Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-09-14 FENCOA\1999-09-14-FENCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. S. Kay and P. Kruse. Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider applications regarding variances to Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code. The Committee will not make a decision on these applications 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 recommendations will be forwarded to City Council on Monday, September 20, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. APPLICATION Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: F 10/99 Trustees of Emmanuel Bible College 70 Fergus Avenue Part of Lot 2, Plan 963 Appearances: In Support: Mr. G. MacDonald Regional Municipality of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street Kitchener ON N2G 4J3 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 1.82 m (6ft.) high wooden fence, 12 m (39.37 ft.) in length along the sideyard abutting Weber Street and 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) in length along a portion of the required daylight triangle at the intersection of Fergus Avenue and Weber Street, rather than the required 0.9 m (3 ft.) in height. 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 1.82 metre (6 ft) high wooden fence rather than the maximum 0.9 metres (3 ft) height, 12 metres (39.37 ft) in length along the side lot line abutting Weber Street and 7.5 metres (24.6 ft) in length along a portion of the required daylight triangle at the intersection of Fergus Avenue and Weber Street, rather than the required 0.9 metres (3 ft) in height. The intent of the 4.5 metre (14.76 ft) setback requirement is to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian visibility is unobstructed. Additionally, the setback is necessary to provide COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 31 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 unobstructed visibility for the abutting property owner when their driveway is close to the fence location. Submission No.: F 10/99 (Cont'd) Staff note that the driveway for the abutting lot is not adjacent to the subject fence and therefore will not be a visibility concern. The proposed fence is to be located halfway into the required 15 metre corner visibility triangle. However, a site visit has determined that the 7.5 metre visibility triangle proposed would appear to have no impact on pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The paved portion of Weber Street curves away from the subject side lot line abutting the street. Additionally, the existing boulevard and sidewalk provides sufficient visibility of oncoming traffic along Weber Street. It is staff's opinion that the general intent of the by-law is being met. The variance could be considered minor in nature as it will not adversely affect the neighbouring property. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the requested variance relative to the fence as shown on the drawing submitted by the applicant. 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 application. 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 no concerns with the proposed fence. 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. Mr. P. Kruse questioned why the Regional Municipality of Waterloo was acting as the agent for this application and Mr. MacDonald advised that the Region is currently undertaking widening of Weber Street which has resulted in the applicant loosing a portion of their property and trees have also been removed. As a means of compensation to the applicant, Mr. MacDonald advised that the Region proposed the fencing option for screening purposes. The Chair referred to staff comments in which it was indicated that the proposed fence would be located within the 15 m corner visibility triangle; however, the Traffic Division comments indicate they have no concerns in this regard. The Chair pointed out that the comments received from the Traffic & Parking Division were not signed and questioned if a signed copy had been received. The Secretary responded that she was in receipt of a signed original of the Traffic & Parking Division comments. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Trustees of Emmanuel Bible College requesting permission to construct a 1.82 m (6 ft.) high wooden fence, 12 m (39.37 ft.) in length along the sideyard abutting Weber Street and 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) in length along a portion of the required daylight triangle at the intersection of Fergus Avenue and Weber Street, rather than the required 0.9 m (3 ft.) in height, on Part of Lot 2, Plan 963, 70 Fergus Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the drawing submitted with the application for Submission No. F 10/99. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 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 - 32 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Submission No.: F 10/99 (Cont'd) The Chair pointed out to Mr. MacDonald that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council, which will be considered at the Council meeting of September 20, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber and advised that he may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le,qal Description: F 11/99 Steve Leiska 159 Fairfield Avenue Lot 9, Re.qistered Plan 755 Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. S. Leiska 159 Fairfield Avenue Kitchener ON N2H 6C4 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing fence having a height of 1.52 m (5 ft.), up to the property line, along the sideyard abutting St. Leger Street, rather than the required 0.9 m (3 ft.) in height. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing fence having a height of 1.52 meters, rather than the maximum 0.9 meters in height, 0 meters from the St. Leger Street property line. Staff note the application should be amended to reflect a 1.8 meter high fence along St. Leger Street, not a 1.52 meter fence. This application should also be amended to show that the fence is located on both the applicants' property, as well as City property. In this regard, staff advise that an encroachment request is in circulation. The Legal Department advises that the City cannot permit the encroachment of an illegal structure, therefore, for the fence to remain in its present location there must be an approval of a variance from the Fence By-law. The Fence By-law requires a 4.5 meter setback for a fence higher than 0.9 meters, from a property line abutting a street, or a fence of 0.9 meters in height up to the property line. This requirement is to ensure unobstructed visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles. Along the St. Leger Street frontage there is a 1.2 meter wide strip of City owned land from the back edge of sidewalk to the property line. The subject fence is encroaching into this area ranging from 0 meters to 0.66 meters. At the rear of the property is driveway access from St. Leger Street. The subject fence extends to the driveway causing a visibility hazard. Staff from Traffic and Parking advise that the fence is required to be moved to provide a visibility corner 4.5 meters along the property line abutting St. Leger Street and 4.5 meters along the driveway. This will provide unimpeded visibility for vehicles entering or exiting the driveway as well as clear sight lines for pedestrians on the sidewalk. Once the visibility triangle is provided, the impact of the fence can be considered minor in nature as it will maintain the intent of the Fence By-law and will not impact on the neighbouring properties. The subject fence is an appropriate use of the property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 33 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of application F11/99 as amended to provide a 4.5 meter visibility corner be from the property line along St. Leger Street and 4.5 meters along the driveway, subject to the following condition: Submission No.: F 11/99(Cont'd) That the property owner enter into an encroachment agreement with the City of Kitchener to legalize the location of the fence on City property prior to October 20, 1999. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to the completion date set out in this decision. 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 application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and have given careful consideration to the proposed legalization of the existing fence. It would appear that while the fence does not cause a problem in the corner daylight triangle, it does cause a problem at the driveway. Subject to the approval of an encroachment agreement, we would be prepared to support the legalization of the existing fence, provided that the fence is cut back from the 4.57 meter driveway triangle. We especially point out that the measurement of this triangle should be taken along the legal property lines. 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 enquired how long the applicant had owned the property and Mr. Leiska responded that he had owned this property for approximately 1 1/2 years. The Chair referred to staff comments and enquired if Mr. Leiska had an opportunity to review them. Mr. Leiska responded that he had just received the comments and accordingly, the Chair allowed Mr. Leiska time to review them. Following review of the comments, Mr. Leiska questioned if staff were asking that the fence be cut back at St. Leger Street and placed kidi-corner. The Chair advised Mr. Leiska that staff are recommending that a portion of the fence be moved to provide a visibility corner, 4.5 m along the property line abutting St. Leger Street and 4.5 m along the driveway. He stated that this was being recommended to ensure unimpeded visibility for vehicles entering or exiting the driveway, as well as pedestrian visibility on the sidewalk. Ms. J. Given advised that the fence is currently located on City property and the setback being required to provide the visibility corner is to be from the property lot line and not were it is presently located. Mr. Leiska provided the Committee with pictures of the property and the Chair reviewed these with respect to relocation of the fence to create the visibility corner. Mrs. D. Leiska pointed out that, if the fence were placed across the corner, this would open up an existing 3 ft. drop from the sidewalk and Mr. Leiska questioned if they would have to fill this in. Mrs. Leiska further stated that this would be a safety hazard to pedestrians and they did not wish to create a situation where pedestrians could potentially fall and hurt themselves. Members of the Committee agreed that the 3 ft. drop was a potential hazard; however, at the same time, the concerns of the Traffic Division with respect to visibility for traffic and pedestrians must be taken seriously. In this regard, the Chair advised that it would be up to the applicant whether or not they filled in this area. Ms. J. Given further advised that the applicant does have the option to leave the fence in its present location provided it is cut back to 3 ft. in height. Mrs. Leiska stated, however, that this would not be possible as they have two dogs on their property and she has also experienced persons looking in her windows. The Chair questioned how far back along St. Leger Street the fence extends and Mr. Leiska stated that it goes back as far as the existing garage. The Chair further questioned how the City was made aware of the existing situation and Mr. Leiska responded that a complaint had been lodged. Mr. Leiska further pointed out that he had built his fence in the same manner as COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 34 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 others had on corner lots within his residential area. The Chair pointed out to Mr. Leiska that, even though others have illegally erected fences, this did not give him the right to do the same. 2. Submission No.: F 11/99(Cont'd) The Chair advised Mr. Leiska that a by-law is in place and it is this Committee's mandate to ensure that the regulations of the by-law are maintained. Ms. S. Campbell stated that the issue is one of safety and the Traffic concerns relating to visibility for oncoming traffic and pedestrians must be taken seriously. Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was prepared to move approval of the application, as amended to include a 1.8 m height and conditional upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City to allow the fence to remain in its present location with the exception of ensuring the fence is cutback to 4.5 m along the property line abutting St. Leger Street and along the driveway to provide a visibility corner and that this setback be from the property line. The Chair referred to the condition with respect to the encroachment agreement having to be entered into prior to October 20, 1999, and suggested that the Committee consider providing a longer period of time for the agreement to be prepared and signed. In this regard, Ms. J. Given pointed out that an Encroachment Application has already been submitted, which is currently being circulated by the Legal Department, and will be presented to City Council for approval at its meeting to be held on September 20, 1999. She advised that staff are of the opinion that the October 20th date is sufficient time following Council's approval for an agreement to be entered into and further pointed out that the condition does allow for the applicant to request an extension of time if necessary. The Chair questioned if Mr. Leiska was familiar with the Encroachment Agreement process and Mr. Leiska indicated that he was not familiar with this process. The Chair advised Mr. Leiska that his fence currently is located on City property and, accordingly, an agreement with the City to allow the fence to remain in its present location must be entered into. In this regard, the Chair noted that an application has already been initiated which is to be considered by City Council on September 20, 1999, following which Mr. Leiska will have to enter into and sign an agreement with the City by October 20, 1999. The Chair then referred Mr. Leiska to contact the Legal Department or Ms. Given should he require further information. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Steve Leiska requesting permission to legalize an existing 1.8 m (5.9 ft.) high fence along the sideyard abutting St. Leger Street, rather than the required 0.9 m (3 ft.) in height, on Lot 9, Registered Plan 755, 159 Fairfield Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the property owner shall move a portion of the fence to provide a 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) visibility corner from the legal property line along St. Leger Street and 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) along the driveway. That the property owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City of Kitchener to legalize the location of the fence on City property prior to October 20, 1999. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to the completion date set out in this decision. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 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 - 35 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 The Chair pointed out to Mr. Leiska that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council which will be considered at the Council meeting of September 20, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber and advised that he may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:30 a.m. in order to consider an application for Minor Variance to the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:45 a.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS APPLICATION Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: F 7/99 Robert & Jennifer Maxwell 28 Donley Street Lot 13, Plan 886 and the Westerly 5 feet of Even Perpendicular Width Throughout From Front to Rear of Lot 14, Plan 886 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Maxwell 28 Donley Street Kitchener ON N2M 3P1 Contra: Mr. H. Dessler 12 Kelvin Avenue Kitchener ON N2M 3N8 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on August 17, 1999, in which the Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a fence along the sideyard abutting Kelvin Avenue, with a height of 1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the required 0.91 m (3 ft.). At its meeting of August 17, 1999, the Committee deferred this application to its meeting this date to allow the applicant to apply for a minor variance with respect to the location of a parking space on the property. In this regard, an application for minor variance was filed under Submission No. A 94/99 for Robert & Jennifer Maxwell, 28 Donley Street and was considered and approved by this Committee prior to consideration of the Submission No. F 7/99. The Committee noted previous comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a fence along the sideyard abutting Kelvin Avenue, with a height of 1.82 meters, rather than the permitted 0.91 meters. The applicant advised that they wish to have the 1.82 meter fence to provide a secure play area for their children. They also wish to have a more private yard area, and if they set the fence back the required 4.5 meters they would lose the usability of a large portion of the lot. The By-law allows fences located in a side yard abutting a street to be a maximum of 0.9 meters high and located up to the property line, or alternatively, be set back 4.5 meters from the side property line and have a maximum height of 2.4 meters. These requirements are in place to ensure adequate visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles by maintaining clear sight lines. Upon site inspection, staff note that the proposed fence is to be located so that it will effectively be blocking off the required parking space for the dwelling. The applicant has been notified that a variance to the Zoning By-law will be required to address the location of the modified parking space on the property, being located ahead of the required 6.0 meter setback, and a driveway that does not meet the required 12.0 meter setback from the intersection. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 36 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 1. Submission No.: F 7/99, (Cont'd) The Committee noted additional comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services respecting Minor Variance Application A 94/99 in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate the legal parking space for the dwelling 4.4 meters from the front property line rather than the required 6.0 meters. The application should be amended to show that the applicant is also requesting permission to legalize a driveway located closer than 12.0 meters to an intersection. Staff note the applicant has applied for a variance to the Fence By-law to allow a 1.8 meter fence to be located up to a side property line abutting a street (F7/99). The proposed location of the fence has resulted in the need for this variance to locate the parking space ahead of the building line as well as the driveway being located closer than 12.0 meters to the intersection. The Zoning By-law requires the legal parking space for a dwelling to be located 6.0 meters from the front property line. This is to alleviate congestion close to the street and provide safety for pedestrians while maintaining a pleasant streetscape. As well, the Zoning By-law requires a 12.0 meter driveway setback from an intersection to also provide clear unobstructed visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles. The location of the proposed fence will block off the required parking space for the dwelling such that the parking space will now be located 4.4 meters from the front property line. Staff from Traffic and Parking has no concern with the parking space being located 1.6 meters closer to the front property line. The 4.4 meter setback will allow adequate room for the parking space while not hindering pedestrian movement on the sidewalk, nor will the reduced setback impact the streetscape. A recent driveway widening, caused the driveway to now be located approximately 0.6 meters from the side property line abutting the street. Staff from Traffic and Parking has advised the applicant that the portion of this driveway widening in the daylight corner will need to be removed. Once this has been accomplished, Traffic has no concern with the driveway widening provided the corner visibility triangle is not used for driveway or parking. The variance for a parking space setback 4.4 meters from the front property line and the widened portion of the driveway can be considered minor in nature as it will have no impact on the streetscape or neighbouring properties. It will maintain the general intent and purpose of the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. This variance provides an appropriate use of the property. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of application A94/99 as amended, with the following condition: The applicant remove the portion of the driveway that is within the daylight corner to the satisfaction of Traffic and Parking prior to November 15, 1999. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to the completion date set out in this decision. The Committee noted the previous comments of the Coordinator of Traffic Planning, in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division recommends that the proposed location be modified to provide a 4.57 driveway visibility triangle at the existing driveway on the abutting Kelvin Avenue property, as measured from the back edge of the sidewalk. Through review of this application we have learned that a variance may be required pertaining to the existing driveway. It is our understanding that this matter would be dealt with through application. The Committee noted the previous comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the previous comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 37 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Ms. J. Given advised that revised comments for Submission F 7/99 had not been provided; however, she stated that staff were prepared to recommend approval of the fence provided that the applicant provides a 4.5 m visibility triangle from the existing driveway on the abutting Kelvin Avenue property to the satisfaction of the Traffic & Parking Division. Submission No.: F 7/99, (Cont'd) Mr. H. Dessler questioned how close to the sidewalk along Kelvin Avenue the fence could be located and how high the fence would be allowed in relationship to his driveway. In this regard, Ms. J. Given responded that, in the corner adjacent to Mr. Dessler's driveway, no fence would be located as it would be constructed on a diagonal to provide the required daylight triangle. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Robert & Jennifer Maxwell requesting permission to construct a fence along the sideyard abutting Kelvin Avenue, with a height of 1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the required 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Lot 13, Plan 886 and the westerly 5 ft. of even perpendicular width throughout from front to rear of Lot 14, Plan 886, 28 Donley Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the property owner shall provide a 4.57 m (14.99 ft.) visibility triangle from the existing driveway on the abutting Kelvin Avenue property, as measured from the back edge of the sidewalk, to the satisfaction of the Traffic & Parking Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 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 The Chair pointed out to Mr. Maxwell that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council which will be considered at the Council meeting of September 20, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber and advised that he may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 14th day of September, 1999. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment