426 Highland Road West. With respect to Submission No. B 29/96, Ms. Bacon advised that the application should be amended so as to request permission to lease 15 off-street parking spaces instead of the 16 spaces originally noted in the application and that the proposed right-of-way will be changed so that it runs from the entrance/exit on Highland Road to the rear of the property where the leased parking spaces are located. Ms. J. Given advised that staff request that conditions be imposed requiring that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 111 MAY 28, 1996 1. Submission No. A 28/96 receive final approval; 2. Any outstanding property taxes and/or local improvement changes be paid; 3. That site plan approval be obtained, and 4. That the owners enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, pursuant to By-law 85-1 for the parking arrangement. Mr. B. Wilson advised that he was in agreement with the amendments and conditions recommended by staff, and requested the Committee's approval to amend the applications accordingly. Submission No. A 28196 Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of McCrory & Associates Ltd requesting permission to construct a commercial building with an easterly side yard of 0 m rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and a second commercial building (restaurant) with a westerly side yard of 0.9 m (3 ft.) rather than the rquired 3 m (9.85 ft.) and permission to privide 95 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 101 off-street parking spaces on Part Lots 18 & 22 and Lot 19 Registered Plan 786, 438 and 446 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. B28/96. 2. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed development as shown on the site plan finally approved under Site Plan Applications SPR96/24H/PMB and SP96/17/H/PMB. 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. Submission No.'s A 28/96 & B 28/96 - McCrory & Associates Ltd. - cont'd - and - Submission No. B 29/96 - Golden Trianqle Oils Ltd. - cont'd Submission No. A 28/96 - cont'd 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. B 28~96 Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of McCrory & Associates Ltd. requesting permission for a right-of-way to the benefit of the property muncipally known as 426 Highland Road West on Part Lots 18 & 22 and Lot 19, Registered Plan 1004 and Part Lots 93 & 94 Registered Plan 786, 438 and 446 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. That Submission No. A 28/96 shall receive final approval. 2. That the owner shall provide documentation, to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 112 MAY 28, 1996 Waterloo, confirming that any soil contamination from the former service station has been cleaned up. That the owner shall convey without cost or encumbrance, to the Regional Muncipality of Waterloo, a 7 ft. road widening across the "service station lands" at 446 Highland Road West. 4. That the owner shall obtain a Regional Road Access Permit. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvements charges. That the owners of 438/446 and 426 Highland Road West and the City of Kitchener shall enter into a Section 6.1.1.1 (a) ii) and iii) agreement under Zoning By-law 85-1, to be approved by the City Solicitor which will ensure that a right-of-way for 15 parking spaces is provided at all times and in perpetuity on the property addressed as 426 Highland Road for the sole and unobstructed use of 438/446 Highland Road West, which agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of all rights-of-way in perpetuity and shall be registered on title. 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 May 28, 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 3. Submission No.'s A 28/96 & B 28/96 - McCrory & Associates Ltd. - cont'd - and - Submission No. B 29/96 - Golden Trianqle Oils Ltd. - cont'd Submission No. B 29/96 Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Golden Triangle Oils Ltd. requesting permission for a right-of-way for access/egress and a lease for 15 off-street parking spaces to the benefits of the property municipally known as 438 and 446 Highland Road West on Part Lot 92 Registered Plan 786, 426 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. That Submission No. A 28/96 shall receive final approval. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owners of 438/446 and 426 Highland Road West and the City of Kitchener shall enter into a Section 6.1.1.1 (a) ii) and iii) agreement under Zoning By-law 85-1, to be approved by the City Solicitor which will ensure that a right-of-way for 15 parking spaces is provided at all times and in perpetuity on the property addressed as 426 Highland Road for the sole and unobstructed use of 438/446 Highland COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 113 MAY 28, 1996 Road West, which agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of all rights-of-way in perpetuity and shall be registered on title. 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 May 28, 1998. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 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.'s B 30/96 & B 31/96 - Activa Development Corporation, 735 Brid.qe Street West, Waterloo, Ontario Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Block 2, Registered Plan 1714, Bankside Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. J. Greisbaum 735 Bridge Street West Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE 3. Submission No.'s B 30/96 & B 31/96 - Activa Development Corporation - cont'd WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever two blocks of land for the purpose of developing freehold townhouses. The first block of land will be developed with 11 units and the second block will be developed with 5 units. Block 1 will have a frontage on Bankside Drive of 127.01 m (416.7 sq. ft.) by a depth of approximately 30 m (98.43 ft.) and an area of 3,800 m2 (40,904.2 sq. ft.). Block 2 will have a frontage on Bankside Drive of 79.18 m (259.78 ft.) by a depth of approximately 30 m (98.43 ft.) and having an area of 1,999 m2 (21,517.77 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that application to the Committee of Adjustment for consent has been made which proposes the severance of two blocks which are intended to be developed with street fronting townhouses. Application B-30/96 proposes a block which is approximately 3800 m~, having frontage of approximately 127 metres along the south side of Bankside Drive. This block is intended to be developed with 11 street fronting townhouses. Application B-31/96 proposes a block of land having an area of 1999 m~ and having 79 metres of frontage on Bankside Drive. This block is intended to be developed with 5 street fronting townhouses. The retained parcel of land has an area of approximately 1.8 hectares having approximately COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 114 MAY 28, 1996 16.8 m of frontage on Bankside Drive and is intended to be developed with cluster townhouses. As the applicants are intending to develop the rear or the retained lands for a condominium or rental townhouse development, they wish to separate the two blocks fronting Bankside as this will be developed as the first phase development and is intended to be freehold ownership. The Department of Planning & Development has no concerns with the proposed severance and therefore recommends approval of Consent Applications B 30/96 & B 31/96 conditional upon the following: 1) The owner is required to provide 100% securities in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in an amount sufficient to guarantee the installation of any new services and the removal and replacement of any existing municipal services that may be required to service this property, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works. 2) To make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department of Public Works for the installation to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and retained lands. 3) The Owner shall enter into a Supplementary Subdivision Agreement as it pertains to Block 2, Registered Plan 1714, to add the following condition: a) The Subdivider agrees that the division of any lots or blocks by Part Lot Control shall be subject to sequential compliance with the following requirements: to obtain approval from the City's General Manager of Public Works of plans for each lot or block illustrating lotting, service connections, street utility hardware and proposed grades. ii) to submit a draft reference plan with respect to the division of lots and blocks having a lotting pattern in conformity with the approved engineering drawings and showing all required maintenance easements and eaves encroachments if the blocks are proposed for zero sideyard housing, and obtain approval of the draft reference plan from the Director of Building, Zoning and Inspections prior to the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law being presented to Council. 3. Submission No.'s B 30/96 & B 31/96 - Activa Development Corporation - cont'd iii) to receive final approval of a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law. iv) That the draft reference plan approved above shall be deposited in accordance with the Land Registry Act and three copies submitted to the Director of Building, Zoning and Inspections. No building permits shall be issued until the City is in receipt of such plans and provided such lots are in compliance with the approved reference plan. v) Any further division of lands to create additional building parcels shall require the submission of subsequent reference plans to be approved in accordance with steps b) and d) as set out above. 4) 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 Department of Planning & Culture for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no objection to the approval of these applications. The Committee noted the comments of Mrs. E. Caston, Senior Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority, in which she advised that the Authority has now had the opportunity the review the above noted proposal. Information currently available to the Authority indicates that portions of the retained parcel are below the elevation of the Regulatory Floodline of Sandrock Greenway and consequently are regulated under the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation. On December 2, 1994, the Executive Committee of the Grand River Conservation Authority approved application for Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways to permit no. 290/94 of Cybau Holdings Inc. for the development of 32 townhouse unit development. This application was approved subject to receipt of and review of detailed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 115 MAY 28, 1996 grading and sediment control plans. These plans were submitted to the Authority's satisfaction and the permit was subsequently issued on February 10, 1995. Based on this approval the Authority has no objection to the proposed severances as these applications will separate 16 of 32 units which front directly onto Bankside Drive. She advised that any additional work on this site will require additional approval under the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation. When questioned by the Committee Mr. Griesbaum advised that he was in support of the staff comments. Mr. W. Dahms questioned Ms. Given with respect to parkland dedication and she advised that it had been collected through the Plan of Subdivision. Submission No. B 30/96 Moved By Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Activa Development Corporation requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on Bankside Drive of 127.01 m (416.7 sq. ft.) by a depth of approximately 30 m (98.43 ft.) and having an area of 3,800 m2 (40,904 sq. ft.) on Part Block 2, Registered Plan 1714, Bankside Drive, Kitchener BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall provide 100% securities in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in amount sufficient to guarantee the installation of the any new services and the removal and replacement of any existing municipal services that may be required to service this property, to the satisfaction to the General Manager of Public Works. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping, including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed lands and retained lands. 3. Submission No.'s B 30/96 & B 31/96 - Activa Development Corporation - cont'd Submission No. B 30/96 - cont'd That the owner shall enter into a supplementary subdivision agreement as it pertains to Block 2, Registered Plan 1714, to add the following condition: a) The subdivider agrees that the division of any Lots or Blocks by Part Lot control shall be subject to sequential compliance with the following requirements: To obtain approval from the City's General Manager of Public Works of plans for each Lot or Block illustrating lotting, service connections, street utility hardware and proposed grades. To submit a draft reference plan with respect to the division of Lots & Blocks having a lotting pattern in conformity with the approved engineering drawing and showing all required maintenance easements and eave encroachments if the Blocks are proposed for 0 sideyard housing and obtain approval of the draft reference plan from the Director, Building, Zoning & Inspections prior to the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law being presented to Council. III) To receive final approval of a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law. That the draft reference plan, approved above, shall be deposited in accordance with the Land Registry Act and three copies submitted to the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections. No building permit shall be issued until the City is in receipt of such plans and provided such lots are in compliance with the approved reference plan. v) Any further division of lands to create additional building parcels shall require the submission of subsequent reference plans to be approved in accordance with steps II & IV as set out above. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 116 MAY 28, 1996 That the owner 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. 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 May 28, 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 31/96 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay 3. Submission No.'s B 30/96 & B 31/96 - Activa Development Corporation - cont'd Submission No. B 31/96 - cont'd That the application of Activa Development Corporation requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on Bankside Drive of 79.18 m (259.78 ft.) by a depth of approximately 30 m (98.43 ft.) and having an area of 1999 m2 (21,517.77 sq. ft.) on Part Block 2, Registered Plan 1714, Bankside Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall provide 100% securities in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in amount sufficient to guarantee the installation of any new services and the removal and replacement of any existing municipal services that may be required to service this property, to the satisfaction to the General Manger of Public Works. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping, including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed lands and retained lands. That the owner shall enter into a supplementary subdivision agreement as it pertains to Block 2, Registered Plan 1714, to add the following condition: a) The subdivider agrees that the division of any Lots or Blocks by Part Lot control shall be subject to sequential compliance with the following requirements: To obtain approval from the City's General Manager of Public Works of plans for each Lot or Block illustrating lotting, service connections, street utility hardware and proposed grades. To submit a draft reference plan with respect to the division of Lots & Blocks having a lotting pattern in conformity with the approved engineering drawing and showing all required maintenance easements and eave encroachments if the Blocks are proposed for 0 sideyard housing and obtain approval of the draft reference plan from the Director, Building, Zoning & Inspections prior to the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law being COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 117 MAY 28, 1996 presented to Council. III) To receive final approval of a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law. iv) That the draft reference plan, approved above, shall be deposited in accordance with the Land Registry Act and three copies submitted to the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections. No building permit shall be issued until the City is in receipt of such plans and provided such lots are in compliance with the approved reference plan. v) Any further division of lands to create additional building parcels shall require the submission of subsequent reference plans to be approved in accordance with steps II & IV as set out above. That the owner 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. 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 May 28, 1998. 3. Submission No.'s B 30/96 & B 31/96 - Activa Development Corporation - cont'd Submission No. B 31/96 - cont'd 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 4. Submission No. B 32~96 - Pailatzou Boghossian, 339 Queen Street South, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 7 & 8, Registered Plan 397, 351 Queen Street South, Kitchener, Ontario. The Committee was in receipt of a letter from the applicant's agents requesting permission to defer consideration of this application to the meeting to be held on December 10, 1996 and the Committee agreed to this request. ADJOURNED On Motion, the meeting adjourned. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 28th day of May 1996. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 118 MAY 28, 1996