Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1998-06-30COA\1998-06-30 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 30, 1998 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell, Mr. W. Dahms and Mr. A. Galloway OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Morgan, Co-ordinator Zoning Administration, and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of June 9, 1998, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried MINOR VARIANCE UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No. A 35/98 - Zdeno Cycle Centre Ltd., R.R. 2, Breslau, Ontario Re: Part 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-6975, 137B Bloomingdale Road, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. Z. Syrovy R.R.2 Breslau, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming single family dwelling by constructing an addition and a roofed porch. The property is legal non- conforming because it does not have frontage on a public street. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development, dated June 2, 1998, in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to extend or enlarge an existing legal non- conforming building. The building is a single detached dwelling, which was built in 1950, on a Lot which has no frontage on public street. The Lot was created by Consent together with a variance from the provisions of the Planning Zoning By-law which requires frontage on a public street. The lot was rezoned into comprehensive zoning by-law 85-1 making the lot legal non-conforming with respect to its lack of frontage. When the Consent Application was made in 1992, there were two dwellings on one lot, as two former lots had merged in title. Staff recommended against creating these 0 frontage lots on the basis that it would perpetuate the existence of the dwelling and that it would prejudice the potential for orderly infilling development in the future, contrary to the Bridgeport East Community Plan. COk~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 225 JUi~E 30. 1998 The existing dwelling is a modest one and half storey dwelling with a building floor area of 88 m2 (950 sq. ft.). The current proposal would increase the floor area of the dwelling by 105 m2 (1135 sq. ft.) which represents a 119% increase. The proposed roof porch would add another 63 m~ (680 sq. ft.) for 1. Submission No. A 35/98 - Zdeno Cycle Centre Ltd., cont'd a total increase of 190% or nearly three times the building floor area of the existing dwelling. This is a very substantial increase of the both the area and value of the building and would most certainly have the effect of perpetuating the legal non-conforming use. Further more, this area has the potential for further residential development by plan of subdivision. The lands between Schaefer Park and the City's eastern limit are designated as Iow rise residential in the Official Plan and are zoned R-3 in the Zoning By-law. Most existing buildings are close to Bloomingdale Road or along the slopes of the Grand River Valley. There is a substantial area of rear land, as shown on the attached air photo, with potential for development. The subject dwelling and the one immediately south would appear to be the only buildings which could prejudice the potential for orderly infilling development. The Department of Planning & Development recommends refusal of Submission No. A 35/98. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for the new addition. Mr. Syrovy provided the Committee members with a sketch showing the proposed new addition, being less than the one proposed in the original application. He requested permission to amend his application accordingly. Ms. J. Given advised the Committee that she had spoken with the applicant and understands that he now proposes a 61 m~ addition, representing a 69% increase in the size of the dwelling. She advised that the staff comments still stand as this proposed addition will perpetuate the use. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Zdeno Cycle Centre Ltd. requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming single family dwelling by constructing a 61 m~ (656.62 sq. ft.) addition onto the rear of the building on Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-6975, 137B Bloomingdale Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall apply for and receive approval of a building permit prior to constructing the addition. That the owner shall obtain approval from the Waterloo Regional Health Unit confirming the adequacy of the private water & sewer systems and provide written copies of such approvals to the City's Chief Building Official prior to the issuance of any building permits. It is the opinion of this Committee that the use of the property as a single family dwelling is a legal non- conforming use. APPLICATIONS Submission No. A 54/98 & VT 1/98 - Estate of Zenta Peters, 82 Oxford Street, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 77, Registered Plan 660, 86 Oxford Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. B. Wolf 82 Weber Street East Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE C0~ITTEE OF ADJUgT1MENT 226 JlJl~E 3~ 199~ WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: NONE NONE 1. Submission No. A 54/98 & VT 1/98 - Estate of Zenta Peters, cont'd The Committee was advised the applicant requests legalization of an existing detached garage having a southerly sideyard of 0.42 m (1.38 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee was also advised that the applicant is requesting validation of a transfer of land which took place on July 31, 1997, without Consent approval. The property has a frontage of 15.24 m (50 ft.) by a depth of 53.32 m (175.6 ft.) and an area of 815.69 m2 (8,780 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that this application for Validation of Title pertains to 86 Oxford Street, containing a single detached dwelling and accessory garage. Zenta Peters became the owner of both 82 and 86 Oxford Street, which caused them to merge. In July, 1997, the estate of Zenta Peters transferred 86 Oxford Street by deed to Walter Inkas, without consent approval under Section 53 of the Planning Act. No certificate may be issued under Section 57 of the Planning Act unless the certificate conforms with the official plan and zoning by-law. The single detached dwelling conforms with the Official Plan, however, the sideyard of the detached garage is in contravention of the Zoning By-law requirement of 1.2 metres (4 feet), as it is located 1.38 feet from the side lot line of the lands subject to the validation of title. Accordingly, the certificate may be issued only upon final approval of a minor variance application to permit an accessory structure to have a sideyard of 0.42 metres (1.38 feet) rather than 1.2 metres (4 feet). Otherwise, the detached structure could be removed so as to comply. Application A-54/98 seeks approval for the location of the detached garage. Staff have no concerns supporting the minor variance as the building is existing and with the issuance of the certificate under Section 57, the lot line will be recreated in its original location. Until the properties merged, the building enjoyed legal, non-conforming status relative to this sideyard. Staff note that it would appear as though a consent or validation of title certificate would be required relative to 82 Oxford Street as well. The Department of Planning and Development recommends: 1. Approval of Submission A-54/98 without conditions. 2. Approval of Submission VT 1/98 subject to the following condition: a) Final approval of Minor Variance Application A-54/98 or demolition or moving of the detached garage in compliance with the By-law requirements. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the applicant shall ensure that no roof drainage is directed onto the adjacent property. With respect to the comments of the Director of Building, Mr. B. Wolf advised the Committee that the roof drainage from the garage is directed into the rearyard of a 86 Oxford Street and that the garage is fully eaved. Submission No. A 54/98 Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of the Estate of Zenta Peters requesting permission for a detached garage having a southerly sideyard of 0.42 m (1.38 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Part Lot 77, Plan 660, 86 Oxford Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: 1. That the applicant shall ensure the roof drainage from the garage is directed onto the applicant's COHHITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 227 JUlgE 30. 1998 own property. 1. Submission No. A 54/98 & VT 1/98 - Estate of Zenta Peters, cont'd Submission No. A 54~98, cont'd It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. VT 1/98 Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of the Estate of Zenta Peters requesting validation of a title for the conveyance in Instrument No. 1347854 Registered on July 31, 1997 for Part Lot 77, Registered Plan 660, 86 Oxford Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 54~98. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The requirements of the Zoning By-law will be maintained with the final approval of Submission No. A 54198. That the use of the land conforms with the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the Region Official Policies Plan. Carried 3. Submission No. A 45/98 - Alan Rimmer, 134 Shanley Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 446, Registered Plan 376, 134 Shanley Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Mr. A. Rimmer 134 Shanley Street Kitchener, Ontario NONE NONE NONE The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 3.66 m (12 ft.) by 3.66 m (12 ft.) second storey addition on the existing detached garage, with a sideyard of approximately 0.67 m (2.2 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 228 JUlgE 30. 1998 The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant requests a variance to construct a 3.66 metre (12 feet) by 3.66 metre (12 feet) second storey addition on the existing detached garage with a sideyard of approximately 0.67 metres (2.2 feet) rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 feet). Although the garage has a .5 metre (1.7 foot) sideyard, the addition is located on the rear half of the garage which is set back further from the property line. 3. Submission No. A 45/98 -Alan Rimmer, cont'd The owner of the property had commenced putting an addition over his garage sometime last year. Building staff advised that a building permit is required and since the second floor walls and roof have been erected, the building inspector has stopped any further progress until the owner obtains a building permit as well as approval of a minor variance to the side yard. The proposed addition is intended to be used as a workshop area for the owner. The impact of variance is minor as the proposed addition abuts an existing parking lot of an abandoned industrial building. The proposal is therefore desirable as it will have little impact on the abutting property. The intent of the zoning by-law and Municipal Plan is maintained as the existing sideyard is not impacted by the second storey addition. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 45/98. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the garage addition. There shall be no openings in a wall located less that 4 ft. (1.2 m) from the property line. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Alan Rimmer requesting permission to construct a 3.66 m (12 ft.) by 3.66 m (12 ft.) second storey addition on the existing detached garage with a sideyard of approximately 0.67 m (2.2 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Part Lot 446, Registered Plan 376, 134 Shanley Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the owner shall obtain approval of a building permit for the addition and the wall located less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) from the property line shall have no openings. 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 46/98 - Harold Merckel, 132 Ross Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Block C, Registered Plan 914, Part Lots 82 & 83, Registered Plan 765, 140 Ross Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. H. Merckel 132 Ross Avenue Kitchener, Ontario Mr. U. Roetsch COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 229 JUlgE 30. 1998 284 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE 2. Submission No. A 46/98 - Harold Merckel, cont'd The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting legalization of the setback of the existing parking spaces, from Shantz Avenue, being 1.52 m (5 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the subject property contains a 6 unit multiple dwelling. Recently, the Committee of Adjustment approved the severance of this property from 132 Ross Avenue. The lot was developed with only 6 parking spaces, whereas 8 spaces were required when it was built. As the parking requirement for multiple dwellings of this size has been increased in the current zoning by-law, By-law 85-1, from 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, it is staff's opinion that the site should be developed with at least the 8 spaces required when the building was constructed, which would then be considered legal, non-conforming. The consent was granted conditional upon the development of 8 parking spaces on the site in accordance with an approved parking plan. To provide 8 spaces on site, it is necessary that one space encroach slightly into the 3.0 metre setback for parking, providing 1.5 metres (5 feet) rather than 3 metres (10 feet). The request is minor and maintains the intent of the by-law as only a portion of one space encroaches into the 3.0 metre setback; the remainder of the lands within the setback will remain landscaped. Approval is desirable for the appropriate development of the property as it allows more on site parking to better meet the needs of the tenants and visitors. The comments of Parking and Traffic Services are noted in which the widening of the entrance to 20 feet is recommended, along with the modification to the fence along Shantz Lane. That application A-46/98 be approved subject to the following condition: That the driveway entrance be widened to 20 feet, by August 30, 1998, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Community Planning Development and Design. No extension to this deadline shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Director of Community Planning Development and Design prior to the completion date set out in this decision. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that the Division has no concerns with the encroachment of the first parking stall within the required setback. It is recommended that the existing driveway entrance should be widened to 20 ft. to accommodate two-way traffic flow. It is also recommended that the top horizontal board of the existing fence along Shantz Lane be removed to improve sight lines from the driveway. The Chairman pointed out the staff comments to Mr. Roach who responded that this is an existing situation and has been this way for 30 years with no problem. Now the City wants all these things, as outlined in the comments and he felt that it was unfair and he was asking for approval without all of these conditions. He noted that to widen the driveway to 20 ft. would be an additional expense to the applicant. Ms. J. Given advised that it was her understanding that there were no curbs there so no curb cuts would be involved. Mr. Roach responded that the apron is paved so that it would have to be dug up and widened. He stated that this is only a six-plex and there is not a lot of traffic. The Chairman noted that when there is a subdivision of land the property must comply with the existing standards. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Harold Merckel requesting permission for off-street parking to be setback 1.52 m C0~ITTEE OF ADJUgT1MENT 23~ JlJl~E 3~ 199~ (5 ft.) from Shantz Lane rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) on Part Block C, Registered Plan 914 & Part Lots 82 & 83, Registered Plan 765, 140 Ross Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 2. Submission No. A 46/98 - Harold Merckel, cont'd That the driveway entrance shall be widened to 20 ft., by August 30, 1998, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Community Planning, Development and Design; with no extension date to this deadline being granted unless approved in writing by the Director of Community Planning, Development and Design prior to August 30, 1998. That the owner shall remove the top horizontal board from the existing fence along Shantz Lane to improve site lines from the driveway. 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 47/98 - Thi Tuyet Pham/Gioi Guyen, 23 Dunedin Crt., Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 57, Registered Plan 1819, 23 Dunedin Court, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. J. Ho 97 Pinemeadow Crescent Waterloo Ontario Ms. T. Pham 23 Dunedin Court Kitchener Ontario CONTRA: Mr. D. Shermeto 31 Dunedin Court Kitchener Ontario Mr. & Mrs. D. Tremka 39 Dunedin Court Kitchener Ontario Ms. S. Fryer-Davis 32 Dunedin Court Kitchener Ontario Mr. P. Kahleier 36 Dunedin Court Kitchener Ontario WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: Mr. R. Gordanier COk~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 231 JUi~E 30. 1998 15 Dunedin Court Kitchener, Ontario Mr. & Mrs. R. Boettcher 28 Dunedin Court Kitchener, Ontario Mr. & Mrs. K. Jackson 3 Dunedin Court Kitchener, Ontario 3. Submission No. A 47/98 - Thi Tuyet Pham/Gioi Guyen, cont'd The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in tandem for a home and home business, rather than two parking spaces side-by-side; with one parking space to be located closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the property line along Dunedin Court. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to park two vehicles in tandem. The applicant is proposing to open a sewing business in her home. The By-law requires two parking spaces, one parking space for the residence and one for the proposed home business. Both parking spaces are required to be set back 6.0 metres from the property line. The existing dwelling has an attached garage which satisfies the requirement for one parking space in accordance with the By-law. The driveway in front of the garage is long and wide enough for the additional parking space with one other space remaining, however it will not meet the required set back of 6.0 metres from the property line. In view of this, the application should be amended to allow parking in tandem and parking within the 6.0 metre set back from the property line. The proposed home business use is not a high traffic generator. Customers will utilize the available space in the driveway the same way in which visitors to the dwelling would, which is legal. In view of this, the general intent and purpose of the by-law is maintained. The impact of the variance is minor since the proposed business is not a high traffic generator. In view of this, and since the Department generally supports home businesses throughout the City, the variance is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 47/98, as amended, without conditions. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised they have no concerns with the proposed tandem parking. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for any construction carried out. Ms. Ho addressed the Committee advising that they were here today because staff had asked for the application. Ms. Given advised that the application is to permit two parking spaces in tandem, one in the driveway and one in the garage. She noted that the driveway space would be closer than 6 m to the streetline. Ms. Fryer-Davis questioned street parking and Ms. Given advised that there is three hour parking on the street. With respect to the use of this property as a business, Ms. Given responded that the personal service of a tailor or dress maker is a permitted use in this dwelling. Mr. Tremka addressed the Committee advising that this is not a home business, it is like a factory. Big trucks come and bring fabrics. There are lots of vehicles parked there, up to five cars in the driveway all day. He was concerned about the property values in the neighbourhood going down. He also advised that it was his opinion that there are four people working downstairs. Ms. J. Given suggested that if the Committee was to approve the application, it be conditional on the applicant getting an occupancy permit. That way staff would be able to explain all the regulations to the applicant. Ms. Ho advised that the City Inspector has checked everything. When they first moved into the house they didn't know the rules; however, now everything is OK. COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 232 JUlgE 30. 1998 Mr. Shermeto addressed the Committee advising that he is concerned about traffic and about small children in the neighbourhood. Ms. S. Campbell questioned whether the enforcement staff have received a complaint and Ms. Given responded that she thought the complaint was based on the parking but she did not know about any other violations. The Committee considered the written submissions of the neighbourhood residents in opposition to the application. 3. Submission No. A 47/98 - Thi Tuyet Pham/Gioi Guyen, cont'd Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Thi Tuyet Pham/Gioi Guyen requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in tandem with one parking space located closer than 6 m (19.89 ft.) to the Iotline along Dunedin Court for a home and home business on Lot 57, Registered Plan 1819, 23 Dunedin Court, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain approval of an occupancy permit for the home business. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried 4. Submission No. A 48/98 - Eastforest Homes Ltd., 10 Alpine Court, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Block I, Registered Plan 1822, being Part 5, Reference Plan 58R-9950, 2 Waterwillow Court, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Mr. D. Murawsky c/o Eastforest Homes 10 Alpine Court Kitchener, Ontario NONE NONE Mr. & Mrs. P. Paquette 79 Activa Avenue Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to locate the driveway 8 m (26.25 ft.) from the intersection of Waterwillow Court and Wilderness Drive rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 233 JUlgE 30. 1998 that the subject lands are an undeveloped corner lot located at the intersection of Waterwillow Court and Wilderness Drive in the Laurentian West community. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required distance between the driveway and the intersection from 12 metres to 8.3 metres. In reviewing this application it was determined that the subject lot does not comply with the minimum lot width requirement for a corner lot. The R-4 Zone requires a minimum 15 metre wide lot whereas the subject lot is only 12.7 metres wide. Accordingly, the application should be revised to request an additional variance to reduce the minimum corner lot width from 15 metres to 12.7 metres. The Department of Planning and Development normally does not support reductions in the distance between the driveway and the intersection if it is possible to comply with the Zoning By-law by revising the house plan and providing a 4. Submission No. A 48/98 - Eastforest Homes Ltd., 10 Alpine Court, cont'd driveway on the flanking side. However, in this instance, the lot width is such that it does not provide sufficient depth to provide an attached garage on the flanking side in accordance with the minimum side yard and required parking space setback requirements of the Zoning By-law. In order to comply with the Zoning By-law, the house must either be constructed without an attached garage or a minor variance must be approved to permit a reduction in the required parking space setback. Since all houses in the subdivision have been constructed with attached garages, it would be out of character for the area if this corner lot were to be constructed without an attached garage. In addition, a reduction in the required parking space setback would compromise the intent of the Zoning By-law and result in an inconsistent streetscape. The purpose of the driveway separation from the intersection is to ensure that vehicular and pedestrian safety is not compromised. Since the subject lot is located on a 16 unit cul-de-sac which has no sidewalks and the entire intersection would be clearly visible from the proposed driveway, it is expected that vehicular and pedestrian safety can be maintained. Therefore, by permitting access from Waterwillow Court, neither safety nor streetscape is compromised. For the reasons set out above, the proposed minor variance maintains the general intent of both the Municipal Plan and the Zoning By-law, is considered to be minor in nature, and is considered appropriate for the development of the subject lands. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 48/98, as revised to include a minor variance to permit a reduction in the corner lot width from 15 metres to 12.7 metres. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised the Division does not support the proposed reduction in the setback of the driveway from the adjacent intersection. This condition can create potential traffic operating problems and it is recommended that the driveway location be revised to meet the by-law requirements. The Committee noted the comments of the neighbours in which the advised that they are in opposition to the application. Mr. Murawsky addressed the Committee advising that he tried to site the driveway according to the by- law but it could not be done. He also tried siting the driveway on the flanking side but it would not work. Ms. S. Campbell questioned how the lot was created at this width and Ms. J. Given advised that it had been created through Part Lot Control with an inadequate lot width, being an oversight. Ms. Campbell then advised that her real concern was with the fact that the City created a lot which was too narrow and now the Traffic Department is advising of safety problems. Mr. Murawsky advised that they have tried to comply with all the by-law requirements. They felt the lesser problem was having a driveway come in from Waterwillow, as Wilderness Drive is a busier street. Ms. J. Given advised that she did talk to the Traffic & Parking Division staff and they will continue to try and enforce their requirements. She also advised that the Planning Department thought that this was better than the other possibilities. COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMElqT 234 JIJlgE 30. 1998 Mr. Murawsky requested permission to amend the application in accordance with the Department comments. Mr. A. Galloway advised that what he would reluctantly approve the application as amended. Planning 4. Submission No. A 48/98 - Eastforest Homes Ltd., 10 Alpine Court, cont'd Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Eastforest Homes Ltd. requesting legalization of a corner lot having a width of 12.7 m (41.67 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.22 ft.) and permission to locate the driveway 8 m (26.25 ft.) from the intersection rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) on Part Block I, Registered Plan 1822, being Part 5, Reference Plan 58R-9950, 2 Waterwillow Court, 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 49/98 - Lynda Watts, 28 Westchester Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 11, Registered Plan 1617, 28 Westchester Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. M. Thomas c/o Lakeside Patio Enclosures & Solariums 2A-180 Sheldon Drive Cambridge, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition onto the rear of the existing single family dwelling to have a rearyard of 7.076 m (24 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition onto the rear of the existing single family dwelling to have a rear yard of 7.3 m (24 ft) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft). The applicant advises that the proposed addition is as narrow as it can be and still be useable. This has resulted in a reduced rear yard setback of 7.3 m (24 ft) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft). COk~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 235 JUi~E 30. 1998 Staff note that the plan submitted with this application is not an accurate reflection of the property. Attached is a copy of the survey for 28 Westchester Drive which shows the true dimensions of the property. As the proposed sunroom addition on the property will only encroach into the required rear yard 0.2 m (0.656 ft), it can be considered minor in nature, and will not affect the neighbouring properties. The sunroom addition would be an appropriate and desirable use of the property and will maintain the general intent and purpose of the City's Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan. Staff recommend approval of Minor Variance Application A 49~98. The proposed addition is minor and does not diminish the amenity area for the property nor will it affect the property to the rear. 5. Submission No. A 49/98 - Lynda Watts, cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he stated that a building permit is required for the new addition. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Lynda Watts requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition with a rearyard of 7.3 m (24 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Lot 11, Registered Plan 1617, 28 Westchester Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the addition. 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.'s A 50/98 & A 51/98 - Krizsanderson Development Limited, 295 Southgate Drive, P.O. Box 112, Guelph, Ontario Re: Units 50 & 61, Block 63, Stage 1, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-94008, Being Parts of Lots 9 & 10, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, proposed Candle Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. D. Biuk c/o Green, Scheels, Pidgeon 5-745 Bridge Street Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that in Submission No. A 50/98, the applicant is requesting permission to locate the driveway 6.9 m (22.64 ft.) from the intersection rather than the required 9 m (29.53 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised C0~ITTEE OF ADJUgT1MENT 236 JlJl~E 3~ 199~ that Submission A 50/98 requests permission to locate the driveway 6.9 metres (22.64 feet) from the intersection rather than the required 9 metres (29.53 feet) for Unit 50. Submission A51/98 requests permission to locate the driveway 6.4 metres (21 feet) from the intersection rather than the required 9 metres (29.53 feet) for Unit 61. The subject lands are part of a 68 unit street townhouse development currently in the final stages of site plan approval. The non-compliance of the driveway locations for units 50 and 61 were identified through this process. The minor variances requested for both lots are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and buildings as the layout of the end units 6. Submission No.'s A 50/98 & A 51/98 - Krizsanderson Development Limited, cont'd dictates that the garages be located close to the intersection. It is difficult to modify street townhouse designs to provide driveway access from a flanking street as a garage at the rear of the unit would require that the master bedroom be located abutting the street intersection, thereby severely limiting the marketability of the end units. The impact of the proposed location of the two driveways is minor as Candle Crescent is a minor, local crescent connecting to Deer Ridge Drive, and the lots are technically "corner lots" although on the corners of a continuous street. With a total of 68 units, the volume of traffic passing the subject lots will be minimal. In this respect, any congestion of vehicles at the intersections, or visibility concerns related to vehicles entering and exiting the subject lots will be negligible. Furthermore, the inside corners of the street will have "No Parking" signs posted which will also help to alleviate any potential congestion or visibility concerns. Based on the above, the requested minor variances for driveway locations for units 50 and 61 maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and municipal plan. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submissions A 50/98 and A51/98. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised they are prepared to support the proposed driveway locations in consideration of the lotting constraints and conditional on the implementation of an on-street parking prohibition along the frontage/flankage of the subject lots. Under these circumstances this is considered to be a reasonable traffic control/safety measure to be applied, at a location other than an intersection, to provide optimum sight lines at those times when vehicles are parked on the subject driveways and around the curves of the street. Mr. A. Galloway questioned whether site plan approval had been received and Ms. J. Given advised that it has been given approval subject to final approval of the Minor Variance. Submission No. A 50/98 Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Krizsanderson Development Limited requesting permission to locate the driveway 6.9 m (22.64 ft.) from the intersection rather than the required 9 m (29.53 ft.) on Unit 50, Block 63, Stage 1, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-94008, Being Parts of Lots 9 & 10, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, proposed Candle Crescent, 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. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being COHHITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 237 JUlgE 30. 1998 maintained on the subject property. Carried 6. Submission No.'s A 50/98 & A 51/98 - Krizsanderson Development Limited, cont'd Submission No. A 51/98 Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Krizsanderson Development Limited requesting permission to locate the driveway 6.4 m (21 ft.) from the intersection rather than the required 9 m (29.53 ft.) on Unit 61, Block 63, Stage 1, Draft Plan of Subdivision 30%94008, Being Parts of Lots 9 & 10, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, proposed Candle Crescent, 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 7. Submission No. A 52/98 - Jean-Guy Pigeau, 58 Dekay Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 15, Registered Plan 428, 58 Dekay Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. & Mrs. J. G. Pigeau 58 Dekay Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide one off-street parking space, in a driveway to be located on the right side of the property, up to the property line along Dekay Street rather than being setback 6 m (19.69 ft.) from the property line along Dekay Street. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicants propose to create a parking space within 0 metres of the lot line rather than being set COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 238 JUlgE 30. 1998 back 6.0 metres. The front yard of the dwelling is elevated and supported by a retaining wall on the front and side lot lines. The owners have begun to excavate for the parking space by cutting down portions of the retaining wall and lowering the level of the ground. The sketch provided shows the retaining wall to be reconstructed even with the front face of the dwelling. This would not accommodate a 5.5 metre parking space within the private lot and according to the City's engineering drawings, could not even accommodate the 5.5 metre (18 foot) parking space without the potential of overhanging the sidewalk. If the application were to proceed as submitted, a second minor variance would be required to reduce the length of a parking space to approximately 3.9 metres rather than 5.5 metres. Traffic and Parking staff are opposed to this application, as submitted, as it is likely to encroach on public property and create interference with pedestrian movement on the sidewalk. 7. Submission No. A 52/98 - Jean-Guy Pi,qeau, cont'd However, it would appear as though the excavation could be extended to the side of the dwelling in order to provide the required vehicle parking space length of 5.5 metres while maintaining the parking space width of 2.5 metres. The length should be measured along the easterly lot line as the parking space is at an angle to the front lot line. If the location of the parking space is modified, the minor variance to allow a 5.5 metre deep parking space to be located 0 metres from the lot line can be supported as it provides the opportunity for on site parking, which the property does not enjoy now. The application may be considered minor as the appearance of the parking space will not be unlike that of other dwellings in the neighbourhood which park a second vehicle ahead of the setback. The intent of the by-law is met as on-site parking would be provided. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 52/98 to allow a parking space 0 metres from the lot line only if revised so as to provide the full 2.5 metre by 5.5 metre parking space fully contained within the subject lot. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that the Division does not support the design of the proposed parking space as it does not meet the minimum required length of 5.5 metres, and could result in vehicles blocking the sidewalk. Ms. J. Given advised that there is sufficient room to accommodate a parking space between the house and the street and that the applicants will have to go behind the house and move the retaining wall back. Mr. Pigeau advised that they were told by staff that there wouldn't be sufficient room behind the house. Ms. J. Given responded that it is the applicant's responsibility to verify the measurements, otherwise staff cannot support this request. Mr. Pigeau advised that he could not find a survey of the property, as it was bought 23 years ago. He also advised that City staff had attended at the property and advised that there wasn't enough room beside the house. The Chairman stated that it was difficult not having a survey to show the proper location. He noted that staff are recommending refusal of the application or that it be amended. Mr. Pigeau requested permission to amend the application accordingly. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Jean-Guy Pigeau requesting permission to provide one off-street parking space having a width of 2.5 m (8.21 feet) and a length of 5.5 m (18 ft.) to be located 0 m from the Iotline along Dekay Street rather than being setback 6 m (19.69 ft.) on Part Lot 15, Registered Plan 428, 58 Dekay Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: 1. That the off-street parking space shall be located entirely within the applicant's own property. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 239 JUlgE 30. 1998 Re: 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 53/98 - Hallman Idlewood Ltd., 230 Gage Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lots 10 & 11, Registered Plan 791, Being Parts 6, 8 & 9, Reference Plan 58R-471, 37 Vanier Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. 8. Submission No. A 53/98 - Hallman Idlewood Ltd., cont'd Mr. W. Dahms declared a pecuniary interest in this application as this law firm acts for the applicants, and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. The meeting was chaired by Mr. A. Galloway during consideration of this application and, in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the matter was considered by the remaining two members. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Planning Mr. B. Hindel c/o MacNaughton, Hermsen, Britton, Clarkson 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Mr. & Mrs. G. Pereira 23 Vanier Drive Kitchener, Ontario Ms. M. Pereira 25 Vanier Drive Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission not to provide the visual barrier along its common Iotline with the two abutting properties along Vanier Drive. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.11 of By-law 85-1 to eliminate the requirement to provide a 1.8 metre fence along property boundaries which separate parking facilities for a 12 storey apartment from the adjacent single detached dwellings. Section 6.1.2 a) requires a visual barrier where a parking lot abuts a Residential Zone, in accordance with Section 5.11. Section 5.11 requires a visual barrier which has a minimum height of 1.8 metres consisting of either a wall or fence, an unpierced planting strip, an earth berm or any combination of the forgoing. Since the request is to eliminate the requirement to provide a visual barrier, the minor variance should be revised to allow relief from Section 6.1.2 a) which requires a visual barrier. It is questionable whether a minor variance is required for the eastern property boundary as there is a grade change and landscaping which appears to comply with the By-law requirements for a visual barrier. The parking area surrounding the dwellings is substantially lower than the adjacent dwellings. There is a grade change of approximately 1.8 metres from the bottom of the slope where the parking is to the top of the slope where the residential fences are located. The rear yards are depressed and are enclosed by fences, which are located on the adjacent properties. Two of the three property boundaries which abut the parking area also have existing landscaping. The northern slope does not have landscaping as the COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMElqT 240 JIJlgE 30. 1998 slope is too steep to support landscaping, but there is an existing concrete block wall on the adjacent property. In view of this, the only method which could be employed to buffer the parking area in this location would be by constructing a solid fence adjacent to the existing block wall, which is not desirable. The general intent and purpose of the By-law is maintained as the parking facilities are separated by a change in grade and screened by existing fencing and landscaping on the western property line. The impact of the variance is minor as an existing visual barrier exists. The variance is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land as there already exists a grade separation and fencing and landscaping is not recommended for the northerly property boundary due to the slope. Letters of support from the abutting residential property owners have been submitted. The site plan should be amended to eliminate the need for fencing. 8. Submission No. A 53/98 - Hallman Idlewood Ltd., cont'd The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 53/98, as amended. The Committee noted the comments from the neighbours in support of the application. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Hallman Idlewood Ltd. requesting permission not to provide the required visual barrier as required in Section 6.1.2a of By-law 85-1 on Part Lots 10 & 11, Registered Plan 791, Being Parts 6, 8 & 9, Reference Plan 58R-471, 37 Vanier Drive, 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 CONSENT UNFINISHED BUSINESS Submission No.'s B 118/97 & B 119/97 - 1148386 Ontario Inc., 374 Hamilton Road, P.O. Box 580, New Hamburg, Ontario Re: Part Lot 9, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021 and Part Lots 4 & 5, Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, 245 Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario. At the request of the applicant's agent, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the meeting scheduled for October 6, 1998. Submission No. B 128/97 - Reinhold Dresler, In Trust, 165 Albert Street, Waterloo, Ontario Re: Part Lot 49, Registered Plan 393, 112 St. George Street, Kitchener, Ontario. At the request of the applicant, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the meeting scheduled for October 6, 1998. Submission No. B 55/98 - The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada, 130 Duke Street East, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lots 7 & 8, Registered Plan 364, 79 Weber Street East and Part Lots 8 & 28, Registered Plan 364, 130 Duke Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 241 JUlgE 30. 1998 Mr. W. Dahms declared a pecuniary interest with this application as his law firm represents the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. A. Galloway chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and, pursuant to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the application was considered by the remaining 2 members. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. D. Fedy 700-22 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario Submission No. B 55/98 - The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada, cont'd CONTRA: OTHER: Ms. D. Ross Department of Planning & Culture Region of Waterloo Ms. D. Calma Regional Transportation Region of Waterloo WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Mr. D. Fedy 700-22 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on Duke Street of 44.71 m (146.66 ft.) and having an area of 2,379.21 m2 (25,610.4 sq. ft.), subject to and together with a 3 m (9.85 ft.) wide easement on either side of the severance line. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the subject lands have frontage on both Weber Street East and Duke Street East, and are located approximately mid-block between Scott Street and Cedar Street. The lands are designated Downtown - Commercial Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and are zoned D-5 according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The portion of the property addressed 79 Weber Street East is presently developed with a single detached dwelling converted to office and the portion of the property addressed 130 Duke Street East is presently developed with a church hall. A severe grade differential exists between the Weber Street frontage and the Duke Street frontage and is mitigated by a 1.8 metre high retaining wall constructed approximately 40 metres from the Weber Street property line. The applicant is proposing to sever the portion of the property fronting Duke Street East and retain the portion fronting Weber Street East. The existing retaining wall would be located on the lands to be retained. The applicant is also asking for a 3 metre wide easement adjacent to the retaining wall on both the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained. The purpose of the proposed easement on both the severed and retained lands is to allow for the maintenance and repair of the retaining wall by either owner if necessary. The intent of the severance application is to have the retaining wall remain with the lands to be retained. However, an agreement has been entered into between the land owner and another party for the purchase of the lands to be severed and is based on the legal description of the severed lands. Until the final survey is prepared based on this legal description, it is not known whether the retaining wall will COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 242 JUlgE 30. 1998 ultimately be located wholly on the retained lands, or partially on both. However, this is not a concern given that there will be an easement established on both sides of the retaining wall. Both the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained would conform to all regulations of the Zoning By-law. Accordingly, the Department of Planning and Development has no concerns with the consent application. The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Consent Application B55/98, be approved subject to the following condition: That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. Submission No. B 55/98 - The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada, cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, recommending approval of this application subject to conditions. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. D. Fedy, on behalf of his client, objecting to the request of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for a 13 ft. road widening along the Duke Street and Weber Street frontages of these severed and retained parcels. Mr. Fedy addressed the Committee, noting his written submission and advising that he has no concerns with respect to the comments of the Department of Planning & Development for the City of Kitchener. Mr. Fedy advised that the Salvation Army purchased the Duke Street Citadel in 1966. They purchased the Weber Street property in 1974, for office use only. The Salvation Army is required to hold title to real property in the same name. He advised that they want to return the properties to the original situation and this is simply a technical severance. He advised that the applicant has entered into an agreement to sell both properties, the Citadel will be sold immediately and the Weber Street property next year. He advised that the two properties are separated by a retaining wall and the grade differential prohibits traffic between the two properties. Mr. Fedy then noted that, if the road widenings are given, a minor variance will be required and that could cause problems with their agreement with the purchaser. He also noted the encroachment agreement and that the buildings would have to be moved in order to widen the road. He advised that he suggested to the Region an easement rather than a conveyance and he understood that the purpose of the widening is for services only and not the physical widening of the street. He felt that an easement for this purpose would be adequate; however, the Region is not agreeable to that arrangement. He noted that the road widenings are a substantial portion of the property and would affect the value of the lands with the current purchaser. There would also be no redevelopment of the lands at this time and he felt that this was an onerous requirement. Mr. A. Galloway questioned whether there was a house on the Weber Street property and Mr. Fedy responded that it is being used as offices and will continue to be used that way for another year. Ms. D. Ross addressed the Committee advising that she is in attendance to reaffirm the Region's request for road widening. She advised that the Region does not differentiate between a technical severance and a severance for development. The requirements are the same. Ms. D. Calma addressed the Committee advising that Weber Street is a 60 ft. right-of-way, which is not desirable for a 4 lane roadway. She stated that the Duke Street right-of-way is 40 ft. wide and narrow for two lanes or traffic. The utilities become very tight and should part of the right-of-way. Further, the road widening on Weber Street is consistent with others taken on that street. Mr. Fedy questioned whether the Region, in the past, has taken easements, this would allow access to the utilities for maintenance. Mr. Galloway stated that he could not speak for staff; however, the Planning Act allows for such widenings. Mr. Fedy noted that Duke Street would revert to the City of Kitchener next year and suggested that the City may not even want the road widening. Mr. S. Campbell stated that she was persuaded by Mr. Fedy's argument. She put forward a motion to approve the application subject only the City's requested condition. COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMElqT 243 JIJlgE 30. 1998 Mr. A. Galloway questioned whether the road widening would jeopardize the sale. Mr. Fedy advised that it would and the owners want to meet their obligation under the agreement. When questioned by the Committee concerning the road widening, Ms. J. Given advised that the City would support the Region's request. She advised that she did not know whether the City would require a road widening on Duke Street, but they probably would as it is such a narrow street. Submission No. B 55/98 - The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada, cont'd Mr. Fedy then advised of various problems which may result from the requirement for road widening. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she had been persuaded from Mr. Fedy's technical arguments but not persuaded by his arguments regarding financial hardship. She advised that she considered this technical severance. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on Duke Street of 44.71 m (146.66 ft.) by a depth of 40.15 m (131.72 ft.) and having an area of 730.24 m2 (7,860.5 sq. ft.), subject to and together with a 0.92 m (3 ft.) easement of either side of the severance line on Part Lot 7, 8 & 28, Registered Plan 364, 130 Duke Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following condition: 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 June 30, 2000. 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 APPLICATIONS Re: Submission No. B 57/98 - Richard & Elizabeth Rogers, 42 Golfview Place, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lots 31 & 32, Registered Plan 230, Being Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4, Reference Plan 58R-5378, 14 & 16 Spadina Road East, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Rogers 42 Golfview Place Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE COM]MITTEE OF ADJUSTMElqT 244 JIJlgE 30. 1998 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever the semi-detached dwellings at 14 & 16 Spadina Road East so that each may be dealt with separately. Submission No. B 57/98 - Richard & Elizabeth Rogers, 42 Golfview Place, Kitchener, Ontario The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the subject lands contain an existing semi-detached dwelling fronting onto Spadina Road East at the corner of Winslow Drive. There are two separate driveways serving the dwellings, both having access off Spadina Road East. The applicants own both dwellings and seek to create two separate lots with one dwelling on each. The new lot line would bisect the building in two along the party wall between the two existing units. The legal description of the existing property is Parts one to four, Part of Lots 31 and 32, Registered Plan 230. It is proposed to create one lot containing Parts 1 and 2, and the other containing parts 3 and 4. The existing Residential Four Zone (R-4) permits semi-detached dwellings. All yard requirements of the R-4 zone will be satisfied for both the retained and severed parcels except that which relates to the required lot width for the severed parcel. Zoning By-law 85-1 states that each semi-detached house on a corner lot requires a minimum lot width of 15 metres. The proposed lot width will be approximately 13 metres. As such, a minor variance will be required in order to recognize this lot width. This is included as a condition of approval listed below. The Department of Public Works has commented that water and sewer connections serving the retained lands (14 Spadina Road East) are located partly on the lands proposed to be severed (16 Spadina Road East). Therefore, a private easement across the severed lands will have to be created in favour of the retained lands to ensure that these services can be accessed for any necessary future maintenance. The general location of the required easement is shown on the attached sketch. The general area is characterized by single and semi-detached dwellings as well as apartment buildings along this part of Spadina Road East. As such, the creation of two single dwellings from an existing semi- detached dwelling would not be incompatible with neighbouring land uses. Parking is already provided on two separate driveways for each dwelling. The two units effectively function as two separate dwellings having separated driveways and rear yards for amenity areas. Based on these factors, the Department of Planning and Development recommends that Consent Application B 57/98 be approved subject to conditions. The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Consent Application B 57/98 be approved as revised to include the granting of an easement for water and sewer connections over the severed lands, subject to the following conditions: That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That an application for minor variance be finally approved regarding the required lot width for the severed lands. That the draft reference plan showing the proposed easement be approved by the City's General Manager of Public Works. The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo, Department of Planning & Culture in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. At the request of Mr. Rogers, the Committee agreed to amend the application in accordance with the Planning Department's comments. COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMElqT 245 JIJlgE 30. 1998 Submission No. B 57/98 - Richard & Elizabeth Rogers, 42 Golfview Place, Kitchener, Ontario Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Richard & Elizabeth Rogers requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on Spadina Road of 9.25 m (30.34 ft.) by a depth of 24.96 m (81.87 ft.) and having an area of 364.45 m2 (3,923 sq. ft.) subject to an easement for water and sewer connections in favour of the retained lands on Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-5378, 16 Spadina Road East, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 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. That the owners shall receive final approval of an Application for Minor Variance for the lot width for the severed lands. That the owner shall receive approval of a Draft Reference Plan showing the location of the proposed easement for water and sewer connections from the General Manager of Public Works. 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 June 30, 2000. 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 58/98 - Clifford Trussler, 1588 Trussler Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lots 146 & 147, German Company Tract, 1588 Trussler Road, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. M. Trussler 1588 Trussler Road Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 246 JUlgE 30. 1998 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having an area of 0.806 hectares, as a lot addition to the abutting farm. 2. Submission No. B 58/98 - Clifford Trussler, cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant proposes to sever a portion of an existing non-farm residential lot as an addition to the adjoining farm. The subject property is a 1.2 h (3.0 acre) lot containing a single detached dwelling. The retained lot is to be 0.8 h (2.0 acres), with 0.4 h (1.0 acre) to be conveyed as a lot addition to the 49 ha (121 acre) farm. The proposal is recommended as it increases the size of the farm parcel, and decreases the size of the non-farm residential lot. The existing shed does not appear to comply with the minimum side yard and minimum rear yard requirements of 7.5 m and 10.5 m respectively. Approval is therefore conditional on demonstrated compliance or approval of a variance. In all other respects the retained lot complies with the A-1 Zone regulations for single detached dwellings, provided its width is a minimum of 60.0 m. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission B 58/98 subject to the following conditions: 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, 1995. 2. That the retained lot have a minimum lot width of 60.0 m at the 10 m setback line. That the existing shed have a minimum side yard of 7.5 m and a minimum rear yard of 10.5 m; OR That the existing shed be removed or relocated in compliance with the zoning by-law; OR That a Minor Variance Application, to reduce the yard requirements for the existing shed, receive final approval. 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 Region of Waterloo, Department of Planning & Culture in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee noted the staff comments with respect to the shed and it was agreed by the members of the Committee that they would require final approval of a minor variance for the shed. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Clifford Trussler requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having an area of 0.806 hectares (2 acres) as a lot addition to the abutting farm on Part Lots 146 & 147, German Company Tract, 1588 Trussler Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership with the abutting lands, with any subsequent conveyance or transaction complying with Subsections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act. That the owner shall provide evidence that the retained lands have a minimum lot width of 60 m (196.85 ft.) at the 10 m (32.81 ft.) setback line. C0}~]MITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 247 JUlgE 30. 1998 That the owner shall obtain final approval of an Application for Minor Variance for the yard requirements for the existing shed. 2. Submission No. B 58/98 - Clifford Trussler, cont'd 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 June 30, 2000. 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 59/98 - Edmeades Properties Limited, 235 Ardelt Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lots 3 & 6, Registered Plan 1023, Being Part 5, Reference Plan 58R-2863, Corner of Ardelt Avenue and Hansen Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. M. Somer 181 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a frontage on Homer Watson Blvd. of 93.119 m (305.51 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the subject lands are located on Ardelt Avenue and comprise part of a larger land holding made up of three separate parcels. A portion of the land holding is presently developed with a large warehouse and food wholesaling operation. The applicants are proposing to sever a portion of the lands so that they may be conveyed as a separate building lot. The lands are designated General Industrial in the City's Municipal Plan and are zoned M-2 according to Zoning By-law 85-1. Both the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained would comply with all applicable zoning regulations. An existing approved site plan for the warehouse/wholesaling operation at 235 Ardelt Avenue affects both the severed and retained lands. In this respect, a significant treed area for which no development is to occur is identified on the site plan and shown to be partially located on both the lands to be severed and COM]MITTEE OF ADJUSTMElqT 248 JIJlgE 30. 1998 the lands to be retained. This treed area is of concern as there would be no protection guaranteed after the approval of the consent application. Therefore, as a condition of approval of the consent application, the 3. Submission No. B 59/98 - Edmeades Properties Limited, cont'd Department of Planning and Development recommends that a revised Site Plan showing the proposed severed parcel as "future development" be approved in order to reflect the new property configuration and that a Supplementary Site Plan Agreement, incorporating the City's standard tree saving condition, be registered on title of both the severed and retained parcels following deed endorsement. Site plan approval would be required prior to any development on the proposed severed parcel. At such time as the new Site Plan Agreement is executed and registered, the "future development" lands would be released from the Supplementary Site Plan Agreement required as a condition of this application. The tree saving condition would remain in affect for the lands to be retained. Due to the present lot configuration, the proposed severance would result in the retained lands becoming a separate parcel. These lands are presently developed for parking related to the operation at 235 Ardelt Avenue and are subject to the existing approved site plan for that development. Accordingly, it is recommended that the severed lands be required to merge with the remainder of the larger land holding as a condition of the consent approval. Subject to the conditions set out below, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Consent Application B 59/98. The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Consent Application B 59/98, be approved subject to the following conditions: That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the lands to be retained be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the retained parcel shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. That the Owner obtain approval from the City's Director of Community Planning, Development and Design, of a revised Site Plan for 235 Ardelt Avenue showing the severed lands as "future development" and that a Supplementary Site Plan Agreement, incorporating the City's standard condition for tree saving, be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, to be registered on title of both the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained. The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo, Department of Planning & Culture, in which they advised that staff have reviewed the above noted application and have no objections to the approval of the application subject to the following requirement being included as a condition of approval: That the applicant convey a 25 foot daylighting triangle at the corner of Homer Watson Boulevard and Hanson Avenue. The applicant is advised that a lot grading and drainage plan and stormwater management report are also required prior to development of the subject lands. These requirements can be deferred until site plan approval. The applicant is also advised that no access will be considered from Homer Watson Boulevard for either the severed or retained parcels. Mr. Somer commented on the comments of the Department of Planning & Development for the City of Kitchener with respect to Condition No. 2, stating that all the lands are held by Edmeades and that this condition was not required. It was noted by Ms. J. Given that prior consent approval was given to the lands to the east of the lands to be retained, as shown on the plan. The Chairman stated that he felt that Condition No. 2 was required. Mr. Somer referred to paragraph no. 3 and requested that the word "and when the future developments lands are incorporated in a separate site plan agreement, the supplementary site plan agreement will be released" be added to condition no. 3. COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMElqT 249 JIJlgE 30. 1998 3. Submission No. B 59/98 - Edmeades Properties Limited, cont'd Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Edmeades Properties Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on Ardelt Avenue of 78.363 m (257.1 ft.), a frontage on Hansen Avenue of 104.269 m (342.09 ft.) and a frontage on Homer Watson Blvd. of 93.119 m (305.51 ft.) on Part Lots 3 & 6, Registered Plan 1023, Being Part of Part 5, Reference Plan 58R-2863, corner of Ardelt Avenue, Hansen Avenue and Homer Watson Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, without cost and free of encumbrance, a 25 ft. daylighting triangle at the corner of Homer Watson Boulevard and Hanson Avenue. 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. That the lands to be retained 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 complying with subsections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act. That the owner shall obtain approval from the City's Director of Community Planning, Development and Design, of a revised site plan for 235 Ardelt Avenue showing the severed lands as "future development" and that a supplementary site plan agreement, incorporating the City's standard condition for tree saving, be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor to be registered on title of both the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained; and further That when "future development" lands are incorporated in a separate site plan agreement the supplementary site plan agreement will be released. 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 June 30, 2000. 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. C 12/98 - Helmut Hober, 1310 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, 1310 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario. Ms. S. Campbell declared a conflict of interest with this application, as she is a member of Heritage Kitchener and had represented their objection to the original consent application. She did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 250 JUlgE 30. 1998 1. Submission No. C 12/98 - Helmut Hober, cont'd APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. M. Somer 181 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change condition(s) of Provisional Consent B 60/97, concerning rights-of-way and driveway for the severed and retained lands. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the original submission B 60/97 requested permission to convey a new residential lot subject to and together with a right-of-way for a mutual drive. The Committee granted such approval on September 16, 1997 subject to 11 conditions, including an agreement to provide for joint maintenance of the mutual driveway and restricting the number of driveways to one, providing access to both the severed and retained lands. In the original submission, the rationale for limiting the number of driveways was to minimize the impact on the streetscape within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District, which promotes the long term conservation of the existing rural and historic character of the area by maintaining large lot widths. By restricting the number of driveways to a total of two for the two existing lots and one proposed lot, and by prohibiting front yard fencing, which could emphasize the narrowness of the lots, the appearance of wider lots is maintained. The owner now wishes to abandon the proposed mutual driveway. Instead, a standard driveway would be constructed for the severed lot, which is now vacant. The retained lot, which contains a single detached dwelling, would continue to have access by means of an existing mutual driveway shared with the lot to the east. There will still be a total of two driveways for the three lots. As the intent of the Planning Act is to allow for a change of the conditions of the consent, and not to change the consent itself, the conditions are recommended to be changed in such a way as to prevent the creation of a new mutual driveway. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission C 12/98, requesting permission to change conditions of Provisional Consent B 60/97, as follows: 1. That Condition 4 be changed to read as follows: That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager 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 boulevard landscaping including street trees on the retained lands. 2. That condition 5(1) be changed to read as follows: That the deed to be endorsed for the conveyance of the lot fronting Doon Village Road not be subject to or together with a right-of-way for a mutual drive. 1. Submission No. C 12/98 - Helmut Hober, cont'd COk~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 251 JUi~E 30. 1998 3. That condition 5(2) be changed to read as follows: That access to the retained lot shall be only by means of a mutual drive shared with Part 3, Plan 58R-6705. That condition 11 be changed by deleting the word "mutual" from the reference to "mutual driveway". The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections with this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo, Department of Planning & Culture in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. M. Somer requested amendments to the conditions, other than those requested in the application. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he could not agree with this as he felt that the Regional staff would have to be notified. He advised that he would be willing to deal with the application as submitted. A discussion then took place with respect to the rights-of-way. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Helmut Hober requesting permission to change condition(s) of Provisional Consent B 60/97 on Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, 1310 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED so that only the following conditions shall apply to Submission No. B 60/97: That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and retained lands, including any required extension of and connections to a municipal water supply. That, should the sanitary sewer not be extended to the subject lands, the owner shall obtain approval from the Waterloo Regional Health Unit for a private sewage system for the lands to be severed. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's General Manager 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 boulevard landscaping including street trees on the retained lands. That an agreement, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, be entered into and registered against the title of both the severed and retained lands to provide the following: a) That the deed to be endorsed for the conveyance for the lot fronting Doon Village Road will not be subject to or together with a right-of-way for a mutual drive. b) That the owner shall agree that access to the retained lot shall be only by means of a mutual drive shared with Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-6705. c) That the owners agree that no new fencing shall be permitted within 35 m of Doon Village Road or within the floodplain of Schneider Creek. That a draft reference plan, confirming a minimum westerly sideyard of 1.2 m for the existing dwelling on the retained lands, shall be approved by the General Manager of Planning & Development. COk~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 252 JUi~E 30. 1998 1. Submission No. C 12/98 - Helmut Hober, cont'd 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. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to erect a 1.82 m high chainlink fence 0.15 m from the rear property line on the Regional Road allowance adjacent to Homer Watson Blvd. with a fence to be installed to Regional standards within one year of the issuance of a building permit for the proposed lot. That the owner shall prepare a detailed grading and drainage control plan for the approval of the Regional Commissioner of Engineering and shall agree to develop the site in accordance with the approved grading and drainage control plan. 10. That the owner shall agree to implement any noise attenuation measures recommended by the preliminary noise assessment; such measures may include site design and building layout, noise warning clauses, noise attenuation barriers, air conditioning and or structural design measures. 11. That the owner shall provide safe emergency access to the site and shall obtain a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways permit for the construction of the driveway from the Grand River Conservation Authority. 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 June 30, 2000. 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 WAIVER OF FEES Mr. W. Green, Green, Shields, Pidgeon and Mr. T. Krizand, President of Thomasfield Homes, were in attendance to request the Committee, pursuant to Section 69 (2) of The Planning Act, to reduce the Minor Variance fee for an application to permit an increased height for 68 freehold townhouses. Mr. Green advised that the variance for each unit is the same. Mr. Green explained the special by-law provisions applying to this land. He requested that one application fee apply rather than one fee per unit. The Secretary-Treasurer agreed that 68 fees were not required, in this instance, to meet the municipality costs. She requested 2 fees. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the fee for the Application for Minor Variance to increase the height for 64 townhouse units on Part Lots 9 & 10, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, proposed Candle Crescent, be reduced to $480.00. Carried ADJOURNMENT COk~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 253 JUi~E 30. 1998 On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 30th day of June, 1998. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment