Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-06-15 FENCOA\1999-06-15-FENCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 15, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. W. Dahms, A. Galloway and P. Kruse. Mr. L. Masseo, Intermediate Planner, Mr. R. Analyst and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Parent, Traffic & Parking Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:20 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider an application regarding a variance to Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code. The Committee will not make a decision on this application but rather will make a recommendation which will be forwarded to the Committee of the Whole and Council for final decision. The Chair explained that the Committee's decisions with respect to fence variances are recommendations to City Council and not a final decision. He advised that the Committee's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council on Monday, June 21, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicant may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. APPLICATION Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: F 4~99 Gerard Kelly 164 Southwood Drive Lot 10, Re.qistered Plan 1556 Appearances: In Support: Mr. Gerard Kelly 164 Southwood Drive Kitchener ON N2E 2B6 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a fence along the frontage of 164 Southwood Drive with a height of 1.2 m (4 ft.), rather than the required 0.91 m (3 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 fence abutting the lot lines on Southwood Drive and Sutton Place with a height of 1.2 metres (4 ft) rather than the required maximum height of 0.91 metres (3 ft). The applicant wishes to erect the fence to prevent people from walking across his corner property and to prevent children who wait for the bus from wandering onto the lawn and garden. He has stated to staff that his first preference would be to erect a wooden fence. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 10 - JUNE 15, 1999 1. Submission No.: F 4/99(Cont'd) After discussion with the applicant staff wish to clarify the required minor variances. City records indicate that the lot line abutting Southwood Drive is located 0.3 metres (1 ft) in from the sidewalk. The applicant has confirmed that the fence will be approximately 0.38 metres (1.25 ft) from the sidewalk and therefore, 0.08 metres (0.25 feet) from the lot line. The applicant has shown on his submitted drawing that he proposes to locate the fence 2.1 metres (7 ft) from the "side lot line" abutting Sutton Place. Staff have discussed this drawing with the applicant and determined that the curb was used to indicate the side lot line. City records show that the actual lot line is located 1.78 metres (5.84 ft) from the curb. Therefore the proposed fence will actually be 0.35 metres (1.16 ft) from the lot line abutting Sutton Place. The portions of the fence requiring variance approval are located in the corner visibility triangle, in the front yard adjacent to Sutton Place, and abutting the lot line along Southwood Drive. The intent of the regulations for corner lot fencing is to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian visibility is unobstructed. The required setback is necessary to provide unobstructed visibility for the abutting property owner when their driveway access is close to the fence location. Should the fence be constructed of wood, the Traffic and Parking Division have serious concerns regarding visibility. They are recommending that three visibility triangles be incorporated into the construction of the fence to provide sufficient visibility for vehicles entering or exiting the intersection, the driveway of the subject property and the neighbour's driveway along Sutton Place. The attached site plan represents acceptable fence heights according to Traffic. Traffic has stated that should the applicant wish to construct the proposed fence in chain-link then there would be no concerns with a 1.2 metres (4 ft) fence abutting the lot lines as indicated on the submitted application and clarified above. Based on the above and taking into account the visibility concerns regarding safety for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, staff recommend that should the applicant still wish to erect a wooden fence, that the maximum height recommendations of Traffic be respected. Should the applicant agree to erect a chain link fence, it is the opinion of staff that the requested fence would then not pose a visibility concern. The variance would then be considered minor in nature and the general intent of the Fence By-law would be met. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the requested minor variance as shown on the submitted application relative only to a chain link fence, or alternatively, a wooden fence constructed according to the recommendations of Traffic staff. 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 in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has concerns with the proposed fence. The proposed height of 1.22 meters for the fence will cause visibility problems at the driveway of 164 Southwood Drive, at the driveways of the neighbour on Sutton Place and the neighbour beside on Southwood, as well as the intersection of Southwood and Sutton Place. Resultantly, we would require the fence to conform to the following conditions: - no fence in the daylight triangle of Sutton Place and Southwood Drive, - no fence within 4.57 meters on either side of the driveway of 164 Southwood Drive - only a .92 meter fence within the driveway daylight triangle of the neighbour's driveway on Sutton Place. Imposing these restrictions would be necessary to ensure safety for pedestrians and vehicles using this area. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 11 - JUNE 15, 1999 Submission No.: F 4/99(Cont'd) The Chair inquired of Mr. Kelly if he had reviewed staff comments and Mr. Kelly responded that he had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add except that he wished to clarify that the fence to be installed would be a chain link fence rather than a wood fence. The Chair inquired if there were any additional comments of staff and Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst referred the Committee to the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division which request that the application be approved subject to no fence being installed within a 25 ft. daylight triangle at the intersection of Sutton Place and Southwood Drive and within a 15 m daylight triangle on either side of the driveway of 164 Southwood Drive. Mr. P. Kruse inquired of Mr. Kelly if the main reason for installing the fence was to prevent persons from walking across his property and how he felt the conditions being requested by Traffic would affect his application. Mr. Kelly responded that the main purpose for installing the fence was to prevent persons from walking across his property and advised that he was in agreement with a 25 ft. daylight triangle at the intersection of Sutton Place and Southwood Drive. He stated, however, that he did not see the need for a 15 ft. daylight triangle on both sides of the driveway and suggested that rather he be allowed to construct the fence closer to the house and at a lesser height of 3 ft. The Chair inquired of staff if this was possible and Mr. R. Parent responded that, regardless of the height of the fence, staff would still require that no fence be constructed within the daylight triangle to avoid any obstruction to visibility for pedestrians. He further advised that if the fence was constructed in the driveway area as proposed the possibility exists for such things as snow, leaves and grass, to build up which could cause obstructions and Mr. Kelly would not be able to guarantee that this would not occur. Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was prepared to recommend approval of the application subject to the conditions that it be a chain link fence and that no fence be constructed within a 15 ft. daylight triangle on either side of the driveway of 164 Southwood Drive and no fence be constructed within a 25 ft. daylight triangle at the intersection of Sutton Place and Southwood Drive. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Gerard Kelly requesting permission to construct a fence along the frontage of 164 Southwood Drive with a height of 1.2 m (4 ft.), rather than the required 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 10, Plan 1556, 164 Southwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only to the construction of a chain link fence, only as shown on the plans as submitted with the application. That no fence be constructed within the 7.62 m (25 ft.) daylight triangle at the intersection of Sutton Place and Southwood Drive. That no fence be constructed within the 4.57 m (15 ft.) daylight triangle on either side of the driveway of 164 Southwood Drive. It is the opinion of this Committee: 1. The variance approved 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 Municipal Code Chapter 630 (Fence) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 12 - JUNE 15, 1999 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of June, 1999. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment