Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-04-20COA\1999-04-20 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 20, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, A. Galloway and P. Kruse. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. L. Masseo, Intermediate Planner, Ms. C. Ladd, Director of Planning, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Committee Administrator and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary. Mr. S. Kay, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of March 30, 1999, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.'s A 33/99, A 34/99 & A 35/99 - Hallman Rosedale Limited 230 Gage Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Block 64, Registered Plan 1829, Keewatin Avenue & Lackner Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. Paul Dietrich Wright-Dietrich 697 Coronation Boulevard Cambridge, ON N1R 3G5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the lands are proposed to be developed as either semi- detached or single detached dwellings pursuant to a Draft Plan of Subdivision. The applicant is requesting permission for a 9 m (30 ft.) driveway setback for the two corner lots on Dineen Court at Keewatin Avenue, rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.); and, a 1.2 m (4 ft.) setback adjacent to Lackner Boulevard for proposed Lot 9 (semi-detached) or proposed Lot 11 (single detached) on Dineen Court, rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 97 APRIL 20, 1999 The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services dated March 18, 1999, in which they advised that the subject lands are currently the subject of an application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision (30T-98203). The owner, Hallman- 1. Submission No.'s A 33/99, A 34/99 & A 35/99 - Hallman Rosedale Limited, cont'd Rosedale Limited, proposes to create two Iotless blocks and new cul-de-sac street (Dineen Court) containing either 15 single-family detached dwellings or 12 semi-detached dwellings (containing a total of 24 units). The existing Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (I- 1) permits both single-detached or semi-detached dwellings. The lands were originally intended for a church use, hence the current I-1 zoning which apply to the lands. The subject lands are located at the corner of Lackner Boulevard and Keewatin Avenue and are described as Block 64, Plan 1829. There are three separate minor variance applications being submitted simultaneously, which are as follows: A 33/99, A 35/99 A setback for driveways for corner lots at Keewatin Avenue of 9 metres rather than the required 12 metres. A 34/99 A setback for a lot abutting Lackner Boulevard of 1.2 metres rather than the required 12 metres. A decision on the Draft Plan of Subdivision application was deferred at the meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee held on March 22, 1999. Given the decision of deferral by the Planning and Economic Development Committee, it is recommended that applications A 33/99, A 34/99 and A 35/99 also be deferred. Once a decision has been made by the Planning and Economic Development Committee and Council on the application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision, the applications for minor variance can be brought back to the Committee of Adjustment for consideration. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends deferral of Submission A 33/99, A 34/99 and A 35/99 until April 20, 1999. The Committee noted further comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services dated April 14, 1999, in which they advised the subject lands are currently the subject of an application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision (30T-98203). The application was approved at the meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee on April 12, 1999, and will be considered by City Council at its meeting on April 19, 1999. The owner, Hallman-Rosedale Limited, proposes to create two Iotless blocks and a new cul-de-sac street (Dineen Court) containing 16 single-family detached dwellings. The existing Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (I-1) permits single-detached dwellings. The lands were originally intended for a church use, hence the current I-1 zoning which apply to the lands. The subject lands are located at the corner of Lackner Boulevard and Keewatin Avenue and are described as Block 64, Plan 1829. These applications have been submitted in anticipation of Council approval of the application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision on April 19, 1999. As such, the lots being part of these applications for minor variance do not currently exist and have no legal description. To assist in the description of the proposed variances, a plan is attached to this report which indicates the lot numbering for the single-detached dwellings (Figure 1). There are three separate minor variance applications being submitted simultaneously, which are as follows: A33/99, A35/99 A setback for driveways for corner lots at Keewatin Avenue of 9 metres rather than the required 12 metres. A34/99 A setback for a lot abutting Lackner Boulevard of 1.2 metres rather than the required 12 metres. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 98 APRIL 20, 1999 1. Submission No.'s A 33/99, A 34/99 & A 35/99 - Hallman Rosedale Limited, cont'd A 33/99 and A 35/99 Through comments provided on the Draft Plan of Subdivision, the Traffic and Parking Division have commented that they have no objections to the proposed 9 metre driveway setback for the two corner lots at Keewatin Avenue. The Traffic and Parking Division has recently been involved in discussions with the Planning Division regarding amendments to the Zoning By-law as part of a review of residential "streetscapes". The Traffic and Parking Division has now generally accepted that a 9 metre setback for driveways for corner lots is appropriate provided the driveway has access onto a street with a width no greater than 16 metres. In this case, the proposed street, Dineen Court, will be 16 metres in width and the driveway will have access onto Dineen Court. Planning staff concur with the comments provided by the Traffic and Parking Division for the Draft Plan of Subdivision. The driveways in question are located on a street which will experience a Iow volume of traffic based on the number of residential units i.e. sixteen. As such, turning movements to and from Dineen Court will be Iow and a reduced driveway setback is appropriate in this case. A 34/99 Due to the design of Dineen Court, the resulting lotting pattern requires that one lot has a side yard abutting Lackner Boulevard (Lot 12 on Figure 1). Section 5.24 of the Zoning By- law requires that the minimum setback for any residential building abutting an arterial road be 12 metres. In a practical sense, the 1.2 metre setback acts more like a typical side yard given the design of Lot 12. In addition, a recommended condition of the approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision requires that a noise wall be installed along the lot line abutting Lackner Boulevard to within 6 metres of the front wall of the dwelling. The remainder of the lot line must contain either a 4.5 metre landscape buffer or a wood fence. A second condition recommended as part of the approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision requires that any dwelling constructed on Lot 12 be approved by the Director of Planning. This is in order to limit any dwelling constructed on the lot to either one storey in height or a back-split design. Such a design would better match the topography of the immediate location (a gentle rise in elevation from north to south) and help reduce the visual impact resulting from a sidewall of a dwelling close to Lackner Boulevard. In conclusion, staff consider that the applications maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan, are minor in nature, and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land. Provided that the application for the Draft Plan of Subdivision is approved as currently proposed, the minor variances requested are appropriate. The Department of Business and Planning Services therefore recommends that applications A33/99, A34/99 and A35/99 be approved. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A33/99, A34/99 and A35/99 such that it applies to single detached dwellings only and subject to the following condition: 1. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 30T- 98203 receive final approval. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that this Division has no concerns or comments with respect to these submissions. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that through on-going discussions with staff of Business and Planning Services, this Division has agreed in principle to a proposal to reduce driveway setback requirements for corner lots located on 16 metre roads. This reduction from 12 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 99 APRIL 20, 1999 metres to 9 metres would be applicable only for corner lots where the driveway is developed from a 16 metre road and serves a single/semi-detached dwelling unit. Where 1. Submission No.'s A 33/99, A 34/99 & A 35/99 - Hallman Rosedale Limited, cont'd driveway from a 16 metres road serves a multi-dwelling, the driveway setback requirement of 12 meters would be applicable. On this basis, this Division is prepared to support the requested 9 metre setback for the corner lots. There are no concerns with the requested 1.2 metre setback for Lot No. 9. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed Submission No.'s A 33-35/99 and all Regional conditions related to the development of this subdivision will be obtained under the Plan of Subdivision. They have no objection to the variance applications. Further, they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development(s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to these applications. The Chair noted that the lands involved in these applications are also the subject of a Plan of Subdivision which was to be considered by City Council at its meeting held on April 19, 1999 and inquired if this had taken place. Mr. Dietrich responded that City Council did consider the Plan of Subdivision at its meeting on April 19, 1999, and the Plan was given draft approval. The Chair inquired if approval of the variances was being requested as outlined on the Plan submitted with the application. Mr. Dietrich responded that initially the application had been submitted to provide the option of developing the subject lands as either semi- detached or single detached dwellings. Following Council's review of the Draft Plan of Subdivision, Mr. Dietrich advised it was agreed to proceed with development for single detached dwellings only and, in this regard, new plans have been submitted for the Committee's consideration. Mr. A. Galloway stated that, as the comments received were in support of the applications and no concerns were raised, he was prepared to support approval of the applications. Submission No. A 33~99 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Hallman Rosedale Limited requesting permission for a 9 m (30 ft.) driveway setback, rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.), on Part of Block 64, Registered Plan 1829, designated as Lot 1 on Reference Plan 58R-6622, Dineen Court at Keewatin Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the development only as shown on the revised plans provided to the Committee on April 20, 1999. That the owner shall receive final approval of Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 30T-98203. It is the opinion of this Committee: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 100 APRIL 20, 1999 Submission No.'s A 33/99, A 34/99 & A 35/99 - Hallman Rosedale Limited, cont'd Submission No. A 33~99, cont'd 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Submission No. A 34~99 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse Carried That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the development only as shown on the revised plans provided to the Committee on April 20, 1999. That the owner shall receive final approval of Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 30T- 98203. It is the opinion of this Committee: 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 Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 35~99 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Hallman Rosedale Limited requesting permission for a 9 m (30 ft.) driveway setback, rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.), on Part of Block 64, Registered Plan 1829, designated as Lot 16, on Reference Plan 58R-6622, Dineen Court at Keewatin Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the development only as shown on the revised plans provided to the Committee on April 20, 1999. That the owner shall receive final approval of Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 30T- 98203. It is the opinion of this Committee: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. That the application of Hallman Rosedale Limited requesting permission for a 1.2 m (4 ft.) setback adjacent to Lackner Boulevard on Part of Block 64, Registered Plan 1829, designated as Lot 11, on Reference Plan 58R-6622, Dineen Court at Keewatin Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 101 APRIL 20, 1999 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. CONSENT Carried 1. Submission No. B 63/98 - Kah-Wal Homes 3328 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Block H, Registered Plan 1246, 178 Kingswood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. - and - Submission No. B 64/98 - Kah-Wal Homes 3328 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part block H, Registered Plan 1246, 180 Kingswood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. - and - Submission No. B 65/98 - Kah-Wal Homes 3328 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Block H, Registered Plan 1246, 182 Kingswood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. The Chair advised the Committee that a request had been received from Mr. B. Walters to defer these applications to the June 15th meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to the meeting of June 15, 1999. The Committee recessed this meeting, temporarily, at 10:00 a.m. in order to consider Applications for Minor Variances to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:15 a.m. APPLICATIONS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No. A 39/99- Toni Davies 36 Locust Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Appearances: In Support: Lot 9, Plan 157, Lot 9, 36 Locust Street, Kitchener, Ontario. Contra: Written Submissions: In Support: Contra: Mr. Trent Bauman Menno S. Martin, Contractor 190 King Street South St. Jacob's ON NOB 2N0 None None None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 102 APRIL 20, 1999 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second floor dormer to increase headroom in the existing bathroom with a northerly sideyard setback of 0.83 m (2.7 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second 1. Submission No. A 39/99- Toni Davies, cont'd floor dormer to increase headroom in the existing bathroom with a northerly sideyard setback of 0.83m (2.7 ft), rather than the required 1.2m (4 ft). As the useable floor space will remain the same and the proposed roofline will not encroach any further into the side yard than what is existing, it could be considered to comply under the City's Vacuum By-law, however, staff support the application. The variance will maintain both the general intent and purpose of the City's Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan. The variance is minor in nature, as it will not change an existing side yard setback, and will not adversely impact the neighbouring property. The second floor dormer to increase headroom in the bathroom would be a desirable and appropriate use of the property. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 39/99. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new dormer and there shall be no windows in a wall located less than 4 feet to the property line. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no concerns. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this application. The Chair inquired of Mr. Bauman if he had reviewed the comments received and Mr. Bauman indicated that he had. Mr. A. Galloway stated that, as there were no concerns raised with respect to the application, he was prepared to recommend approval of the application subject to the applicant obtaining a building permit to construct the new dormer and the new dormer shall have no windows in a wall located less than 4 ft. to the property line. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Tony Davies requesting permission to construct a second floor dormer, to increase headroom in the existing bathroom, with a northerly side yard setback of 0.83 m (2.7 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Lot 9, Registered Plan 157, 36 Locust Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new dormer. 2. That there shall be no windows in a wall located less than 4 ft. to the property line. It is the opinion of this Committee: 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 Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 103 APRIL 20, 1999 Carried Submission No. A 40/99 - Shiraz Ramji 92 Pattandon Avenue~ Kitchener~ Ontario Re: Part of Lot 14 and 15, Plan 384, 92 Pattandon Avenue, Kitchener Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. Shiraz Ramji 92 Pattandon Avenue Kitchener ON N2M 3S5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert the existing duplex dwelling to a triplex dwelling by adding a third dwelling unit in the basement with a lot area of 418 m2 (4,500 sq. ft.), rather than the required 495 m2 (5,328 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the lot area from 495 square metres to 418 square metres to allow the conversion of a duplex to a triplex. The lot area requirement for a triplex is greater than that required for a duplex in order that adequate outdoor amenity area and adequate parking for all units are both provided. Outdoor amenity is a function of each site that must not be overlooked and in the case of a multiple dwelling the amenity area is shared between units. In this regard, in order to provide both an acceptable outdoor amenity area as well as three parking spaces which can exit the property without moving another vehicle, a larger lot area is required. Parking for the existing duplex is currently provided by two spaces in tandem and the entire rear yard is outdoor amenity area. The plan submitted with the application illustrates three parking spaces to the rear of the dwelling with a large portion of the rear yard remaining as outdoor amenity area. The third or most westerly space proposed, however, is not functional. To successfully manoeuvre in and out of three parking spaces from the rear yard the parking would have to be rearranged so that a significant amount of the rear yard would have to be paved, eliminating much of the outdoor amenity area in the rear yard and impacting abutting properties. This option is not desirable. In conclusion, the site cannot adequately provide three legal parking spaces while maintaining an acceptable outdoor amenity area as a result of the reduced lot area. In this regard, the minor variance to reduce the lot area is not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands and does not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law. The Department of Business & Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 40/99 be refused. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new dwelling unit. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he recommended that the proposed layout of the parking be modified to improve accessibility. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 104 APRIL 20, 1999 The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns. Submission No. A 40/99 - Shiraz Ramii, cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns. The Chair reviewed the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, noting that refusal of the application is being recommended, and inquired if Mr. Ramji had had an opportunity to review the comments. Mr. Ramji responded that he had reviewed the comments and, in addition, he had spoken with Ms. P. Bacon, Planner, with respect to this application. As a result of this discussion, he advised the Committee that Ms. Bacon had determined incorrectly that the proposed parking area would be located to the side of the lot in what is now a grassed area. Mr. Ramji pointed out that he had advised Ms. Bacon that, in fact, the proposed parking area was located along the back of the lot and was already paved. In this regard, Mr. Ramji advised the Committee that Ms. P. Bacon suggested that he request deferral of his application at this time to allow her to further investigate. Mr. A. Galloway stated that, if deferral of the application may result in a reversal of staff's recommendation to refuse the application, then he was prepared to support the request to defer. Mr. Ramji further advised the Committee that Ms. P. Bacon was of the opinion that access to the third parking space as proposed may be a problem. In this regard, he advised that he had tried parking a mid-sized vehicle in this space and did so without any problem. The Chair suggested that Mr. Ramji arrange to be present when Ms. P. Bacon visited the site in order to provide her with a demonstration with respect to access to the parking space and to clear up any other misunderstandings. The Chair also pointed out that a similar application on Stirling Avenue would be considered at the Committee's meeting this date and suggested that it may be to his benefit to determine the outcome of that application to assist with his presentation when the application was reconsidered by the Committee. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That Submission No. A 40~99, as applied for by Mr. Shiraz Ramji, 92 Pattandon Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE DEFERRED to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on May 11, 1999. Carried Submission No. A 41/99 - James & Brenda Evens 96 Blucher Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 373, 96 Blucher Street, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. James Evens 96 Blucher Street Kitchener ON N2H 5V3 Contra: None Written Submissions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 105 APRIL 20, 1999 In Support: None Contra: None 3. Submission No. A 41/99 - James & Brenda Evens, cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second storey addition with a side yard setback of 0.72 m (2.35 ft.) from Ahrens Street, rather than the required 4.6 m (15 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a second storey addition with a side yard setback of 0.72 metres (2.35 feet) from Ahrens Street, rather than the required 4.6 metres (15 feet). The subject property contains a one and a half storey single detached dwelling which was built over 100 years ago and fronts onto Blucher Street. However, the building is located 0.72 metres from the Ahrens Street lot line. The applicants request permission to construct a second storey addition at the rear of the dwelling which will have the same setback from as the existing building. The right-of-way of Ahrens Street in this block is only 12.19 metres (40 feet) wide. As the City's Municipal Plan does not require a road widening for Ahrens Street and as there is a very small setback of the building from the street, there would not be physical widening of the paved portion of the street planned, which is within about 1.2 metres (4 feet) of the building. The request can be considered minor in nature and the general intent of the by-law is being met as the second storey will not be any closer to the street line than the existing portion of the building. Given the general surrounding and setbacks of other residential buildings nearby it would appear that the proposed addition would not adversely affect the enjoyment of nearby properties. In consideration of the foregoing, the minor variance is desirable for the appropriate addition and use of the property. In the opinion of staff, the proposal meets the four tests set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 41/99 be approved. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new addition and there shall be no openings in a wall located less than 4 feet to the property line. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised they have no objections or concerns with this application. The Chair inquired of Mr. Evens if he had reviewed the comments and wished to add anything further to his application. Mr. J. Evens advised that he had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add. Mr. P. Kruse stated that, in view of staff comments, he was prepared to move approval of the application, subject to the owner obtaining a building permit prior to construction of the new addition and that there be no openings in a wall located less than 4 feet to the property line. He stated; however, that he was surprised that a road widening for Ahrens Street was not required. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 106 APRIL 20, 1999 Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of James & Brenda Evens requesting permission to construct a second storey addition with a side yard setback of 0.72 m (2.35 ft.) from Ahrens Street, rather than the required 4.6 m (15 ft.), on Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 373, 96 Blucher Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 3. Submission No. A 41/99 - James & Brenda Evens, cont'd 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new addition. 2. That there shall be no openings in a wall located less than 4 ft. to the property line. It is the opinion of this Committee: 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 Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 42/99 - Ron Hanna 121 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 77, Registered Plan 671, 121 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Hanna 121 Lancaster Street West Kitchener ON N2H 4T4 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a detached garage to the rear of the property with a rear yard setback of 0 m, rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) and a setback from Hillview Street of 5.5 m (18 ft.), rather than the required 6.1 m (20 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) according to Zoning By-law 85-1 and is located at the corner of Lancaster Street West and Hillview Street. The property is presently developed with a single detached dwelling that faces Lancaster Street. The applicant is requesting minor variances to reduce the required rear yard setback for large accessory buildings and the required setback for the off- street parking space in order to construct a new garage that gains access from Hillview Street. The Zoning By-law requires that accessory buildings in excess of 9.9 square metres maintain a rear yard of 1.2 metres, or alternatively, 0 to 0.2 metres provided necessary maintenance easements and eaves encroachments are obtained from the abutting property owner. However, since the abutting property is a 4.27 metre wide public lane, the applicant is requesting permission to construct the proposed garage with a 0.1 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 107 APRIL 20, 1999 metre (4") setback from the rear property line without providing the necessary easements and encroachments. In this case the applicant will be able to access the rear of the shed to undertake any necessary maintenance. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct the proposed garage in such a manner that the eaves will not overhang the public lane, thereby negating the need for an encroachment agreement. 4. Submission No. A 42/99 - Ron Hanna, cont'd The Zoning By-law also requires that the off-street parking space be setback a minimum 6.0 metres from the streetline. Since the lot is only 12.19 metres wide, it is not possible to provide the necessary garage depth and maintain the required 6.0 metres setback. As such, the applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required setback for the off-street parking space from 6.0 metres to 5.49 metres. One of the primary reasons that the off-street parking space is required to be setback 6.0 metres is to allow room for a second vehicle to be parked in the driveway without overhanging the sidewalk. The proposed setback of 5.49 metres is equivalent in length to a standard parking space and is sufficient to allow most vehicles to park without overhanging the sidewalk. For the above reasons, the requested variances can be considered to be minor in nature, appropriate for the development of the subject lands, and in conformity with the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 42/99, provided all drainage is maintained on the applicant's property. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 42/99, to the extent shown on the attached plan, subject to the following condition: 1. That all drainage from the proposed structure be directed to the subject lands. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he noted that a building permit is required for the new garage and a wall located less than 2 feet to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that at this location, Lancaster Street has an existing road allowance width of 66 feet and a designated road allowance width of 86 feet. Therefore a (86-66=20/2=10) 10 foot road widening is required from this property. A 25 foot daylight triangle is also required at the intersection of Lancaster Street and Hillview Street. It may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening and daylight triangle under this application. Further, they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development(s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application. The Chair inquired of Mr. Hanna if he had reviewed the comments and Mr. Hanna indicated that he had. The Chair questioned the location of the garage and inquired of Mr. Hanna if it was intended to use the adjacent laneway as a means of access to the driveway and garage. Mr. R. Hanna pointed out that the laneway is currently occupied with gardens and sheds and, in fact, he currently parks his vehicle in the laneway; however, he does not own the laneway. He advised the Committee that the driveway will be narrowed and he does not anticipate using the laneway as a means of access. The Chair pointed out, however, that as the garage is proposed to be constructed on an angle it would require Mr. Hanna to curve into the garage rather than drive straight in. Mr. Hanna acknowledged that he would have to curve slightly, however, he did not anticipate this as a problem. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 108 APRIL 20, 1999 The Chair inquired of Mr. Hanna if there were curb cuts present and Mr. Hanna responded that, at this time, there is no curb. The Chair inquired of staff if any permits were required in this regard and Mr. L. Masseo responded that permits were not required. 4. Submission No. A 42/99 - Ron Hanna, cont'd The Chair advised Mr. Hanna that the Committee could not support any use of the laneway as a means of access to Mr. Hanna's driveway and garage. He stated that the Committee would only support access as contained within the owner's property. Mr. Hanna responded that he understood this limitation. Mr. A. Galloway stated that, as the comments were in support of the application, he was prepared to move approval of the application, subject to the condition that all drainage from the proposed structure be directed to the subject lands and that the owner obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new garage and the wall to be located less than 2 ft. to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating. Mr. P. Kruse requested clarification from staff with respect to the Region of Waterloo's comments which refer to road widening, a 25 ft. daylight triangle and development charges. In this regard, Ms. D. Gilchrist advised the Committee that the comments received from the Region is a standard response to advise the applicant of these issues; however, the Region does not ask that the Committee impose these issues as a condition of approval. The Chair inquired if members of the Committee wished to include as a condition of approval, that the ingress and egress to the driveway and garage be contained on the owner's property to stress that the laneway is not to be used as a means of access. Mr. A. Galloway concurred with the Chair's suggestion; however, he suggested that the wording be such that no encroachment into the laneway be permitted. By general consent, it was agreed that the motion to approve the application would be amended to include a condition that no encroachment into the laneway would be permitted. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Ron Hanna requesting permission to construct a detached garage to the rear of 121 Lancaster Street West with a rear yard setback of 0 m, rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), and a setback from Hillview Street of 5.5 m (18 ft.), rather than the required 6.1 m (20 ft.), on Lot 77, Registered Plan 671, 121 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall not encroach into the laneway adjacent to 121 Lancaster Street West. 2. That all drainage from the proposed structure shall be directed to the subject lands. 3. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the garage. That the wall to be located less than 2 ft. to the property line shall have a 45 min. fire resistance rating. It is the opinion of this Committee: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 109 APRIL 20, 1999 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried 4. Submission No. A 42~99 - Ron Hanna, cont'd The Chair again stressed to Mr. Hanna that the Committee does not sanction any construction of the driveway on the laneway adjacent to his property or use of the laneway as a means of access to the driveway and/or garage. The Chair advised Mr. Hanna that if he wished to appeal this decision he would have 20 days from the date of this meeting to do so. Submission No. A 43/99 - Muntaz Nazir Ally & Hafiza Ally 27 Peter Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 48 of J. & J.E. Schneider's Survey, Plan 393, 27 Peter Street, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm is acting on behalf of the applicants 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, this application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support: Ms. Francis McPhee Kay-Bogdon Barristers & Solicitors 177 Victoria Street North Kitchener ON N2H 5C5 Contra: Mrs. Erna Borch 33 Peter Street Kitchener ON N2G 3J5 Other: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide a parking space 0.6 m (2 ft.) from Peter Street, rather than the required 6 m (19.7 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the application seeks approval for a driveway to be located 0.6 metres from the front lot line rather than 6.0 metres, for a semi-detached dwelling unit. The Committee previously refused a similar application, although it proposed occupying the majority of the front yard. Since that time, as the entire front yard is paved and vehicles are parking in front of the dwelling, this site has been the subject of a number of court proceedings on this zoning violation. The purpose of the setback for parking is to retain a streetscape that is not visually cluttered with vehicles and to accommodate a second parking space between the legal parking space and the front lot line. Recently, Planning and Traffic staff met on site to consider whether a parking space could be accommodated on site in an acceptable COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 110 APRIL 20, 1999 location. Since the porch was partially removed, staff find that a legal parking space can be accommodated adjacent to the left side of the lot between the building and lot line and visibility relative to the retaining wall on the lot line is not restricted. In order to meet the by-law requirement that driveways not exceed 50% of the lot width, the owners will be required to reinstate landscaping material on the remaining front lawn of this unit before the approval, if so granted, would be effective. Such landscaping and grading must be to 5. Submission No. A 43/99 - Muntaz Nazir Ally & Hafiza Ally, cont'd the satisfaction of the City in order to ensure that visibility problems are not created by such efforts. Staff find that the minor variance is acceptable given that many inner-city lots do not provide room for vehicular parking and this occupant has a need to accommodate a vehicle. It is therefore desirable for the development of the property. The extent of the variance is minor and maintains the intent of the by-law as the by-law does not prevent non-required parking from being situated in such a location. Provided the front yard is reinstated to landscaping to comply with the by-law, staff support the application subject to the parking space being 18 feet in length from the face of the building. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 43/99, subject to the following condition: That the remaining front yard of 27 Peter Street be reinstated to a landscape material and in a fashion acceptable to the City's Principal Planner, prior to July 15, 1999. No extension to such deadline shall be granted except with written authorization from the City's Principal Planner. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this submission. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that the Division has discussed this application with Planning Division staff and has agreed to allow the parking space as proposed due to the lack of alternatives for the property owner. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no concerns with respect to this submission. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this submission. The Chair noted that a similar application pertaining to this property had previously been brought before the Committee and was refused. In this regard, he asked Ms. McPhee to provide the Committee with background information leading up to submission of this application. Ms. McPhee advised the Committee that she was unfamiliar with the history pertaining to this particular property; however, she noted that, at this time, the applicant is requesting permission to provide one parking space to accommodate one vehicle. The Chair pointed out that this site has been the subject of a number of court proceedings resulting from zoning violations and through negotiation with the property owner this application has been proposed as a compromise to resolve the parking situation. Ms. E. Borch addressed the Committee and pointed out that the applicant is already parking in front of the house without permission; and, at times, up to three cars are parked in front of the house. She also pointed out her dissatisfaction with the condition of the front yard, which is totally paved. Mrs. Borch advised the Committee that she could not see how approval of this application would improve the situation. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 111 APRIL 20, 1999 Mr. P. Kruse pointed out to Mrs. Borch that staff are recommending approval of one parking space conditional upon the remaining front yard of the property being reinstated to a landscaped area which will resolve the issue of multiple cars parking in front of the house. Mrs. E. Borch, again, reiterated the fact that the site has no front yard and is currently covered completely with asphalt. In this regard, the Chair asked staff to confirm that the intent is to remove the asphalt and replace it with landscaping in the remaining 5. Submission No. A 43~99 - Muntaz Nazir Ally & Hafiza Ally, cont'd area of the front yard that is not required to accommodate the parking space. Mr. L. Masseo responded that was correct and noted that, if the applicant does not comply, staff will continue to pursue the matter through the Court system. The Chair inquired of Ms. McPhee if her client was aware of the condition to reinstate the remaining portion of the front yard to landscaping, which is to be completed by July 15, 1999, and if not complied with will face further prosecution. Ms. F. McPhee responded that her client was aware of this condition. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Muntaz Nazir Ally & Hafiza Ally requesting permission to provide a parking space 0.6 m (2 ft.) from Peter Street, rather than the required 6 m (19.7 ft.), on Lot 48, J. & J.E. Schneider's Survey, Plan 393, 27 Peter Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the owner shall reinstate the remaining front yard of 27 Peter Street to a landscape material and in a fashion acceptable to the City's Principal Planner, prior to July 15, 1999. No extension to such deadline shall be granted, except with written authorization from the City's Principal Planner. It is the opinion of this Committee: 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 Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 44/99 - Nelson Joseph Rocheleau 28 Stirling Avenue North, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part of Lots 44 & 45, Registered Plan 77, 28 Stirling Avenue North, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. Nelson Rocheleau 28 Stirling Avenue North Kitchener ON N2H 3G5 Contra: None Other: None Written Submissions: In Support: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 112 APRIL 20, 1999 Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of the existing triplex dwelling with a lot area of 410 m2 (4,413.4 sq. ft.), rather than the required 495 m2 (5,328.3 sq. ft.). 6. Submission No. A 44/99 - Nelson Joseph Rocheleau, cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that this application involves a request to legalize an existing triplex dwelling with a lot area of 410 square metres instead of 495 square metres as required by Zoning By-law 85-1. The subject lands contain an existing one and a half storey dwelling containing three units. A detached double car garage is located to the rear of the dwelling. The lands are zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) which permits multiple dwellings with a maximum of three dwelling units. From a review of the property file, it would appear that the triplex use does not enjoy legal non-conforming status in respect of lot area. The triplex was created some time after 1980 and would not have been established in compliance with By-law 4830 as the lands were then zoned R3 - General Residential, which did not permit a triplex. The actual area of the subject lands is 418.7 square metres. The application should be amended to reflect this area (the application submitted indicates a lot area of 410 square metres). The subject lands are occupied largely by either buildings or asphalt, including the dwelling, garage, driveway and parking area. For this reason, there is only a small amount of amenity area to the front and rear of the dwelling for the use of the occupants of the three units. While very small, staff consider this area to be adequate for the use of the three units, and as such, the requested variance to legalize the existing lot area is considered relatively minor in nature. Three parking spaces are required for the triplex use. Parking for at least two of the units can be provided in the double car garage. A third space is possible immediately behind the dwelling but arranged in a perpendicular position to the side lot lines. While this arrangement is very restricted, it nevertheless appears possible to accommodate the required three parking spaces on site. Reversing from the property onto Stirling Avenue would be required, which is permitted in this instance according to the Zoning By-law. For the above reasons, the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained. Planning staff consider that the application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan, is minor in nature and is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land. Staff therefore recommend approval of Minor Variance Application A 44/99, subject to the minimum lot area being revised to 418.7 square metres. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 44/99, amended to request a minimum lot area of 418.7 square metres. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this submission. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that staff have reviewed this application and have no concerns with respect to this submission. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this submission. The Chair inquired of Mr. Rocheleau if he had reviewed the comments and Mr. Rocheleau responded that he had. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 113 APRIL 20, 1999 The Chair inquired of Mr. Rocheleau how long he had been the owner of the site and if the dwelling was a triplex at the time of purchase. Mr. Rocheleau responded that he had purchased the property approximately 12 years ago in 1987 as a triplex and the use of the dwelling as a triplex has continued to date. The Chair inquired if the triplex, at the time of purchase, had been sold as a non- conforming or legal non-conforming use. Mr. Rocheleau responded that he had 6. Submission No. A 44/99 - Nelson Joseph Rocheleau, cont'd purchased the triplex as a legal non-conforming use and that he believed that this information was contained in the survey of the site. The Chair referred to a letter from Mr. William C. Cline, Shuh, Cline & Grossman, dated March 9, 1999, which outlines a request to refund the application fee for this submission. The Chair asked if Mr. Rocheleau had asked his lawyer to request the refund on his behalf and Mr. Rocheleau replied that he had. The Chair inquired if Mr. Rocheleau had knowledge that the site was non-conforming at the time he purchased it or if he had been put in this position because of Municipal Plan & Zoning changes. The Chair noted that this appears to be one of the reasons for the requested refund, however, is inconsistent with comments from staff. Mr. N. Rocheleau advised the Committee that since he had purchased the property use of the dwelling as a triplex had remained a problem. He noted that the property had been listed and purchased as a non-conforming triplex and at the time of closing of the sale, his lawyer had not received a proper survey. When the survey was received it was discovered that the site did not comply with current zoning. Since that time Mr. Rocheleau has been negotiating use of the site as a triplex and, through Court proceedings, the issue of compliance was resolved and the use of the triplex was approved. Mr. A. Galloway pointed out that the variance requested relates only to a deficiency in lot area and suggested that whether the triplex was a legal non-conforming or non- conforming use had no relevance to the application, especially since the triplex use is now permitted within the current zoning. Mr. L. Masseo advised the Committee that staff had dealt with the issue of compliance because the applicant has suggested that the triplex was a legal non-conforming use and staff had felt that it was necessary to bring this to the Committee's attention. He pointed out; however, that because current zoning permits the existing use of a triplex and the required parking and amenity areas are provided, staff are in support of the application. Mr. A. Galloway stated that as the issuance of compliance has no relevance to this application, he was prepared to move approval of the application, as amended to reflect that the site have a lot area of 418.7 m2, rather than 410 m2 as indicated in the application. Mr. P. Kruse stated that it was not logical for Mr. Rocheleau's lawyer to suggest that the City created the non-compliance issue, as staff have pointed out that when the triplex was constructed some time after 1980 it would not have been in compliance with the Zoning By-law, as the lands were Zoned R3 - General Residential, which did not permit a triplex. The Chair stated that the subsequent change in zoning has enhanced Mr. Rocheleau's position with respect to compliance rather than being the cause of it. In this regard, he suggested to members of the Committee that the request for refund of the application fee be denied. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the request of Mr. William C. Cline, Shuh, Cline & Grossman, on behalf of his client Mr. N. Rocheleau, to refund the $286.00 application fee with respect to Submission No. A 44/99, 28 Stirling Avenue North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 114 APRIL 20, 1999 Carried Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Nelson Rocheleau requesting legalization of the existing triplex dwelling with a lot area of 418.7 m2 (4,507 sq. ft.), rather than the required 495 m2 (5,328.3 6. Submission No. A 44/99 - Nelson Joseph Rocheleau, cont'd sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 44 & 45, Registered Plan 77, 28 Stirling Avenue North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee: 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 Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT Submission No. B 23/99 - Beaconridge Developments Inc. 80 Tiverton Court., Suite 300, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part of Lot 1, Registered Plan 1745, 190 Gateway Park Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Toderian MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener ON N2H 5C5 Contra: None Other: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission easements for drainage/stormwater management to the benefit of Lots 2, Registered Plan 1745. to create 3, 4 &5, The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject application was previously approved by the Committee of Adjustment on June 18, 1996. The decision of the Committee lapsed two years from the date of approval, being June 18, 1998, pursuant to subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act. As a result, the applicant has re-submitted the application requesting permission to create easements for drainage and stormwater management to the benefit of Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 on Registered Plan 1745. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 115 APRIL 20, 1999 Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Registered Plan 1745 were subject to a comprehensive site plan which permitted the construction of large "big box" establishments. A stormwater management pond was constructed on Lot 1 and was designed to accommodate the stormwater from all five lots. Accordingly, this application seeks approval to establish an easement over Part 2 of the accompanying draft reference plan for storm drains and infiltration trenches and over Part 3 for the stormwater management pond itself. Submission No. B 23/99 - Beaconridqe Developments Inc., cont'd As the location of the easements have been developed and considered in the context of the site plan and engineering requirements, the Department of Business and Planning Services has no concerns with recommending approval of the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this submission. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no concerns with respect to this application; however, any future development on the lands subject to Consent Application B 23/99 will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91- 91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this submission. The Chair advised that the Committee had previously considered and approved this application; however, the two year timeframe that the Committee's decision would remain in effect had lapsed. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Beaconridge Developments Inc. requesting permission to create easements for drainage/stormwater management to the benefit of Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5, Registered Plan 1745, on Part of Lot 1, Registered Plan 1745, 190 Gateway Park Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED. Pursuant to Subsection 22 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 20, 2001. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20th day of April, 1999. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 116 APRIL 20, 1999 J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment