Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1997-04-15COA\1997-04-15 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1997 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. J. Gothard, W. Dahms, D. McKnight, S. Kay and A. Galloway. Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, R. Morgan, Co-ordinator, Administration and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Zoning Mr. J. Gothard, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of March 25, 1997, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS 1. Submission No. A 44/97 - Mr. Stuart Janzen, 780 Belmont Street West, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 1, Registered Plan 1398, Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. A. Lichtenheldt 97 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant has changed his proposed development. The proposed house will now meet the required setback from Glasgow Street but, as a result, will have a rearyard variance. The proposed rearyard will be 6.038 m (19.81 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). Mr. Lichtenheldt addressed the Committee and advised that the applicant, Mr. Stuart Janzen, is withdrawing this application. 2. Submission No. A 52/97 - Windsor (United) Cabs Limited, 150 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 19, Plan 374, 150 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 120 APRIL 15, 1997 APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. K. Moser United Cabs 150 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario 2. Submission No. A 52/97 - Windsor (United) Cabs Limited - cont'd CONTRA: Mr. D. Knarr 24 Wellington Street North Kitchener, Ontario WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: Mr. D. Knarr 100 Ahrens Street West Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second storey addition, which will be as large as the first storey and will create the following variances: a northerly sideyard of 0.88 m (2.89 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and a rearyard of 4.5 m (14.77 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Development Department in which they advised that the owner is requesting relief from the side yard and rear yard provisions of the C-6 Zone, in order to construct a full second storey addition, having the same dimensions as the existing one storey building. The existing building has a rear (east) yard of 4.53m and a side (north) yard of 0.88m, whereas the by-law requires 7.5m and 3.0m respectively. The by-law defines the use as "transportation depot" and requires no parking for this use. The plan submitted with the application is not current. The gas pump island has been removed, and a propane dispensing area added between the building and Ahrens Street. The proposed addition will require site plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act. Variances are not usually recommended until after site plan approval; however, in this case the addition has no significant site planning implications as the site is fully developed and no additional parking is required by the by-law. The owner of adjoining lands to the north, addressed as 100 Ahrens Street, had raised concerns relating to parking and vehicle waiting spaces. These concerns have now been addressed by the applicant. The existing building contains two service bays in which cab drivers do minor maintenance and repair work. There are no employees associated directly with the service bays. The remainder of the building contains the dispatch office and the administrative/accounting office, with a total of 4 employees. The addition is proposed as office space is extremely limited, and the applicant has confirmed that no additional staff are proposed. Without the variance, it would still be possible to construct a second storey addition having approximately 62% of the floor area proposed, but this would be prohibitively expensive based on structural design requirements. Therefore the effect of the variance is to allow a doubling of the floor area. Even though the by-law does not require parking for transportation depots, consideration of the variance should include the functioning of the site in relation to vehicle parking and waiting spaces. The site has adequate but limited ability to provide on-site parking and taxi waiting spaces. Overflow parking has at times affected the neighbouring property owner. While the addition may provide for the possibility of additional on-site staff, the owner does not intend to hire additional staff, but merely intends to remedy the current overcrowding. On-site taxi waiting spaces are not essential to the operation. If additional parking is developed in the future, taxi waiting spaces could be eliminated altogether. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 121 APRIL 15, 1997 The impact of the variance is minor as no additional staff are proposed, no additional parking is required and the addition is no closer to the lot lines than the existing building. 2. Submission No. A 52/97 - Windsor (United) Cabs Limited - cont'd The proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the by-law and official plan by providing adequate separation from the building to the lot lines and adjacent buildings. The variance is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land as it allows for additional office space without increasing the lot coverage. The applicant should clarify whether the eaves are accommodated within the requested variance. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A52/97, subject to the following condition: That site plan approval be obtained from the Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment, prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Committee considered the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that, given the limited area available for vehicle circulation and parking, any additional parking generated by the proposed expansion may not be able to be accommodated on the site. This would generate overflow parking on adjacent residential streets or on adjacent private property which is undesirable. The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new second floor. There shall be no openings in a wall located less than 1.2 m from the property line. The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Engineering, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, in which they advised that, at this location, Victoria Street has an existing road allowance width of 66 ft. and a designated road allowance width of 86 ft.; therefore, a 10 ft. road widening is required from this property. A 25 ft. daylighting triangle is also required at the intersection of Victoria Street and Ahrens Street. They stated that it may not be appropriate to require the road widening and daylighting triangle under this application. The chairman spoke to Mr. Moser in reference to the neighbourhood concerns and questioned whether they have been addressed. Mr. D. Knarr advised that some concerns have been addressed but questioned what happens during construction, as this wall is less than a metre from his property. Mr. Moser advised that he has talked with his contractor and this matter can be looked after. Mr. S. Kay questioned what the proposed use of the addition is and Mr. Moser advised that currently the front of the building is the dispatch and the back is an office. The desire for the second storey is to provide a proper office space and proper space for computers and there will be no increase in staff. Mr. A. Galloway advised that he had read the comments of various staff and he moved approval of the application subject to the requested conditions. This motion was seconded by Mr. D. McKnight. The Chairman questioned whether there would be eaves and Mr. Moser advised that there would be no eaves overhanging. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of Windsor (United) Cabs Limited requesting permission to construct a second storey addition with a northerly sideyard of 0.88 m (2.89 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and rearyard of 4.5 m (14.77 ft.) rather than the 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Part Lot 19, Registered Plan 374, 150 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That site plan approval be obtained from the City's Manager of Design, Heritage & Environment prior to the issuance of any building permits. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 122 APRIL 15, 1997 2. Submission No. A 52/97 - Windsor (United) Cabs Limited - cont'd 2. That a building permit shall be obtained for the construction of the new second storey and there shall be no openings in a wall located less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) from the property line. 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. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried 3. Submission No. A 53/97 - City of Kitchener, 200 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 12 and Part of Lots 9 and 14, Municipal Compiled Plan 959, Fairway Road at King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. L. Proulx Facilities Management City of Kitchener CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised is proposing to construct a Fire Station on this site and requires a variance to the westerly sideyard. The proposed sideyard is 1 m (3.28 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development is which they advised that the application is seeking approval to reduce the southerly side yard set back from 3.0 metres to 1.0 metres. The subject proposal will house a new Fire Station. The width of the lot can accommodate the proposed structure without variances, however the placement of the building is restricted by the location of an existing storm drain. In this regard, the proposed northerly side yard is 6.5 metres and the proposed southerly side yard is 1.0 metre. The property is surrounded to the north by residential development and to the south and east by commercial. In this regard, a greater set back from the residential uses is desirable. The plaza on the commercial site to the south of the subject lands has a zero yard which abuts the subject lands as the lands subject to this application were formerly part of a railway right-of-way. Regulations in the Zoning By-law allow commercial developments adjacent to railway rights-of-way no yard requirements along the length of the railway right-of-way. In view of this, the abutting plaza was developed with a blank wall so there would be no maintenance requirements. In view of the location of the existing storm drain and the proximity of the adjacent residential uses the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. The proposed variance is considered minor, as there will be little or no impact on the adjacent property since the plaza wall abutting the proposed Fire Station has no windows or doors 3. Submission No. A 53/97 - City of Kitchener - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 123 APRIL 15, 1997 and since it is a commercial use. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law as the wall will be constructed to special building code standards to address maintenance between buildings and since the separation between buildings is limited due to the location of the adjacent plaza and the existing storm drain. In view of the forgoing, the Department of Planning and Development supports the reduction in the southerly side yard set back from 3.0 metres to 1.0 metres. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of variance application A 53/97 subject to the following condition: That the variance shall apply to the development as approved under application SP9714/F/PB, as generally shown on the site plan attached dated, revised March 7, 1997 with minor changes being permitted to the finally approved site plan provided they do not alter the variances to the by-law. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Engineering, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, in which they advised that all Regional requirements for this development are being addressed under Site Plan Application SP 97/4/K/PB. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Proulx advised that plans for the fire station were designed some years ago and it has been modified to reshape the building on this site. Mr. A. Galloway questioned planning staff with respect to site plan approval and Ms. J. Given responded that this project has been through the Project Review Committee and no other variances are required. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of the City of Kitchener requesting permission to construct a fire station with a southerly sideyard of 1 m (3.28 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) on Lot 12 and Part Lots 9 & 14, Municipal Compiled Plan 959, Fairway Road at King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the development as approved under application SP 97/4/K/PB, as generally shown on the site plan dated revised March 7, 1997, with minor changes being permitted to the final approved site plan provided that they do not alter the variances to the by-law. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 54/97 - Joe & Donna Schmuck, 12 Brubacker Street, Elmira Ontario Re: Part Lot 33, Plan 384, 78 Kehl Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. J. Schmuck 12 Brubacker Street Elmira, ON 4. Submission No. A 54/97 - Joe & Donna Schmuck - cont'd Mr. J. Holland COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 124 APRIL 15, 1997 c/o Sharp Realty Ltd. 420 Erb Street West Waterloo, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing triplex having a sideyard of 0.95 m (3.1 ft.) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.), an attached garage having a sideyard of 0.83 m (2.7 ft.) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.) and four parking spaces in tandem, two in the garage and two in the driveway, rather than four parking spaces side-by-side. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the subject lands are municipally addressed 78 Kehl Street and are presently developed with a 1.5 storey house which is currently used as a triplex. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and are Zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The use of the property for a triplex is a permitted use, subject to compliance with the regulations. The applicant is requesting two minor variances with respect to the existing structure and use. First, a reduction in left and right side yards from 0.82 metres and 0.94 metres respectively, rather than the required 2.5 metres is requested. Second, a variance to the parking provisions of the Zoning By-law is requested to allow the required parking to be provided in tandem. Typically, because the existing structure dates back to 1950 and 1953, the side yards would be legalized by virtue of the vacuum clause in the Zoning By-law. The vacuum clause deems all yards to be legal for a residentially zoned structure existing on or before October 11, 1994, relative only to the use existing at that time. As it is unclear whether or not the structure was used as a triplex as of October 11, 1994, approval of a minor variance may be technically necessary to legalize the existing triplex. However, the structure has existed since the 1950's with the current side yards whether used as a triplex or any other permitted residential use. The Zoning By-law requires that three parking spaces be provided for a triplex dwelling although the applicant wishes to establish four parking spaces. A parking space is defined such that access to it must be provided directly from the parking space to a public street without the necessity of moving any other motor vehicle. Because two of the parking spaces are provided within the existing two-car garage, the establishment the other two spaces would have to be provided directly in front of the garage in a tandem situation. All four of the proposed parking spaces would still be located more than 6.0 metres from the property line and behind the existing front of the structure. The requested variances are clearly minor in nature and can be considered to be in general conformity with both the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. Further, since the situation is existing and the property has been used periodically for a triplex for approximately 40 years without complaint, the requested variances can be considered appropriate. Accordingly, the Planning and Development Department recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 54/97. The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Minor Variance Application A 54/97 be approved, without conditions. The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. 4. Submission No. A 54/97 - Joe & Donna Schmuck - cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have no concerns regarding the proposed parking arrangements. The Committee considered the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 125 APRIL 15, 1997 advised that they have no objection to the minor variance which would legalize the existing triplex. Ms. J. Given responded that the by-law requires only three off-street parking spaces for this triplex so the variance is only for one space in tandem. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Joe and Donna Schmuck requesting legalization of an existing triplex with a sideyard of 0.95 m (3.1 ft.) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.), an attached garage having a sideyard of 0.83 m (2.7 ft.) rather than the required 2.4 m (8.21 ft.) and for 3 parking spaces in tandem, two in the garage and one in the driveway, rather than 3 parking spaces side by side on Part Lot 33, Registered Plan 384, 78 Kehl Street, 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 Submission No. A 55/97 - Michael & Jannete Wry, 59 Westmeadow Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Re: Part Block 12, Registered Plan 1811, Being Part 28, Reference Plan 58R-9744, 59 Meadow Woods Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. S. McKechnie 124 King Street North Waterloo, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing single family dwelling with a westerly sideyard of 1.06 m (3.48 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing single family dwelling with a westerly sideyard of 1.06 m (3.48 ft) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft). The dwelling, which was constructed in 1996, was not built in accordance with the building permit. The difference between what is required by the by-law and what actually exists results in a deficiency of 0.14 m (0.46 ft). 5. Submission No. A 55/97 - Michael & Jannete Wry - cont'd It is noted that the requested variance recognizes an existing situation and that the resulting deficiency in the sideyard requirement is a small percentage of what is actually required. In addition, the sideyard of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 126 APRIL 15, 1997 1.06 m (3.48 ft) still allows for the exterior maintenance of the structure. Based on the above, it is the opinion of staff that the subject variance is minor in nature and the general intent of the by-law is being met. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variance applying to the structure as shown on the survey submitted with the application, prepared by Stewart McKechnie, and dated 1996. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that there should be no openings in a wall located less than 1.2 m from the property line. The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. W. Dahms questioned Mr. McKechnie with respect to the Building, Zoning & Inspections comments and questioned whether he could verify that there are no openings along that wall of the building until the sideyard is large enough. Mr. McKechnie responded that he did advise his clients of that but he cannot confirm it although, it is his understanding that there are no openings. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Michael & Jannete Wry requesting legalization of an existing single family dwelling with a westerly sideyard of 1.06 m (3.48 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Part Block 12, Registered Plan 1811, being Part 28, Reference Plan 58R-9744, 59 Meadow Woods Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: 1. That there shall be no openings in the wall located less than 1.2 m from the property line. 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 Submission No. A 56/97 -Voisin Developments Limited, 421 Greenbrook Kitchener, Ontario Lot 8 and Part Lot 9, Plan 439, 170-174 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario. Drive, APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. G. Voisin 421 Greenbrook Drive Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE 6. Submission No. A 56/97 - Voisin Developments Limited - cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to use 51.75 m2 (557 sq. ft.) of space for a personal service use. The building has a total floor area of 367.89 m2 (3,960 sq. ft.). The by- COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 127 APRIL 15, 1997 law requires that a building contain a minimum of 4,700 m2 (50,592.04 sq. ft.) before a personal service use can occupy the building. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the application seeks approval to locate a personal service in a building containing 367 square metres (3,950 square feet) of space designed for office, whereas the by-law requires that personal services can only be located in a building containing certain CR-1 uses, including office, in which case such building must contain a minimum of 4700 square metres (50,592 square feet) of gross floor area. The owner wishes to occupy a small portion of the building located at 170 Victoria Street South for an unlicensed massage therapist, which is considered a personal service. According to the owner, the building contains a total gross floor area of 367 square metres, in which an office occupies the second, third and part of the basement floor. The personal service would occupy 51.7 square metres (557 square feet) in the basement, comprising 14% of the total floor area. The Municipal Plan designation is Low Density Commercial Residential which permits personal services (and convenience retail) internal to a large residential, office or mixed use building. The intent of the policies and the zoning regulation is to ensure that personal services and convenience retail do not constitute a large part of a new development, and should be more ancillary to the main commercial and/or residential uses in an area. It is recognized that in many of the commercial residential areas, the existing building stock will be maintained and used for some time before redevelopment occurs, if ever. This is true relative to many streets like Victoria Street in which much of the commercial development is occurring in converted residential structures. As such, it is the opinion of staff that the intent of the Municipal Plan and zoning by-law is met as this use is intended to occupy a small part of an existing office building, as more of a transition use. Additionally, since it is unrealistic to expect that large scale redevelopment in the CR zones will be prevalent, and in order to allow some personal services uses to occupy existing buildings, the variance is appropriate for the development of this property. The variance is minor in nature as the regulation governing the proportion of building used for personal services is maintained, which is a maximum of 20%. This use would occupy a maximum of 14% of the gross floor area of the building. The approval of this variance is contingent upon the personal service use not constituting more than 20%of the gross floor area of the building. For the information of the Committee, for the reasons set out in this report, it is the intent of the Department of Planning and Development to initiate a City-wide Municipal Plan Amendment and zone change to more clearly implement the intent of these mixed commercial-residential areas, by permitting personal services in CR zones in existing buildings only without the need to be accessory to other permitted CR uses. The parking for this building is jointly developed with the abutting property, which is under the same ownership. In order to determine if sufficient parking is available for the additional use, the occupancy permits for 174 and 170 Victoria Street were reviewed. Compared to the information on occupants provided with this application, the occupancy permits for both properties appear to be outdated or incomplete. Although it appears according to the applicant's information that sufficient parking can be accommodated on site, it is only with accurate information provided on the occupancy permits that the required parking can be determined. Further, the site has not been completely developed in accordance with the approved site plan and the Traffic department is concerned that there may be on site traffic circulation problems. Specifically, the four parking spaces adjacent to 170 Victoria Street are aligned in a manner opposite to those shown on the approved plan and the one way access driveways are not functioning as such due to lack of proper signage. Accordingly, the site should be developed in accordance with the approved site plan. 6. Submission No. A 56/97 - Voisin Developments Limited - cont'd It should be noted that with respect to non-registered massage therapists, Council recently passed by-law 97-40, as amended, which prohibits non-registered massagists and body-rub parlours, except at locations specified in the by-law. Comments contained in this report shall in no way be construed to assign any rights under Chapter 560 of the Municipal Code in this regard. That A-56/97 permitting a personal service to be located within a building at 170 Victoria Street South, containing 367 square metres designed for office be approved, provided the personal service use does not occupy more than 20% of the gross floor area of the building, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 128 APRIL 15, 1997 That the owner confirm that sufficient parking is provided at 170 and 174 Victoria Street to meet the by-law requirements for uses in both buildings, which shall be substantiated through the submission of occupancy permits for all uses at 170 and 174 Victoria Street, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Community Planning and Development Review; and That the owner demarcate the parking on site in accordance with the Site Plan dated revised 82 01 04, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Community Planning and Development Review, and That the owner install one way signs at each of the three driveways to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic and Parking services Division, all prior to May 15, 1997. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Manager of Community Planning and Development Review prior to the completion date set out in this decision. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required for any construction undertaken as a result of the new use. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advise that the site must be developed in accordance with the approved site plan. The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advise that, at this location, Victoria Street has an existing road allowance width of 66 ft. and a designated road allowance width of 86 ft.; therefore, a 10 ft. road widening is required on Victoria Street. Park Street has an existing and designated road allowance width of 66 ft.; therefore, no further road widening is required from Park Street. A 50 ft. daylighting triangle is also required at the intersection of Park Street and Victoria Street. It may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening and daylighting triangle under this application. The Chairman questioned Mr. Voisin as to whether any construction is required and Mr. Voisin advised that there would be no new construction. The Committee questioned Mr. Voisin with respect to the May 15th deadline requested by the Department of Planning & Development and whether he had any concerns, to which he responded that there were none. Ms. Given was then questioned as to the need for the May 15th deadline and she responded that it not absolute and that an extension can be given. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Voisin Developments Limited requesting permission to locate a personal service use in a building containing 367 m2 designated for office on Lot 8 and Part Lot 9, Registered Plan 439, 170-174 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the personal service use shall not occupy more than 20% of the gross floor area of the building. 6. Submission No. A 56/97 - Voisin Developments Limited - cont'd That the owner shall confirm that sufficient parking is provided at 170 and 174 Victoria Street South to meet the by-law requirements for uses in both buildings; which shall be substantiated through the submission of occupancy permits for all uses at 170 & 174 Victoria Street South, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Community Planning & Development Review; and further That the owner shall demarcate the parking on site in accordance with the site plan dated revised 82 01 04, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Community Planning & Development Review; and further That the owner shall install one-way signs at each of the three driveways to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic & Parking Services Division; and further COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 129 APRIL 15, 1997 That this condition shall be satisfied prior to May 15, 1997. shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Development Review, prior to May 15, 1997. No extension to this completion dated Manager of Community Planning & 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 Submission No. A 57/97 - 503589 Ontario Inc., 107 Oxford Street, Ontario Kitchener, Re: Part Block B, Registered Plan 1257, Being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-893, Hazelglen Drive and Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Lutzer 107 Oxford Street Kitchener, ON CONTRA: Mrs. L. Anton 66 Hazelglen Drive, Unit 1 Kitchener, ON WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: Mrs. L. Anton 66 Hazelglen Drive, Unit 1 Kitchener, ON The Committee was advised the applicant is proposing to develop this site with an eighteen unit apartment building and requires variances for parking. The request is to provide 28 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 32 and for 1 off-street parking space to be setback 2.44 m (8 ft.) from Hazelglen Drive rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is proposing to construct a two and a half stow apartment building containing 18 units on the southeast corner of Hazelglen Drive and Mooregate Crescent. The land is currently vacant. The variances requested are for a reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces from 32 to 28 and a request to locate parking 2.4 metres from the property line rather than the required 3.0 metres. 7. Submission No. A 57/97 - 503589 Ontario Inc. - cont'd The owner received site plan approval on the subject lands for an 18 unit apartment building in November of 1988. Subsequent to this approval, Stage 7 of the Comprehensive By-law 85-1 was approved, increasing the parking requirement for multiples containing between 13 to 60 units to 1.75 spaces per unit. The proposal was approved and registered on title based on the regulations of Zoning By-law 4830. It has been staff's position generally to give consideration to developments which were approved under By-law 4830 and as a result a number of properties were identified and special regulations were applied. This property was not given such consideration as it was not known that a site plan was registered. The applicant proposes to make some minor changes to the site which would improve the site design and bring the plan closer into conformity with By-law 85-1. One of the improvements proposed as a result of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 130 APRIL 15, 1997 the site changes is to increase in the number of parking spaces from the originally proposed 23 spaces to 28 spaces. The owner has optimized the required parking on site by providing a parking ratio of 1.6 spaces per unit. The parking requirements under By-law 85-1 change depending on the number of units proposed. For example, the requirement for multiple dwellings containing between 6 and 12 units or greater than 61 units is 1.5 spaces per unit. It was found through a parking study that an increased parking ratio was required generally depending on the number of variables such as number of units, users (ie. seniors) and their location in relation to transit service. The regulations were developed from the study and various ranges in numbers of units were identified. Since the 18 unit apartment is at a Iow end of the spectrum in its category the parking ratio of 1.6 spaces per unit is acceptable and meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. A second variance was created as a result of the changes to the parking area, being the location of one parking space 2.4 metres from the property line rather than 3.0 metres. This reduction is considered minor in nature as only a small portion of one parking space will be located closer than 3.0 metres to the property line and the impact of this will be minor. As a result of the improvements proposed the variances are considered desirable for the appropriate development to the subject lands. The attached site plan submitted illustrates that the site can accommodate 29 off-street parking spaces, however there has been no provision for on-site garbage which will eliminate one of the 29 spaces. The changes to the plan are acceptable however a minor change to the approved site plan will be required as a result of the proposed changes. In view of this, the Department of Planning and Development has no objections to the variances as revised subject to the application receiving approval for the minor change to the site plan. That Committee of Adjustment Application A 57/97 be approved subject to the following condition: That the variance shall apply to the development in accordance with a minor change to the approved site plan, with further minor changes being permitted to the approved site plan provided they do not alter the variances to the by-law. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required for the new building. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division in which he states that the Division is opposed to the parking deficiency and setback variance as proposed. The density of existing residential development in this area has resulted in the implementation of significant on-street parking restrictions in order to address emergency services, traffic operation and safety problems. A parking shortfall on this site could further negatively impact the adjacent streets. With regard to the setback variance from Hazelglen Drive, it is our view that it is imperative that the minimum 3 m setback be provided in order to maintain optimum sight lines from this driveway entrance particularly given traffic conditions on Hazelglen Drive and pedestrian activity in this area. The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised they have no concerns with this application. 7. Submission No. A 57/97 - 503589 Ontario Inc. - cont'd The Chairman clarified whether the number of parking spaces noted in the application include the 2 spaces in the garage and Mr. Lutzer advsied that they are included. The Committee then asked Mrs. Anton to explain her objections. Mrs. Anton advised that in previous years, they have had problems with this empty lot; now they are concerned about a lack of privacy; also, a lot of parking is needed for this development and she is concerned that they may start using her parking. Mr. S. Kay questioned staff concerning the provision of visitor parking and Ms. J. Given responded that 32 spaces are required for this development and 20% of these have to be signed for visitors. Mr. D. McKnight noted that the objector and the Traffic & Parking Division have identified similar concerns. Ms. Given responded that they had some disuccions with Traffic staff however Planning staff don't have traffic expertise. The Planning Department comments are based on by-law requirements. Mr. W. Dahms questioned whether the previous site plan was for the same number of units and if adequate parking was to be provided? Mr. Lutzer responded that that was so, however, the by-law has COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 131 APRIL 15, 1997 been changed. Mr. Dahms questioned whether consideration had been given to reducing the number of uinits. Mr. Luzer advised that this is the same development for which he previously received approval. He did not realize there was a need to come to this Committee because he already had an approved site plan. Mr. Dahms then questioned the distance between the travelled protion of the road allowance and the property line. Mr. Lutzer advised that there is 5 ft. between the property line and the sidewalk, then there is a boulevard and then the pavement. The Chairman questioned, when a planner decides that a number of parking spaces per unit is required, such as 32, is this a minimum level or a desirable level. Ms. J. Given advised that this is an average level, taking into consideration a number of soci-economic factors. Mr. S. Kay questioned the purpose of the 2 car garage and Mr. Lutzer advised that this would be his home and they are for his use. Mr. D. McKnight questioned whether the Traffic & Parking Division has input at the site plan approval stage and whether their comments would be taken into consideration. Ms. given advised that that was so but the Committee's decision would be the basis. Mr. D. McKnight stated that he was prepared to move approval of the applicaton but wished to have the Traffic & Parking Division consulted at the site plan stage. Mr. S. Kay questioned whether the site plan for this development has already been approved. Mr. Given responded that there is an application to revise the site plan because of the change in parking. Mr. s. Kay then advised that he was opposed to the motion as the parking requirement has been change for practical considerations; further, the site plan could be revised to add parking spaces. He also stated that the garages are a personal touch and safety issues should not be sacrificed. Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of 503589 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct an 18 unit apartment building with 28 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 32 off-street parking spaces with 1 of the parking spaces located 2.44 m (8 ft.) from the Iotline along Hazelglen Drive rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) on Part Block B, Registered Plan 1257 being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-893, Hazelglen Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 7. Submission No. A 57/97 - 503589 Ontario Inc. - cont'd 1. That the Traffic & Parking Division shall be consulted in the approval of the revised site plan. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the development in accordance with a minor change to the approved site plan; with further minor changes being permitted to to the approved site plan, provided they do not alter the variances to the by-law. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried 8. Submission No. A 58/97 - Kinwalt Investments Limited, 741 King Street West, Kitchener Ontario The Committee was in receipt of a request from the applicant's agent to defer consideration of this COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 132 APRIL 15, 1997 application to the meeting of May 6, 1997 and the Committee agreed to this request. Submission No. A 59/97 - 839743 Ontario Limited, 81 Cedar Street South, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 17, Plan 31,225-227 Weber Street West, Kitchener, Ontario. The Committee was in receipt of a request from the applicant's agent to defer consideration of this application to the meeting of May 6, 1997 and the Committee agreed to this request. CONSENT UNFINISHED BUSINESS Submission No. B 9/97 - CAA Mid-Western Ontario, 148 Manitou Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 11, Registered Plan 791 being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-866, 836 Courtland Avenue East, Kitchener, Ontario. The Committee was in receipt of request from the applicant's agent to defer consideration of this application to the meeting of May 6, 1997 and the Committee agreed to this request. APPLICATIONS Submission No. B 25/97 - Ellie Lochrie and Mary Ida Pierce, 102 & 104 Strathcona Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario Lot No. 68, Registered Plan No. 1177, 102 & 104 Strathcona Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. L. Way c/o Madorin Snyder 235 King Street East Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE 1. Submission No. B 25/97 - Ellie Lochrie and Mary Ida Pierce - cont'd WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to divide the semi-detached dwellings at 102 & 104 Strathcona Crescent so that each dwelling can be dealt with independently. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to divide the semi-detached so that each dwelling can conveyed independently. Staff have reviewed the application and note that the property is in compliance with all zoning regulations of By-law 85-1. The Department of Public Works has expressed no concerns or comments with respect to servicing issues with this property. Accordingly, the Department recommends that the application be approved subject to the following condition: 1. That the owners shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City's Department of Finance for the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 133 APRIL 15, 1997 payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that staff have no objection to the approval of this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that the existing electrical service to the proposed severance now crosses the parcel to be retained. The service must be relocated to an existing easement across the rear of both parcels. Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Ellie Lochrie and Mary Ida Pierce requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Strathcona Crescent of 6.1 m (20 ft.) having an irregular shape and having a area of 577.93 m2 (6,221 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 68, Registered Plan 1177, 102 Strathcona Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the applicants shall make satisfactory arrangements with the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the relocation of the electrical services. 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 41 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 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2 years from the date of approval, being April 15, 1999. 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. Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Submission No. B 25/97 - Ellie Lochrie and Mary Ida Pierce - cont'd 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 26/97 - Central Baptist Church, 419 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 15, Registered Plan 384, 415 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario. CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Mr. A. Lichtenheldt 97 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON NONE NONE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 134 APRIL 15, 1997 CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever the triplex at 415 Mill from the rest of the land owned by the Church. The severed lands will have a width of 15.24 m (50 ft.) by a depth of 33.528 m (110 ft.) and will have an area of 510.95 m2 (55,000 sq. ft.). The use is intended to remain a triplex. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant, Central Baptist Church, is requesting consent to sever an existing developed property from the current church land holdings at the intersection of Mill Street and Ottawa Street. The subject lands are municipally addressed 415 Mill Street and are presently developed with a legal non-conforming triplex. Since the property is presently developed with a legal non-conforming triplex, there are no specific regulations which apply to the property with respect to such zoning matters as minimum yard and lot area requirements. However, having a width of 15.24 metres and an area of 511 square metres, the proposed lot is sufficiently sized to enable it to be developed for any of the permitted I-1 uses. The lands to be severed were originally a separate lot but merged with the adjacent Central Baptist Church lands on which a dwelling is located. The severance of this lot will in no way affect the viability of the larger church landholding. Accordingly, the Planning and Development Department recommends approval of Consent Application B 26/97. The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Consent Application A 26/97 be approved subject to the following conditions: That any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvements be paid to the City of Kitchener. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that, at this location, Ottawa Street has an existing road allowance width of 66 ft. and a designated allowance of 86 ft. The Region will therefore require a road widening measured 46 ft. from the centre line of the existing asphalt on Ottawa Street. This widening is needed to accommodate future road improvements and utility requirements. As a condition of approval they requested that the applicant convey 17 ft. of the required widening to the Region free and clear of any encumbrances. The Region will negotiate the purchase of the remainder of the widening from the applicant if required. A 25 ft. daylighting triangle is also required at the intersection of Ottawa Street and Pattandon Avenue. 2. Submission No. B 26~97 - Central Baptist Church - cont'd There was a discussion between the Committee members, staff and the applicant's agent with respect to some confusion of the Regional requested conditions. There was a discussion as to whether a road widening would cause minor variances and there was also a discussion amongst the Committee members as to whether or not it was appropriate to impose these conditions on the retained lands, under these circumstances. It was agreed by all parties that consideration of this application be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting of May 6, 1997, in order to obtain some clarification from the Department of Planning & Culture at the Region of Waterloo. Submission No. B 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for Humanity Waterloo Region, 159 Herbert Street, Waterloo, Ontario Re: Part of Lot 38, Registered Plan 775 and Part of River Road Closed, 250 Fairway Road North, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. P. Dietrich 150 Water Street South Cambridge, ON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 135 APRIL 15, 1997 CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE Mr. Dietrich addressed the Committee requesting permission to defer consideration of these applications to the meeting to be held on May 6, 1997 in order to discuss this proposal further with the Department of Planning & Culture at the Region of Waterloo. The Committee agreed to this request. ADJOURNED On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th, day of April 1997. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment