Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1998-08-18COA\1998-08-18 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 18, 1998 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. W. Dahms, S. Kay and A. Galloway. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Willmer, Intermediate Planner and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of July 28, 1998, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS Submission No. A 73/98 - Kitchener Die Craftsmen, 227 Riverbend Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-4301,227 Riverbend Dr., Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. W. Dahms declared a pecunicary interest with this application as his law firm acts for the applicants' agent and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. S. Kay chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and, pursuant to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the remaining two members. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. W. Rose Schiedel Construction 405 Queen Street West Cambridge, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate new off-street parking spaces 1.174 m (3.86 ft.) from the property line along Guelph Street rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are located at 227 Riverbend Drive, on the corner of Riverbend Drive and Guelph Street. The property is approximately 1.08 acres in size and is zoned Heavy Industrial (M-4) C0k~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 285 AUGUST 18. 1998 according to Zoning By-law 85-1. An industrial plant and office currently exist on this property. The applicants are proposing to increase the amount of parking on the subject lands and are requesting permission to locate new off-street parking spaces 1.174 m (3.86 ft.) along a portion of its Guelph Street streetline rather than the required 3.0 m (9.85 ft.). According to Kitchener's Zoning By-law, parking spaces and aisles giving direct access to abutting parking spaces shall not be located within 3.0 m of a street line. 1. Submission No. A 73/98 - Kitchener Die Craftsmen, cont'd In this instance, the applicant is requesting a reduction because there is only 13.379 m from the street line to the building. This is not sufficient space to accommodate parking space, aisle and the 3.0 m setback. By reducing the 3.0 m setback, the applicant would be able to develop a parking lot. The intent of the 3.0 m setback is to provide a landscape buffer between the street line and the parking lot, and to maintain a uniform streetscape. The land between Guelph Street and Kitchener Die Craftsman is currently covered with grass sloping upwards towards the building. If the 3.0 m buffer is reduced to 1.174 m, there is still 13.0 m of grass from the street to the proposed parking lot. Therefore, ample vegetation will exist around the proposed parking lot which would greatly reduce any visual impact. The property immediately to the north-west is presently used to sell used auto parts. The property is fenced off along Guelph Street and the actual auto parts building is located at the bottom of a large hill. Further, the request only applies to a portion of the Guelph Street frontage. Therefore, it is not expected that the reduction would have a negative impact on the abutting lands or affect the appearance of the streetscape. In this regard, the intent of the By-law will continue to be maintained. Accordingly, the requested variance can be considered to uphold the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law and can be considered as being minor in nature and appropriate for the subject lands. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 73/98, only to the extent of the minor variance as shown on the plan submitted with the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they recommended that a site plan application be required in order to ensure compliance with access/parking design standards. 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. A. Galloway noted the Traffic & Parking Division's comments with respect to a site plan application. Ms. J. Given advised that a site plan application has been submitted and reviewed and staff are awaiting this Committee's decision. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Kitchener Die Craftsmen requesting permission to locate new off-street parking spaces 1.174 m (3.86 ft.) from the property line along Guelph Street rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) on Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-4301,227 Riverbend Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only to the extent of the minor variance as shown on the plan submitted with this application. 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 COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 286 AUGUST 18. 1998 Submission No. A 74/98 - Frank Lipnicki, 171 Bedford Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 239, Registered Plan 262, 183 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. F. Lipnicki 171 Bedford Road Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: Mr. E. Radovic 50 Wilfred Avenue Kitchener, Ontario WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Mr. V. Brundle 161 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario Mr. L. LeBlanc 189 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change the legal non- conforming use of piano sales to the sale of furniture. The applicant is also requesting legalization of the lot width of 13.106 m (43 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.22 ft.); an interior sideyard of 0.2 m (0.76 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.); a setback from Bedford Road of 0 m rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and a rearyard of 0 m rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). The applicant also requests permission to provide 2 off-street parking spaces in the existing attached garage, for three apartments and the furniture store, rather than the required 15 off-street parking spaces. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property is located at the corner of Ottawa Street and Bedford Road. The property contains an existing two-storey building occupied by a furniture store on the ground floor and 3 apartments on the second floor. One parking space is located in an internal garage at the rear of the building with access onto Bedford Road. A parking area has been created in front of the building for customer parking as well, although vehicular access must be gained by way of a neighbouring driveway entrance. The applicant is requesting the following: an extension to a legal non-conforming use i.e. to permit the sale of furniture, as well as relief from the required regulations in the CR-1 Zone for lot width, side yards and rear yard in order to recognize the existing building, and relief from the required parking for the proposed furniture store and three apartments. Two parking spaces are proposed in the garage. In 1982, the Committee of Adjustment granted approval of Minor Variance Application A 113/82 which permitted an extension to a legal non-conforming use of a "piano shop" and two residential units in the existing building to include a music instructor's studio and approval to provide no parking for the studio. However, since the repair of pianos was a permitted use in the Light Industrial Zone and the sale of pianos was permitted as an accessory use to the repair shop and limited to 25% of the floor area, it was not legal non-conforming. A critical issue in assessing this application relates to the identification of any legal non-conforming status to the use of the property. Even if Committee's decision under A-113/82 to allow the studio use as an expansion to the already permitted "piano repair" use stands, the Committee must be satisfied that the property continued to enjoy the benefit of legal non-conforming status as permitted by the decision under COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 287 AUGUST 18. 1998 application A 113/82. It is understood that the use of the property as a piano shop ceased approximately 3 years ago and the furniture store use commenced late in 1997. The music 2. Submission No. A 74/98 - Frank Lipnicki, cont'd studio ceased to operate in 1993, and was illegally converted to an apartment in 1995. The other two second floor apartments have been in existence since prior to 1982 and have been accepted in the past as a legal non-conforming use of the property. The present use of the property as a furniture store is not permitted. The third apartment is a permitted use, as the CR-1 Zone permits multiple dwellings i.e. a building containing three or more dwelling units, provided it meets all the regulations of the By-law. The property appears to have lost its legal non-conforming status as any uses which were recognized as legal non-conforming have ceased. There is no latitude to extend legal non-conforming status of the use as provided in Section 45 of the Planning Act once that status is lost. Even if an argument were successfully made that an extension to a legal non-conforming use could be considered i.e. on the basis that the piano shop is currently accepted as being a legal non-conforming use, a key test of the appropriateness of such an extension is that the new use is similar to, or more compatible than, the existing use. The piano shop involved the sale of "higher order goods", which would have likely generated relatively Iow volumes of traffic. A furniture store might be considered a more "common" retail item and likely to generate more volumes of traffic. With respect to traffic and parking, the furniture store is considered a less compatible land use. The furniture store would require approximately 12 parking spaces, and as such cannot be provided on site. The additional parking in effect forced onto the street is not considered appropriate. Based on the lack of on-site parking for the furniture store, approval of the store could create parking problems off-site due to the introduction of parking spaces into the street network. The impact of such a lack of parking is also not considered to be minor in nature, especially given the fact that the property fronts onto Ottawa Street containing a relatively high traffic volume and acts as a primary arterial road in the City. Parking on Bedford Road is not desirable for the store use given that this is a residential street only. In addition, regard should be given to the policies contained in the Low-density Commercial-Residential designation of the Mill Courtland - Woodside Park Secondary Plan. This designation restricts commercial uses to offices, financial establishments, a limited amount of small convenience retail, as well as other similar uses. The designation would not permit or encourage a use such as the sale of furniture. Similarly, Zoning By-law 85-1 restricts permitted uses in the CR-1 Zone to a very limited amount of retail. It would therefore appear that the use of the subject lands for the sale of furniture would not conform to the general intent and purpose of the Municipal Plan or Zoning By-law. The third apartment in the second floor of the building is a permitted use. The two apartments which predate at least 1982 are considered legal non-conforming and therefore are not required to provide parking as long as they continue to be used for this purpose. Only one legal on-site parking space can be provided for this property, in the internal garage, and this space would appear to be the only acceptable location for a space to serve the apartment, although it appears to be normally used for loading and unloading purposes for any ground floor uses. Two spaces as proposed by the applicant do not appear to be physically possible given the internal width of the garage. Parking developed at the front of the building does not comply with the setback requirements from a street, and must be accessed via a neighbouring driveway. A raised curb exists along the frontage along Ottawa Street. A City owned laneway at the rear of the property cannot be considered for use as parking. The requested variances to regularize the lot width and existing side yards and rear yard are considered appropriate only as it relates to uses permitted in section 44.1 of the CR-1 Zone which permits residential and limited commercial uses in order to accommodate the re-use of existing buildings. The building has existed for approximately 50 years and recognition of the present building location would seem reasonable and appropriate. The variances to the regulations contained in the CR-1 Zone would therefore be as follows: 2. Submission No. A 74/98 - Frank Lipnicki, cont'd 1. A lot width of 13.1 metres rather than the required 15 metres. C0k~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 288 AUGUST 18. 1998 A northerly side yard of 0 metres and a southerly side yard of 0.23 metres rather than the required 3 metres and 1.2 metres respectively. A 0.31 metre rear yard rather than the required 7.5 metres. In conclusion, this application for expansion of a legal non-conforming use is not supported. However, that part of the application for relief of the required lot width, side yards and rear yard for permitted uses is supported. As a footnote to this discussion, the applicant may wish to pursue discussions with the City in order to have the laneway closed, conveyed to them and used for required parking purposes. The part of the laneway immediately behind the subject property might lend itself well for use as parking. Indeed, the lane is fenced immediately south of the westerly lot line of the property and it is understood that the applicant has parked in this location before. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of that part of Submission A 74/98 relating to a request to extend a legal non-conforming use in order to permit the sale of furniture. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of that part of Submission A 74/98 relating to the provision of two parking spaces in tandem in the existing garage. 3. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of that part of Submission A 74/98 relating to a request for a lot width of 13.1 metres rather than the required 15 metres, a northerly side yard of 0 metres and a southerly side yard of 0.23 metres rather than the required 3 metres and 1.2 metres, respectively, and a 0.31 metre rear yard rather than the required 7.5 metres, relative to the existing building and only for those use permitted under section 44.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they do not support the request to provide two off-street parking spaces rather than the required 15 parking spaces. On-street parking is prohibited on Ottawa Street and on one side of Bedford Road and is restricted to a maximum limit of 2 hours on the opposite side of Bedford Road. As such, all customer parking from the proposed use would occur along the residential portion of Bedford Road. It is their view that this is not appropriate on a residential street and that commercial parking should be provided on-site. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for alterations to create a new residential unit. The Committee considered the written submission of Mr. V. Brundle and Mr. L. LeBlanc in support of the application. 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. Lipnicki addressed the Committee advising that he purchased this property in 1982. The property was previously occupied by K-W Auto Supply. He advised that he brought the property up to standards, which please the neighbours. Mr. Lipnicki advised he had approval for the piano and organ house. He referred to page 2 of the comments of the Business & Planning Services Department which states that the piano shop involved the sale of higher order goods, etc. Mr. Lipnicki then referred to the yellow pages of the phonebook where, he advised, there are only two piano shops in town listed. He disagreed that his furniture shop would be a high volume business. Again referring to the yellow pages, Mr. Lipnicki stated that there are 91 places listed where you can buy furniture. Mr. Lipnicki advised that the furniture in his shop is made 2. Submission No. A 74/98 - Frank Lipnicki, cont'd by Mennonite farmers. People will order items that are displayed and they will be custom made. He advised that there will be very little traffic coming to the store. Mr. Lipnicki also noted that the music studio, that previously occupied a portion of the building, had 225 students each week with 225 parents dropping them off and picking them up. That was a much heavier volume of traffic then what is proposed now. Mr. Lipnicki then spoke of other business in the area, generating large volumes of traffic, with little COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 289 AUGUST 18. 1998 or no parking facilities. Mr. tipnicki stated that he maintains the building in good condition and he felt the use should be allowed. He felt that the current by-laws should apply in new areas. This building has existed for 50 - 60 years, the City allowed it and a new by-law shouldn't apply. He advised that he is looking for compassion and requested that he be permitted to continue the retail use. Mr. S. Kay questioned whether an occupancy permit was required for this change of use. Ms. J. Given advised that an occupancy permit was required. Mr. Lipnicki responded that the building was empty for some time. He felt that the change from piano sales to furniture sales was similar and wouldn't require a permit. Mr. Kay then referred to page 2 of the staff comments with respect to change of use. Ms. J. Given responded that the residential use is legal non-conforming. She advised that the piano business was a repair business which was a permitted use under the previous zoning and the music studio was a permitted extension to that use. Mr. Kay then questioned whether a zone change would be possible. Ms. J. Given then responded that an Official Plan Amendment would be required as well as a zone change and staff would not be supportive. Ms. Given then advised of uses in the area and parking. She advised that retailing is not permitted in the Mixed Commercial Residential category. Mr. Kay questioned whether the permitted use would be offices and Ms. Given responded that even to conduct a permitted use, the applicant would require legalization of the location of the building. Ms. Given advised that staff would work with the owner to close the lane to provide parking and find a use that can fit in with the zoning and not use much parking. Mr. A. Galloway noted that staff are of the opinion that the Committee has no jurisdiction and Ms. J. Given advised that was so. Mr. Radovic addressed the Committee advising that he proposed to purchase the property. He spoke of the situation he thought he was buying and other situations he has been involved with. He stated that he felt parking was a major issue. He advised that he was opposed to the application because of the problems it would create for him down the road. Mr. Lipnicki Mr. Dahms influence to noted that he had submitted two letters from neighbours in support of his application, which read aloud for staff's benefit. The Committee questioned whether the letters had any change staff's position on the matter and Ms. Given advised that they did not. Mr. Dahms advised that the Committee's hands are tied, as the piano store was not a legal non- conforming use. He advised Mr. Lipnicki that he requires a Zone Change and Official Plan Amendment. Mr. A. Galloway advised that he agreed that the Committee has no authority to change the use but would be willing to put forward a motion to approve the lot and location of the building on the lot. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Frank Lipnicki requesting permission to change a legal non-conforming use from piano sales to the sale of furniture on Lot 239, Registered Plan 262, 183 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario BE REFUSED. 2. Submission No. A 74/98 - Frank Lipnicki, cont'd It is the opinion of this Committee that the piano sales was not legal non-conforming use; therefore, the Committee has no jurisdiction to approve this request. - and - That the application of Frank Lipnicki requesting permission to provide two off-street parking spaces in tandem, in the attached garage, for three apartments and a furniture store, rather than the required 15 off- street parking spaces on Lot 239, Registered Plan 262, 183 Ottawa Street, South, Kitchener, Ontario BE COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 290 AUGUST 18. 1998 REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is not minor in nature. 2. This application is not 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 not being maintained on the subject property. - and - That the application of Frank Lipnicki requesting legalization of an existing building on a Lot having a width of 13.1 m (43 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.22 ft.), a northerly sideyard of 0 m rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.), a southerly sideyard of 0.23 m (0.76 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) and rearyard of 0.31 m (1.02 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Lot 239, Registered Plan 262, 183 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the existing building only and only for those uses permitted under Section 44.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1. 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 3. Submission No. A 75/98 - Maribeth & Tim Filiatrault, 71 Vicmount Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 22, Registered Plan 1319, 71 Vicmount Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Rez APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. & Mrs. T. Filiatrault 71 Vicmount Drive Kitchener, Ontario Ms. C. Caron 73 Vicmount Drive Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Submission No. A 75/98 - Maribeth & Tim Filiatrault, cont'd NONE NONE COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 291 AUGUST 18. 1998 The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in tandem, in the existing driveway, with one parking space being closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the property line along Vicmount Drive for their home and home hairdressing business. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to park two vehicles in tandem with one space located ahead of the 6.0 metre set back. The applicant is proposing to open a hairdressing business in a semi- detached dwelling, with no employees. The applicant has advised that it will be a small business for predominantly family and friends as clients. 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 and cannot be located in tandem. The legal parking space for the dwelling is located adjacent to the dwelling and is set back 6.0 metres from the property line as required. The driveway is long enough to accommodate one additional parking space, in tandem, and within 2.4 metres of the 6.0 metre set back. The property has a 8.8 metre lot width, making it impossible to provide two parking spaces side by side in compliance with the By-law. The By- law requires the side by side parking for the convenience of entering and exiting the driveway without the requirement of moving another vehicle to exit the site. 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 75/98 relative only to the parking required for a hair dressing home business, subject to the owner complying with all other home business regulations and subject to the owner obtaining an occupancy permit for the home business. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have no concern with the proposed parking arrangement. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for any new construction required to create the home occupation. The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. The Chairman reviewed the Business & Planning Department's recommendation with Mr. & Mrs. Filiatrault. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Maribeth & Tim Filiatrault requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in tandem, in the existing driveway, rather than two parking spaces side by side, with one parking space being closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the property line along Vicmount Drive, for a home and home hairdressing business on Part Lot 22, Registered Plan 1319, 71 Vicmount Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: 3. Submission No. A 75/98 - Maribeth & Tim Filiatrault, cont'd 1. That the owner shall comply with all other home business regulations and shall 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. obtain an COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 292 AUGUST 18. 1998 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 76/98 - Eastforest Homes Ltd., 10 Alpine Crt., Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part 61, Reference Plan 58R-10621, 154 Wilderness Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. D. Murawsky Eastforest Homes Ltd. 10 Alpine Crt. Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to locate the driveway 8.48 m (27.83 ft.) from the intersection of Wilderness Drive and Mountain Mint Crescent rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.); legalization of a lot width of 12.5 m (41 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.22 ft.) and permission for a setback of 3.83 m (12.57 ft.) from Mountain Mint Crescent, for the proposed house, rather than the required 4.5 m (14.77 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are an undeveloped corner lot located at the intersection of Mountain Mint Crescent and Wilderness Drive in the Laurentian West community. The applicant is requesting a three minor variances to reduce the required lot width from 15 metres to 12.5 metres, to reduce the distance between the driveway and the intersection from 12 metres to 8.3 metres, and to reduce the minimum side yard abutting a street from 4.5 metres to 3.83 metres. In reviewing this application it was determined that the subject lot does not require a minor variance to comply with the minimum lot width requirement for a corner lot as a minor variance was previously granted in this respect. On February 4, 1997, the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application A 35/97 to reduce the minimum corner lot width to 12.5 metres from 15 metres for the subject lot. The application should be revised accordingly. The Department of Business and Planning Services 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 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. 4. Submission No. A 76/98 - Eastforest Homes Ltd., cont'd 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 setback of the required parking space from the street line would result in a driveway with insufficient length to accommodate off-street parking for a second vehicle, which could COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 293 AUGUST 18. 1998 have significant implications on the existing streetscape. The shape and width of the existing lot is also such that it does not provide sufficient depth for a reasonably sized dwelling to be constructed without encroaching into the required side yard abutting a street. With the requested minor variance to reduce the minimum side yard abutting a street, the proposed dwelling would still be set back 3.83 metres from the streetline. The requested minor variance would not have any impact on the provision of off-street parking and would continue to respect the existing streetscape of the subdivision. For the reasons set out above, the proposed minor variances can be considered to maintain the general intent of both the Municipal Plan and the Zoning By-law, to be minor in nature, and appropriate for the development of the subject lands. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 76/98, as revised to delete the requested minor variance to the corner lot width. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they do not support the proposed reduction in the setback of the driveway from the adjacent intersection. This condition can create potential traffic operating problems, particularly on a collector road where traffic volumes are typically higher. It is recommended that the driveway location be revised to meet the by-law requirements. 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. D. Murawsky explained the application to the Committee. He advised that the lot is too narrow to allow for the driveway and this style of house is the best product suited for the lot. Mr. A. Galloway questioned staff as to how the undersized lots got created in the plan of subdivision. Ms. Given advised that this property is part of a Iotless block created in the plan of subdivision. Several of these lots, created by way of part lot control, came before this Committee in February for lot width variances. She advised that there was a problem with the part lot control procedure. She advised that staff have changed their procedure and there should not be this problem in the future. Mr. Galloway stated that he was will to support the application but he was concerned about the Traffic & Parking Division comments. At the request of Mr. Murawsky, the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application in accordance with the Planning comments. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Eastforest Homes Ltd. requesting permission to locate the driveway 8.48 m (27.83 ft.) from the intersection of Wilderness Drive and Mountain Mint Crescent rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) and permission for a setback of 3.83 m (12.54 ft.) from the Mountain Mint Crescent for the proposed house rather than the required 4.5 m (14.77 ft.) on Part 61, Reference Plan 58R-10621, 154 Wilderness Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. 4. Submission No. A 76/98 - Eastforest Homes Ltd., 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. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 294 AUGUST 18. 1998 Carried Submission No. A 77/98 - Marianne Hordyk, 130 Avon Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 118, Registered Plan 928, 130 Avon Road, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. D. Hordyk 130 Avon Road Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: Mr. J. Stewart 127 Avon Road Kitchener, Ontario Mr. A. Schmidtmeyer 135 Avon Road Kitchener, Ontario Ms. C. Weiland 12 Plaza Court Kitchener, Ontario Mr. & Mrs. J. McLean 134 Avon Road Kitchener, Ontario WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: Mr. & Mrs. J. McLean 134 Avon Road Kitchener, Ontario Mr. & Mrs. E. Strelau 131 Avon Road Kitchener, Ontario Neighbourhood Petition The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in a new driveway, off Avon Road, for a home and home babysitting business. These parking spaces will be 3.36 m (11 ft.) from the property line along Avon Road rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting relief from the requirement to set back parking spaces 6 metres from the street line, in order to permit the construction of two off-street parking spaces located 3.35 metres from the front lot line. The parking spaces will have access to Avon Road and will be located at the south-east corner of the property. The existing driveway is presently located on the west side of the property with access onto Plaza Court. 5. Submission No. A 77/98 - Marianne Hordyk, cont'd The applicant seeks to operate a home day care business from the existing single family dwelling located on the property. The R-3 zone permits a private home day care. The need for re-locating the existing driveway is based on the need to provide a fenced area in the rear yard to accommodate the day care operation. The applicant is aware of the requirements of the Fence By-law and has been advised that if the proposed fence exceeds the location and height requirements of the By-law then a request for COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 295 AUGUST 18. 1998 exception to such requirements will be necessary. The Traffic and Parking Division has commented that they have no concerns with the proposed variance. The spaces are not located in the required 12 metre site triangle at the intersection of Avon Road and Plaza Court. The Division has advised, however, that a hedge located on the easterly lot line appears to exceed the maximum permitted height of 1 metre as stipulated in section 842.2.2 of the Municipal Code. In order to comply with the Municipal Code and improve visibility for motorists entering into Avon Road from the subject property, the hedge should be reduced to the required height of 1 metre. As the hedge may in fact be partly located on the neighbouring property to the east, that neighbour may also be required to reduce the height of the hedge and should therefore also be advised of the above noted section of the Code as it may apply to them. In examining the location and dimension of other parking spaces along this part of Avon Road, it would appear that the variance for the proposed parking spaces does not represent a significant departure from that already existing on Avon Road. The dwelling is set back a similar distance to that of the two adjacent single family dwellings immediately to the east, both of which contain driveways between the street and dwellings. While said dwellings either have a longer driveway between the structure and side yard lot line or have the benefit of an attached garage, the driveway leading to a space or garage appears to be used as a parking space. Objections have been expressed verbally to staff about this application by neighbours who live in this part of Avon Road. More particularly, concern exists regarding additional traffic resulting from the proposed day care, the aesthetic impact of cars parked in the front yard, and the safety of children due to the location of the parking spaces and driveway. As already mentioned, a private home day care is a permitted use on the subject lands, subject to complying with all regulations. The resulting traffic will be limited by the number of children permitted by the Zoning By-law, which requires that no more than five children be accommodated in a private home day care. The volume of traffic resulting from the use is not considered excessive and only likely to be generated at peak times i.e. 9am and 5pm approximately. The aesthetic impact of vehicles parked in the front yard can, in fact, already be viewed on other properties in this vicinity. While the Zoning By-law restricts the location of a parking space from within 6 metres of the street line, the practical reality is that this setback is already being used in many instances for this purpose. To restrict the applicant from also using part of the required setback would seem inappropriate and unreasonable. Finally, as in most residential areas, the presence of children playing on or near the street is a fact of life - the requested variance, if approved, is not considered to pose a detriment to the safety of children beyond any such detriment that may already be posed by existing traffic along Avon Road. Staff consider that the application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan, is minor in nature and represents a desirable use or development of the land. In this regard, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that application no. A-77/98 be approved subject to the condition that the hedge on the easterly lot line of the subject property be reduced in height, where necessary, in order to comply with the requirements of section 842.2.2 of the Municipal Code. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A-77/98 subject to the following conditions: 5. Submission No. A 77/98 - Marianne Hordyk, cont'd That the existing hedge located on the easterly lot line of 130 Avon Road be reduced in height, where necessary, in order to comply with the requirements of section 842.2.2 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code (Hedges-Other Objects, Traffic Hazards) by November 15, 1998. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to the completion date in this decision. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have no concerns with the proposed driveway location. It appears that the existing hedge adjacent to the proposed driveway may be higher than the by-law limit and should be trimmed accordingly. COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 296 AUGUST 18. 1998 The Committee noted the written submissions of Mr. & Mrs. E. Strelau and Mr. & Mrs. J. McLean in opposition to the application. 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. Hordyk explained the request in the application. He advised that he bought the property in June. His wife wants to start a babysitting business which would involve babysitting three children. He noted that the old driveway splits the house from the backyard. By removing the old driveway he can close in the backyard with a chainlink fence. He noted that the double width driveway will fit two cars. He also advised that he will do some landscaping to improve the look of the property. Mr. Hordyk noted the comments of staff and advised that he will lower the height of the hedge. Mr. S. Kay noted that the daycare use is legal and permitted use. He also noted that, if this application is not approved, the daycare could still exist, although the situation may not be as good as that proposed. The City could not prevent him from doing it, he just would not be able to move the driveway. Mr. Schmidtmeyer advised that he has lived on Avon Road for 30 years and he does not want to look at an asphalt jungle. He stated that Mr. Hordyk bought the property with the intention of running a business and questioned why he didn't buy a place where things didn't have to be changed. Mr. McLean addressed the Committee advising that he lives next door to the proposed driveway. He advised that his main concern revolves around the drastic changes for the babysitting business. There was a brief discussion about the existing hedge. Mr. Stewart addressed the Committee advising that his basic concern is safety. He stated that he has complained to the City about the heavy traffic on Avon Road. He stated that he was concerned about safety for children and stated that he doesn't want to look asphalt. Mr. Stewart suggested cleaning up the old driveway. Mrs. McLean advised the Committee that her main concern is safety. She suggested leaving the driveway on Plaza Court where there is less traffic. Ms. C. Weiland addressed the Committee advising that her main concern is safety and she felt that moving the driveway to Avon Road would double the risk. Mr. Hordyk responded to the neighbours' comments by stating that there will only be three cars to the property each day. Further, they will not be increasing the parking area as the old driveway will be removed. Also, he stated that there are twenty driveways on Avon Road now and one more won't add that much. Mr. Kay developed a compromised solution, which, after discussion with Mr. Hordyk, the neighbours and staff, was agreed to by all. 5. Submission No. A 77~98 - Marianne Hordyk, cont'd Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Marianne Hordyk requesting permission to create a second parking space, beside the existing driveway and closer to Avon Road, with a setback from Plaza Court of 0 m rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.), having a length of 5.34 m (17.5 ft.) rather than the required 5.49 m (18 ft.) on Part Lot 118, Registered Plan 928, 130 Avon Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the surplus portion of the existing driveway shall be removed no later than October 18, 1998. COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 297 AUGUST 18. 1998 That the existing hedge located on the easterly Iotline of 130 Avon Road shall be reduced in height, where necessary, in order to comply with the requirements of Section 842.2.2 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code, by November 15, 1998. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to November 15, 1998. 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 The Committee members warned Mr. Hordyk about the rules concerning fences on corner lots. Mr. Hordyk advised that it was their intention to erect a 3 ft. high chainlink fence around the backyard. The Committee members warned Mr. Hordyk that they did not wish to see him before this Committee with respect to a variance for the fence. Submission No's A 78/98, A 79/98 & A 80/98 - lan Cook Construction Limited, 169 Lexington Court, Unit B1, Waterloo, Ontario Re: Lots 9, 10 & 11, Registered Plan 58M-68, Erinbrook Court, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. I. Cook 169 Lexington Court Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct 3 single family dwellings with rearyard setbacks from Westmount Road of 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to reduce the rear yard setback to 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) rather than the required 12.0 metres (39.37 feet) for each of Lots 9, 10 and 11, 58M-68. Submission No's A 78/98, A 79/98 & A 80/98 - lan Cook Construction Limited, cont'd The applicant wishes to erect a single detached dwelling on each of the three lots on the proposed new Erinbrook Street. The subdivision has recently been registered and is currently under construction. The applicant has advised that as most of the lots in this new subdivision are long and narrow, that he is limited to certain house designs. On the end of the cul-de-sac, he indicates that house designs are limited due to the 12 metre setback requirement for lots backing onto arterial roads. The City is not compelled to support such an argument as the plan was designed and registered with full acknowledgement of the 12.0 metre setback requirement and the dwellings which could be built on the lots in compliance with the by-law are not restrictively small. COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 298 AUGUST 18. 1998 Although the lots currently back onto Westmount Road, a major arterial road, this portion of Westmount Road will be closed following its diversion in the next couple of years to tie in with the extension of Fischer-Hallman Road. The lots will then be backing onto the rear yard of a proposed triangular-shaped lot which is presently zoned Community Institutional (C-2) and the required rear yard setback would be only 7.5 metres with which the lots would comply. The applicant also notes that a noise wall will be constructed along the rear property line to offer noise attenuation, which is the primary purpose of the increased rear yard setback. The impact of the variance is minor as the proposed setback of 7.5 metres would only contravene the by- law temporarily until the diversion and realignment of Westmount Road with Fischer-Hallman Road takes place and this section of Westmount Road is closed and conveyed. The intent of the zoning by-law and Municipal Plan is maintained as the increased rear yard requirement will not apply once the road is closed. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submissions A 78-80/98. The Committee considered the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no concerns with these applications. Submission No. A 78/98 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of lan Cook Construction Limited requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling with a rearyard setback from Westmount Road of 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) on Lot 9, Registered Plan 58M-68, Erinbrook Court, 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's A 78/98, A 79/98 & A 80/98 - lan Cook Construction Limited, cont'd Submission No. A 79~98 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of lan Cook Construction Limited requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling with a rearyard setback from Westmount Road of 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.)on Lot 10, Registered Plan 58M-68, Erinbrook Court, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 299 AUGUST 18. 1998 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 Submission No. A 80/98 Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of lan Cook Construction Limited requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling with a rearyard setback from Westmount Road of 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) on Lot 11, Registered Plan 58M-68, Erinbrook Court, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 81/98 - Bruce Goudy, 254F Woolwich Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 125, German Company Tract, 254F Woolwich Street North, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. B. Goudy 254F Woolwich Street North Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE 7. Submission No. A 81/98 - Bruce Goudy, cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to expand this legal non-conforming building by constructing a new foundation or basement under it, with the same outside dimensions as the existing building. This property is legal non-conforming because it does not have frontage on a public street. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to extend or enlarge the existing building which has legal COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 300 AUGUST 18. 1998 non-conforming status. The subject property does not comply with the zoning by-law requirement for frontage on a public street. The lot is one of nine adjoining lots along the Grand River, having access from Woolwich Street by means of a right-of-way over a private lane. The distance from Woolwich Street to the subject property is approximately 700-800 m. A portion of the lot is within the flood plain of the Grand River; however, the existing and proposed location of the dwelling is above the flood line. The existing dwelling was constructed in approximately 1931. It is a one storey wood frame structure mounted on blocks, and is suitable for seasonal use only. The applicant proposes to temporarily move the dwelling, construct a basement, and place the dwelling on the new foundation. No expansion of the building floor area is proposed. On seven of the nine river-front lots, the original seasonal cottages have been upgraded or replaced by year-round homes. In some cases, building permits were issued in compliance with Township of Waterloo By-law 878A, which remained in effect until 1994 and permitted expansion of a legal non- conforming residence by up to 25% of its floor area. In other cases, variances were approved to allow expansions by more than 25%. Variances were approved by the Committee of Adjustment for the Township of Waterloo in 1967 for 254C Woolwich Street, and 1971 for 254G Woolwich Street. These approvals may have been used as the basis for building permits on other adjacent lots without further Committee approvals. In 1978 a variance was approved by Kitchener's Committee of Adjustment for a 45% expansion of 254E Woolwich Street. Application for subdivision draft plan approval has been made by Southstaton Holdings and Activa Investments, owners of the private lane. The first phase of the proposed subdivision would extend a public street to within 130 m of the lot; a subsequent phase would extend a public street to within 15m of the lot. The draft plan design makes provision for the further extension of the public street across the front of the subject property; however further extension would be on land which is not owned by Southstaton/Activa and is not the subject of a subdivision application. When considering requests for permission to enlarge a building used for a legal non-conforming purpose, consideration must be given to the compatibility of the use and whether the permission would have the effect of perpetuating the legal non-conforming use. In this case there is no issue of incompatibility, as the adjoining lots are also occupied by dwellings, and the proposal represents an improvement to the value of the dwelling. Approval of the proposal would certainly have the effect of perpetuating the existence of the dwelling. The provision of a permanent foundation, together with insulation and other renovations not requiring the Committee's permission, would allow the dwelling to be occupied year-round, rather than seasonal use only. There is no doubt that a proposal to construct a new dwelling on a vacant zero4rontage lot would not be supported by staff; however, in this case the dwelling exists, and the purpose of the proposal is to allow it to be used as a permanent residence. The issue is whether perpetuation of the dwelling's existence, without frontage on a public street, represents good planning. 7. Submission No. A 81/98 - Bruce Goudy, cont'd Planning staff cannot support the proposal as it has the effect of allowing for the replacement of an existing building having very limited value, and an apparently limited lifespan, by a new permanent dwelling. It is acknowledged that neighbouring dwellings on the same lane have been given permission for more substantial expansions than the one proposed here, although the zoning by-law at the time permitted as-of-right expansion, whereas the current by-law does not. It is further acknowledged that the lot is likely to have public street frontage at some time in the future, although there has been no indication that the abutting owner to the west intends to develop. The Department of Planning and Development recommends refusal of Submission A 81/98. COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 301 AUGUST 18. 1998 The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they do not object to the approval of this application; however, they recommended that the approval be made subject to the approval of a Fill, Construction & Alteration to Waterways Permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority prior to the commencement of construction. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the foundation under the existing house. The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. The Chairman pointed out the staff recommendation, which was to refuse this application. Mr. Goudy advised that the purpose in applying is because the piles under the building need repair and the floor is sagging in some places. He stated that a crawl space would not really expand the usable space in the building. Mr. Goudy pointed out that there had been year round tenants in the building prior to him purchasing it. He advised that he would like to live on the property on a year round basis. He could live there with heaving floors but he would like to have it in better shape. Mr. Kay and Mr. Goudy then questioned staff as to whether the use is legal non-conforming. Ms. J. Given stated that the Planning Act expects legal non-conforming uses to cease. Mr. Goudy noted that others in the lane have expanded their buildings and they are in support of his request. The others on the lane already have full basements. He questioned whether this had any baring on his request. Mr. Goudy then questioned whether he would require a Committee of Adjustment approval if he put in a super insulated floor and Ms. Given that he would not. Mr. Galloway stated that he was convinced that the application was valid. Mr. Kay questioned the current situation and Mr. Goudy advised that one end of the building is on piers and the other rests on the ground. A discussion then took place on the difference between permitting a crawl space or a basement. Mr. Kay then questioned the incremental costs. Mr. Goudy advised that his estimate for a 4 ft. wall is $3,400 and a 5 ft. wall is $5,000. The Chairman questioned the zoning on the property. Mr. J. Willmer stated that there are nine to ten dwellings on the lane and virtually all of them are year round dwellings. These properties are designated Low-Rise Residential. The issue is that the property fronts on a private lane and not a public street. Mr. Willmer advised that he spoke with Mr. Goudy several times prior to him purchasing the property. Staff have struggled with this issue of a property not being on a public street. Further, he advised that staff don't distinguish between a crawl space and a basement. Mr. Willmer noted that either one will have the effect of perpetuating the use. Further, Mr. Willmer advised that with development of this area, it is possible that this property will have frontage on a public street in the fullness of time. 7. Submission No. A 81/98 - Bruce Goudy, cont'd Mr. S. Kay stated that, having listened to Mr. Willmer, he questioned whether this was really an expansion. He noted the $5,000. expenditure and stated that if a developer wanted to buy this property the expenditure wouldn't be enough to make a difference. Mr. Kay stated that if the likelihood is that there will be road access in future, then the property will have access in the fullness of time. Mr. Kay put forward a motion to approve the application. Mr. Dahms questioned whether the motion was for a crawl space or a basement and Mr. Kay advised that it was for either. Mr. Kay stated that he was of the opinion it doesn't really entrench the legal non- conforming status because of the additional expenditure. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Bruce Goudy requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming dwelling by constructing either a crawl space or basement under it on Part Lot 125, German Company Tract, 254F COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 302 AUGUST 18. 1998 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall obtain a Fill, Construction & Alteration to Waterways Permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority prior to commencing construction. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Kitchener prior to commencing construction. It is the opinion of this Committee that the use of this property as a residential dwelling has continued since the day the by-law prohibiting this use was passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Submission No. A 61/98 - Richard & Elizabeth Rogers, 42 Golfview Place, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lots 31 & 32, Registered Plan 230, 14 Spadina Road East, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Rogers 42 Golfview Place Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission for a corner lot width of 13 m (42.65 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.33 ft.). The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands contain one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling fronting onto Spadina Road East at the corner of Winslow Drive. The street address of the subject lands is 14 Spadina Road East (the other half of the dwelling is described as 16 Spadina Road East). At the June 30, 1998 Committee meeting, an application to sever the subject lands under file no. B 57/98 (14 Spadina Road East) was approved subject to an application for minor variance being approved regarding the proposed lot width. The R-4 Zone requires a minimum lot width of 15 metres for a semi- detached house on a corner lot - the proposed lot width is 13 metres, creating a deficiency of 2 metres. 1. Submission No. A 61/98 - Richard & Elizabeth Roqers, cont'd Staff consider that the impact of this variance is relatively minor in nature. This semi-detached dwelling, of which the subject lands constitutes one half, has existed, at least in a functional sense, as two separate dwellings for several years. As such, the lot width as it relates to 14 Spadina Road East effectively remains unchanged. The lot width provided is considered to be adequate to serve the dwelling and allows for sufficient area to accommodate a driveway and parking space as well as front yard amenity area. This application maintains the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 85-1 and the Municipal Plan and is considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land. Based on these factors, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance application A 61/98 be approved without conditions. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 61/98 without conditions. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 303 AUGUST 18. 1998 reviewed this application and have no concerns with the proposed reduction in lot width. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Richard & Elizabeth Rogers requesting permission for a corner lot width of 13 m (42.65 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.33 ft.) on Part Lots 31 & 32, Registered Plan 230, 14 Spadina Road East, 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. 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 2. Submission No. A 69/98 - Gurjeet Singh, 103 Ahrens Street West, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 9, Plan 401,103 Ahrens Street West, Kitchener, Ontario. Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Hardie 260A Huron Road Kitchener, Ontario Mr. G. Singh 103 Ahrens Street West Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: Mr. & Mrs. J.D. Coleman 32 Maynard Avenue Kitchener, Ontario WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Hardie 260A Huron Road Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: Mr. & Mrs. J.D. Coleman 32 Maynard Avenue Kitchener, Ontario 2. Submission No. A 69/98 - Gurieet Sin,qh, cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming automobile repair business by adding automobile sales. The applicant is also requesting permission to locate parking 0.75 m (2.46 ft.) from Victoria Street rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and permission for the parking spaces to have a width of 2.56 m (8.4 ft.) rather than the required 2.58 m (8.47 ft.). The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to change the use of land to a use which is similar to the existing legal non-conforming use or is more compatible with the uses permitted by the by-law. The existing legal non-conforming use is a two-bay automobile service station. The proposal is to permit auto sales in addition to continuing the service station use. COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 304 AUGUST 18. 1998 This application is similar to submission A 42~98 (131 Victoria Street North) which was supported by staff and approved by the Committee at its June 9 1998 meeting. This application differs from A 42/98, however, in that the subject property and surrounding lands have definite redevelopment potential, whereas the property at 131 Victoria has little likelihood of consolidation and redevelopment. Furthermore, the Civic Centre Secondary Plan places considerable emphasis on protecting the residential interior of the neighbourhood from incompatible uses. It permits certain commercial uses along Victoria and Water Streets, but does not permit automotive-related uses, as these are permitted on the opposite side of Victoria Street, where they are more compatible with the adjacent railway lands and industrial properties. The subject property is an L-shaped lot, with frontage on and access to Ahrens Street and Victoria Street. The adjacent property to the west, at the corner of Victoria and Water Streets, is now for sale. It contains a vacant commercial building (formerly Victoria Cigar Store) which occupies much of the lot; there is no on-site parking provided. The adjacent property to the southeast (95 Ahrens Street) is a rooming house. The Civic Centre Secondary Plan designates that property as High Density Commercial Residential, the same as the subject property and the former cigar store. A holding policy encourages redevelopment of the three properties, and requires consolidation of the Ahrens Street property with the other two properties, thereby assembling a reasonable redevelopment site with access from Water Street. While the proposed use may be considered to be similar to the existing legal non-conforming use, this does not make its approval automatic. Planning principles must be considered in determining whether a change of use should be permitted. The proposal is not supported by staff for the following reasons. The configuration of the property and the location of the existing building present considerable difficulties for its continued use, as demonstrated in the following comments. Commercial access to Ahrens Street, a local residential street, is undesirable; access should be provided from Water Street or Victoria Street only. However, given the location of the existing building, closing the Ahrens Street access would make it impossible to provide vehicle access to the service bay doors. Similarly, there is not enough room between the building and Ahrens Street to allow for provision of a 3.0 m landscaped setback, as required by the by-law, as this would prevent proper traffic circulation on site. The rear yard is accessible by a driveway on the southeast side of the lot; however, the limited distance between the rear of the building and the south lot line appears to make the proposed parking area non- functional. If the property were consolidated with the former cigar store, access could be provided from Water Street, the Ahrens Street access could be closed, the 3.0 m landscaped setback could be provided, and the L- shaped lot would become a more usable rectangular lot. 2. Submission No. A 69/98 - Gurieet Sin.qh, cont'd Addition of the proposed use would have the effect of perpetuating the existing use, rather than encouraging it to cease. Given the Secondary Plan policies applying to the neighbouring rooming house property, and the current vacancy of the former cigar store, approval of the requested use would frustrate the redevelopment potential of all three lots. Staff therefore recommend refusal of the permission requested, as it is not desirable for the appropriate development and use of the property. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of Submission A 69/98. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have reviewed the application and cannot support it as submitted. The submitted plan does not detail any access points; however, a site inspection revealed that parking space no. 8 would prevent any vehicles from accessing the rear parking behind the garage. The required capsule width for the rear parking behind the garage is 12.2 m. The deficiency of 1.5 m in the capsule width would make manoeuvring vehicles difficult or impossible. Not considering the required setback of 3 m from Victoria Street, parking COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 305 AUGUST 18. 1998 spaces no. 1 and 2 would block access from Victoria Street. In summary, while the Division can support the reduction in the stall width, and could perhaps negotiate a reduction in the required 3 m setback from Victoria Street, there are too many concerns with the proposed parking layout. They advised that they could not support the application as submitted. The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region 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 the property. It may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening under this application. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. & Mrs. J. D. Coleman, 32 Maynard Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario in which they advised that they are vehemently opposed to all requests under this submission. The Committee was in receipt of a written submission from Mr. R. Hardie dated August 12, 1998, attached to which was a revised site plan for the property showing 9 legal parking spaces. Mr. & Mrs. J. D. Coleman distributed a further written submission to the Committee members at the meeting. Mr. Hardie addressed the Committee and distributed 3 plans. He advised that prior to this meeting he met with staff concerning staffs comments about combining this property with the abutting property. He explained that in 1996, when this property was purchased, both properties were available and the market was not interested in combining these properties. Mr. Hardie then referred to the revised site plan advising that there are 9 legal parking spaces on site and no minor variances to the by-law regulations are required. He noted that the revised plan has landscaping provisions, and, in this regard, he referred to a separate landscaping plan. This came about partly because of the Colemans wanted to see the property improved in some way. Mr. Hardie then referred to two previous applications before this Committee, of a similar nature which were approved, one by the O.M.B., he stated that this Committee has jurisdiction to deal with the application and the zone change is not required. Mr. Hardie advised that 9 off-street parking spaces are required for this use. The current proposal provides 9 parking spaces plus one display space. This is not a large scale auto sales. The purpose of the application is to allow the owner to buy at auction. The current proposal will not change the future compatibility of the site; as auto sales will not significantly add to the value of the property. Further, the owner has proposed a landscaping strip beside 95 Ahren Street, even though it is not required, because it is a residential occupancy. 2. Submission No. A 69/98 - Gurieet Sin.qh, cont'd Mr. S. Kay questioned whether there was a specific O.M.B. decision with respect to auto sales being a natural extension of auto repair. Mr. Hardie advised that there was and referred to Submission No. A 135/97. He advised that the O.M.B. approved the application and dealt with the issue of auto sales being added to auto repair. The Board stated that it was a proper expansion of the legal non-conforming use. Mr. S. Kay questioned whether it was appropriate for this Committee to restrict the number of cars sold. Ms. J. Given advised that, with respect to the Wellington Street property, auto sales was thought to be a proper expansion and the number of cars was limited to four; however, she stated, there were some distinguishing features. Mr. Kay then questioned whether, if this application were approved, there should be a limitation as to the number of cars offered for sale. Mr. J. Willmer noted that the site plan shows one display space which would limit the number of cars to one. He advised that this is agreeable to the Traffic & Parking Division. Mr. J. Willmer addressed the Committee advising that he met with the applicant on two occasions. Planning staff are still opposed to this situation and believe it to be different than the two previous applications. Staff are not in support because this property is surrounded by a residential area. Mr. Hardie advised that this property is zoned CR-3 as are the surrounding properties. Mr. A. Galloway questioned whether all three properties are zoned the same. Mr. Willmer noted that the situation here is different because 95 Ahren Street has a holding provision requiring it to be combined with the subject property. Ms. J. Given noted that the Wellington Street property is zoned residential. COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 306 AUGUST 18. 1998 Ms. Coleman addressed the Committee advising that she and her husband worked Mr. Hardie and the owner and contributed in a positive way. She advised that she would read her written submission circulated this date. Mrs. Coleman advised that the main problem is traffic safety. She spoke of the number of children in the area and that there is a community of families with children. Ms. Coleman advised that they are sympathetic to the owners business investment; however, the Colemans are in the business of providing affordable housing. She requested that the Committee think about the community and not just granting one parking space to sell a car. She did not believe that selling one car on display would improve the owners income. Mrs. Coleman stated that her main concern is the safety of families on this street. It is a family area and she is concerned about the safety of the children on their street. Mrs. Coleman stated that while they talk about 9 legal spaces on the site, there is actually no limit to the amount of cars that fill that site every day. The Chairman then questioned whether staff had anything to add. Mr. Willmer pointed out that Mr. Hardie advised that there are no variances, just the additional use. The Chairman then questioned whether the applicant's ability to add one car to the site is really going to add to the traffic. Mrs. Coleman stated that if the Committee approved car sales, the sky will be the limit. She stated that this is just opening the door. Mrs. Coleman advised that in years gone by, when there was a change in use, it was compatible with the neighbourhood. She then gave some examples. Mr. A. Galloway advised that in listening to these submissions he was not convinced that the impact indicated by Mrs. Coleman will really occur. He was not convinced that by allowing one automobile for sale it would affect the neighbourhood anymore than the existing use. Mrs. Coleman noted that Mr. Galloway did not live in the neighbourhood. Mr. Galloway stated that, will all due respect, the Colemans were the only ones in the neighbourhood who attended the meeting or sent written submissions. Mr. Kay stated that he agreed with Mr. Galloway. He noted the traffic problems described by Mrs. Coleman. He stated that there is a very active business there now and he didn't see how one more car would make a horrendous traffic problem. He noted that moving the Ahren Street entrance doesn't make sense and 2. Submission No. A 69/98 - Gurieet Sin.qh, cont'd this application will not create traffic problems on Ahren Street and into the residential area. Mr. Kay advised that his main concern is that only one car be displayed on site at any time and if approved he would limit the number of cars to one. Mr. Kay stated that he didn't think the extension would perpetuate the legal non-conforming use or prevent the redevelopment of this site with the adjoining property. Mr. Kay asked that it go on record that Mrs. Coleman spoke of the redevelopment of 177 Victoria Street North. Mr. Kay advised that he is the current owner of 177 Victoria Street North. He advised that he did not believe that, as the property owner, he was circulated of Notice of this application and he stated that he didn't believe that he had a conflict of interest with this application. The Secretary-Treasurer checked the circulation list for this application and determined that 177 Victoria Street North was not in the circulation area. Mr. Coleman advised that Mrs. Coleman was referring to the way in which the property was developed, under the previous owner, and was not referring to Mr. Kay. Staff put forward two conditions which they requested be imposed if the Committee should approve the application, one dealing with limiting the number of cars for sale to one car at any time. The other condition related to site plan approval. A discussion took place with respect to the entrance onto Victoria Street. A brief discussion also took place with respect to the date for completion of the site works. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Gurjeet Singh requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming automobile repair business by adding automobile sales on Part Lot 9, Plan 401, 103 Ahren Street West, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the not more than one vehicle may be displayed for sale on the lot at any one time. That the site shall be developed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, in accordance with the site plan to be approved by the Director, including demarcation of parking spaces, modification of the Victoria Street entrance and the installation of landscaped areas. Such work shall be completed by December 1, 1998. No extension to this completion shall be granted COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 307 AUGUST 18. 1998 unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to December 1, 1998. It is the opinion of this Committee that the use of this property for an automobile repair business has continued since the day the by-law prohibiting this use was passed. ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 18th day of August, 1998. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment