The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-2021-110 - A 2021-052 - 74 Chestnut StREPORT TO:Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING:June 15, 2021 SUBMITTED BY:vonWesterholt, Juliane,Senior Planner, 519-741-2200ext. 7157 PREPARED BY:Rice Menezes, Sheryl, Planning Technician (Zoning), 519-741-2200 ext. 7844 WARD(S) INVOLVED:10 DATE OF REPORT:June9,2021 REPORT NO.:DSD 2021-110 SUBJECT:Minor Variance Application A2021-052 74 Chestnut Street Owner –Annette and Raymond Higgins RECOMMENDATION: That applicationA2021-042requesting permission to legalize the required one off-street parking space to be located 1.41 metres from the property line abutting Mansion Street and araised covered deck in the rear yard, having a height of 1.2 metres,to be located 0.6 metres from the southerly lot line rather than the required 1.2 metres; beAPPROVED, Andfurther, that the request for permission to construct: 1)a detached garage in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling to be located 1.41 metres from the property line abutting Mansion Street rather than the required 6 metres, 2)aone and two-storey addition in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling havinga side yard abutting Mansion Street of 0.88 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres, 3)anuncovered porch having a 0-metresetback from Mansion Street rather than the required 4.5 metres;and, 4)to allow the proposed one and two-storey addition to encroach 3.57 metres into the Driveway VisibilityTriangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT; be REFUSED. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Location Map BACKGROUND: The property is designated asLow Rise Conservation Ain the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Plan of the City’s Official Plan and identifiedas CommunityAreaontheUrban Structure Map. The property is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in By-law 85-1. Planning Comments: In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments. General Intent of the Official Plan Theintent of the Low Rise Conservation A designation is to preserve thescale, use and intensity of the existing neighbourhood. The subject single detached dwelling isexisting and is apermitted use in the designation. The proposed addition of living space, carport and garage continues to provide alow-rise housing option in this neighbourhood.Therefore, Planning staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the Official Plan is maintained. General Intent of the Zoning By-law Regarding the existing off-street parking space located 1.41 metres from the lot line abutting Mansion Street rather than the required 6 metres, this is an existingsituation and has not been a concern in the past. Because of the size of the rear yard, itis not possible to locate the parking space further from the Mansion Street lot line. Staff is of the opinion that this variance meets thegeneral intent of the bylaw. Regarding the proposed raised covered deck with a height of 1.2 metres above grade, to be located 0.6 metres from the side lot line,the 1.2 metre setback is required in order to provide room for maintenance of the structure and also to provide separation from neighbouring lot lines. The proposed 0.6 metres will permit maintenance and continues to providean adequate setback which appears unlikelyto negatively impact the neighbouringproperty. Regarding the proposed building addition, it is noted that though staff could support a setback of 0.88 metres for the 2-storey addition, there is a more onerous variance for the addition as it is located 3.57 metres into the required 4.57 metres DVT. Staff do not support new structures that are substantially located in DVTs. As above variances,#2 to 4, are part of the same addition, staffis unable to support them as there is concern with new structures being located in a DVTand therefore the general intent is not being maintained. Regarding the proposed garage, at 1.41 metre setback, it is noted that it is also substantially located inside a DVT. In addition, Transportation Planning staff hasadvised that in the future a sidewalk will be proposed for this block. This would add to safety concerns for pedestrians using the sidewalk and vehicles backing out of driveway and garage on the propertyand therefore does not meet the general intent of the Zoning by-law. Based on the above comments regarding the building addition and the garage, staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the Zoning By-law is not maintained. View of existing parking area from Mansion Street (existing deck and one-storey addition to be demolished) Is the Variance Minor? As noted above, the existing off-street parking space and the proposed deck meet thegeneral intent of the bylaw and staff considersthesevariances to be minor. Regarding the proposed new dwelling addition and garage, both of which wouldbe substantially located inside the required 4.57metres DVTs, staff are of the opinion that thevariances cannot be considered minor by Planning or Transportation Planning staff. Is the Variance Appropriate? Staff isof the opinion that the off-street parking space and the proposed deck are appropriate for the property and would not negatively impact the surrounding neighbourhood. Regarding the proposed building additions, staff is of the opinionthatthese variancesare intwo DVTs,andthis would have animpact for driver’svisibility and creates asafety hazard. Therefore,it is staff’s opinion thatthe variances are notappropriatefor the subject property or the neighbourhood. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property May 29, 2021. View from corner of Chestnut and Mansion Streets It is noted that before the application was accepted staff advised that we could not support the variances in the DVTs. It would have been preferable to meet with the applicant and with Transportation Planning staff to determine if modifications could havebeenmade to the proposal that staff couldsupport, such ashaving no interior wall for the garage,so that it acts more as a carport across both parking spaces. Should the applicant wish to defer this application, City staff are available to meet to discuss if modifications to the proposal could be supported. Building Comments:The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the addition to the single detached dwelling is obtained prior to any construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. TransportationComments: Transportation Services can support a 1.41 metre parking space setback from the required 6.0 metre parking setback. However, Transportation Services cannot support the new building addition as proposed in the application, to be located within 3.57 metres of the required 4.57 metre DVT. It is our opinion that the DVT encroachment is not minor and is creating an unsafe situation. Also, Transportation Services cannot support the new garage as noted in the application, as thereisan encroachment of approximately 3.16 metres into the required 4.57 metre DVT by a solid wall of the proposed garage. Engineering Comments:Engineering has no comments. Environmental Planning:No concerns. Heritage Planning:There are no heritage planning concerns. The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory and was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The property municipally addressed as 74 Chestnut Street is located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. STRATEGICPLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget –The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget –The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM –This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the Committeeof Adjustmentmeeting.A notice signed was placed on the propertyadvising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advisesinterested parties to find additional information on the City’s website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authoritiesrelated to this matter. May31, 2021 Kristen Hilborn City of KitchenerFile No.: D20-20/ 200 King Street WestVAR KIT GEN P.O. Box 1118(11, 12)/VAR KIT,269 271 MADISON AVES. Kitchener, ONN2G 4G7184 MILL STREET 389160 ONTARIO LIMITED (13, 14)/04 Urban, 297 OTTAWA STREET S.JEREMY KRYGSMAN ANDREW STEINBACCH Dear Ms. Hilborn: Re:Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting June15,2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: A 2021-0476Guerin Avenue No Concerns. A 2021-04893 Michener Crescent No Concerns. A 2021-049279 Sheldon Avenue North No Concerns. A 2021-0504Dekay Street No Concerns. A 2021-051185 Simeon Street No Concerns. A 2021-05274 Chestnut Street No Concerns. A 2021-05312 Blucher Street No Concerns. A 2021-05474 Paddock Court (Final) No Concerns. A 2021-05541 Heiman Street No Concerns. A 2021-05629 Brunswick Avenue No Concerns. A 2021-057269-271 Madison Avenue South No Concerns. A 2021-058184 Mill Street No Concerns. 5ƚĭǒƒĻƓƷ bǒƒĬĻƩʹ ЌЏАВЊЋА tğŭĻ ƚŅ Ћ 13)A 2021-059297 Ottawa Street South (Retained)No Concerns. 14)A 2021-060297 Ottawa Street South(Severed) No Concerns. Please be advised that any development on the lands subject to the Applications noted above aresubject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for these developmentsprior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numberslistedabove. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decision on the above mentioned application to the undersigned. Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: CofA@Kitchener.ca 2 June 2, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re:June 15,2021Committee of Adjustment Meeting ______________________________________________________________________ Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-04768 Guerin AvenueA 2021-05474 Paddock Court A 2021-04893 Michener CrescentA 2021-05541 Heiman Street A 2021-049279 Sheldon Avenue NorthA 2021-05629 Brunswick Avenue A 2021-0504 DekayStreetA 2021-057269-271 Madison Ave. S. A 2021-051185 Simeon StreetA 2021-058184 Mill Street A 2021-05274 Chestnut StreetA 2021-059297 Ottawa StreetSouth A 2021-05312 Blucher StreetA 2021-060297 Ottawa StreetSouth Applications for Consent B 2021-030509 Mill Street B 2021-033269-271 Madison Avenue South & 184 Mill Street B 2021-034297 Ottawa Street South B 2021-035297 Ottawa Street South The above-noted consent applications are located outside the Grand River Conservation Authority areas of interest. As such, we will not undertake a review of the applications and plan review fees will not be required. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 519-621-2763 ext. 2228 or aherreman@grandriver.ca. Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Page 1of 1 the Grand River Conservation Authority.