HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2021-130 - A 2021-076 - 61 Strange StREPORT TO:Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING:July 20, 2021
SUBMITTED BY:Bateman,Brian,Senior Planner, 519-741-2200ext. 7869
PREPARED BY:Rice Menezes, Sheryl, Planning Technician (Zoning)
519-741-2200ext. 7844
WARD(S) INVOLVED:Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT:July12, 2021
REPORT NO.:DSD-21-130
SUBJECT:Minor Variance Application A2021-076
61 Strange Street
Owner –2771774 Ontario Inc
Applicant –Mike Schneider (officerand director)
RECOMMENDATION:
That application A2021-076for permission to convert the attached garageon an existing
duplex dwelling to create a 3-unit multiple dwelling which has two legal off-street parking
spaces rather than the required three parking spaces; to permit the required parking spaces
to be located between the façade and the front lot line; and, to have a northerly side yard of
1.02 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres,be approved, subject to the following
conditions:
1)That Site Plan (Stamp Plan B) approval be obtained from the Planning Division(which
will include secure bicycle parking and ensuring that the hard surface parking area
does not exceed two-cars wide and any additional hard surface to be removed and
replaced with landscaping or other material as approved in the Site Plan);
2)That a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate be obtained from the Planning Division,
3)That a building permit is obtained from the Building Division; and further,
4)That conditions1to 3be completed by January 1, 2022. Any request for a time
extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or
designate) prior to completion date set out in this decision. Failure to complete the
conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void.
*** 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:
As noted above, the application is requesting permission to convert an existing attached garage into
a third dwelling unit. Staff note that the original advertisement for the application was on July 2 and
it was recognized after this date that the variances were noted incorrectly and needed to be
readvertised. The required advertisement was published on July 5 and recirculation of the notice of
hearing was completed. The correct variances are noted in the Recommendation section above.
The property is designated as Low Rise Residentialin the City’s Official Plan and identified asMajor
Transit Station Areaon the City’s Urban StructureMap.
The property is zoned as R-5 (Residential Five)in Zoning By-law 85-1.
REPORT:
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
The intent of the Low Rise Residential designation is to maintain the overall low density, low rise
residential character of the neighbourhood while also encouraging and supporting the mixing and
integration of different forms of housing. The designation permits low-rise multiple dwellings. In
addition, the policies of the Residential section of the Official Plan support the integration of different
housing types, specifically multiple residential development through redevelopment provided it is a
compatible with the neighbourhood in terms of massing, scale and design. As well as ensuring that
adequate and appropriate parking areas are provided on the property.
The side yard setback variance acknowledges an existing building and the redevelopment of the
building into a third dwelling unit maintains the intent for low-rise, low intensity redevelopment.
Regarding the parking variance for two instead of three spaces, as noted below in the ‘Intent of Zoning
By-law’ section, though two spaces are requested, there is actually athird (and fourth) space available
in tandem in the existing driveway which will meet the future Zoning By-law regulations and staff are of
the opinion that they currently meet the intent of the Official Plan.
Regarding the variance to locate parking spaces between the façade and the front lot line, the Official
Plan policies note that all parking facilities are to be designed to be ‘aesthetically accessible parking
area which blend into the general environment of the area’. Provided the parking area is reconstructed
to be no more than two spaces wide, as noted in the ‘Is the Variance Appropriate’ section below, staff
are of the opinion that the general intent and objectives of the policies are met.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The intent of the side yard setback is to maintain sufficient separation from neighbouring properties and
to ensure access to the rear yard is maintained. By legalizing the building setback of 1.02 metres, staff
acknowledge that this is an existing building which has a legal side yard setback for a duplex. By
legalizing the same setback for the 3-unit multiple dwelling, it is acknowledging what already exists and
will be maintained. There is sufficient side yardexisting to access the rear yard and provide separation
fromthe abutting property.
The intent of prohibiting parking between the façade of the building and the front lot line is to ensure
that parking areas for multiple dwellings do not dominate the streetscape. In this case, it is not possible
to access the side or rear of the building for parking as the parking area is already established for a
duplex use in front of the attached garage. As noted in the sketch below of the parking area, the two
requested parking spaces are located set back from the façade of the existing duplex but they are
located in front of the façade of the garage to that is to be converted to a third dwellingunit. As the
parking area is existing and the two spaces are setback from the façade closest to the street, staff are
of the opinion that the intent to not dominate the streetscape with parking is met.
The general intent of required three parking spaces for a 3-unit multiple dwelling is to ensure that there
is sufficient parking for all the dwelling units. The property is located nearmultiple bus routesand is
within less than 400 metres walking distance of an LRT station. Transportation Planning staff are in
support of this variance as sufficient public transportation is within walking range of the property. As
well, Transportation Planning staff are requesting that secure bicycle parking be provided,and this can
be accommodated in the Site Plan approval that is required for a multiple dwelling.
In addition, it is noted that thereexistsin the driveway a third (and fourth) parking space which are in
tandem. It is noted that in the future, the new Zoning By-law 2019-051, will permit two parking spaces
for a triplex to be in tandem, provided two of the spaces are set back a minimum of 6 metres which is
the case for this proposed variance.
Staff have been advised that the floor area of the three units are: 98.1 square metres, 88.3 square
metres and the converted garage is to have an area of 48.9 square metres. Smaller units, such as the
converted garage area, tend to attract tenants without vehicles.
Based on above comments, combined with a condition for Site Plan approval todenote where the
approve parking is located and toensure bicycle parking spacesare provided, staff are of the opinion
that the variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the Variance Minor?
The existing building is proposed to be converted from a duplex to a 3-unit multiple dwelling with
sufficient parking and setback as noted above. Staff are satisfied that the variance are minor as no
expansion is proposed to the existing buildings and the parking area along the front lot line will be
addressed through Site Plan approval to limit the width to two cars wide; as well as ensure secure
bicycle parking.
Is the Variance Appropriate?
As shown in the photo below; and the drawing submitted with the application (also below), the current
paved area permits three vehicles to park across the property at the front lot line. For a multiple dwelling
this is not appropriate as the parking area would not blend in with the low rise character of the
streetscape; nor is it aesthetically pleasing. It is noted that Site Plan approval (Stamp Plan B) will be
required for the multiple dwelling and with it, staff are requesting that the parking area be reconstructed
to have a maximum driveway width be no more than two cars wide. As well as ensuring bicycle parking
on site.
Photo of Subject Property
Plan submitted with application
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved as outlined
in the Recommendation section above.
City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on July 5, 2021.
Building Comments:The Building Divisionhas no objections to the proposed variance provided a
building permit for the change of use of the garage to an additional dwelling is obtained prior to
construction. Please contact the Building Division at building@kitchener.ca with any questions.
Transportation Comments:
Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the reduced parking rate for the proposed
triplex, given the rationale from the applicant as well as the site’s location to higher order transit. As
acondition of approval, the applicant is to provide an area for secured bicycle parking for the third
unit that is being added.
Heritage Comments:
There are no heritage planning concerns. The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS)
dated December 2014 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 61 Strange
St islocated within the Warehouse District 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.
Engineering Comments:No concerns.
Operations Comments:No comments.
Environmental Planning Comments:No comments.
STRATEGIC PLAN 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 sign was placed on the propertyadvising that a
Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested 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.
CONSULT –Staff have emailed and spoken with a resident. Staff advised that the lot area variance
is met as a minimum of 495 square metres is required for each ‘multiple dwelling’ building(containing
three units combined). The subject lot area is 561 square metres. Regardingthe resident’s concerns
about parking, staff are of the opinion that the concerns have been addressed in this staff report.
Lastly,staff have commented on thequestion of the status of the current use as duplex (see below).
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Building Permit application #20-129238was issued March 20, 2021, for‘interior alterations to the
basement and main floor a duplex dwelling. Attached garage renovation to convert to unheated
storage space’.
July 05, 2021
Kristen Hilborn
City of Kitchener File No.: D20-20/
200 King Street West VAR KIT GEN
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
Dear Ms. Hilborn:
Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting July 20, 2021, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have
following comments:
1) Revised A 2021-076 61 Strange Street No Concerns.
Please be advised that any development on the lands subject to the Applications noted above
are subject 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
developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter
pertain to the Application numbers listed above. 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:
Dianna Saunderson
CofA@Kitchener.ca
5ƚĭǒƒĻƓƷ bǒƒĬĻƩʹ ЌАЊВВЊЌ
July 9, 2021
Dianna Saunderson Via email only
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Ms. Saunderson,
Re: July 20, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting
______________________________________________________________________
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2021-052 74 Chestnut Street
A 2021-061 29 Floral Crescent
A 2021-062 316 Quaiser Court
A 2021-063 48 Martin Street
A 2021-064 34 Uxbridge Crescent
A 2021-065 117 Golden Meadow Crescent
A 2021-066 195 Yellow Birch Drive
A 2021-067 806 Belmont Avenue West
A 2021-068 71 Massey Avenue
A 2021-069 926 & 936 King Street East
A 2021-070 124 Walter Street
A 2021-071 19 Anson Court
A 2021-072 53 Plaza Court
A 2021-073 538 Victoria Street South
A 2021-074 42 Florence Avenue
A 2021-075 10 Pearson Street
A 2021-076 61 Strange Street
A 2021-077 102 Waterloo Street
A 2021-078 102 Waterloo Street
A 2021-079 & A2021-080 1170 King Street East & 815 & 825 Weber Street East
Applications for Consent
B 2021-036 301 Thaler Avenue
B 2021-037 362 Lancaster Street West
B 2021-038 257 Dumfries Avenue
B 2021-039 102 Waterloo Street
*These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Page 1 of 2
the Grand River Conservation Authority.
Applications for Consent (Continued)
B2021-0401170 King Street East, 815 & 825 Weber Street East
B2021-0411170 King Street East, 815 & 825 Weber Street East
The above-noted 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
City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment
RE: A 2021-076-61 (61 Strange St)
We are writing to express concerns with the subject application. We are not opposed to a 3-unit
Multiple Dwelling at this property but want to draw the Committee’s attention to a number of issues as
follows:
a) We would request that the City Planning staff ensure Official Plan sections 15.D.3.3. and
15.D.3.4, specifically with regard to on-site parking requirements, and the design and physical
character of the existing attached garage (proposed to be converted), be followed. Does the
Application/proposal maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan in this regard?
Information is unknown and we believe that the property owners shall demonstrate their’
commitment of “returning the property to its former glory”.
The City holds Urban Design in high regard, and such should be upheld as part of any approval.
b) The intent of Section 6.1.1.1 d) i) of the Zoning By-law is to ensure that the required parking
spaces are located at the rear of a property (behind the dwelling) in a manner so as to maintain
the residential character of the street. This implements the City’s Official Plan (Section 13.C.8.4.
f)), which seeks to achieve aesthetically acceptable parking areas which blend into the general
environment of the area.
Section 6.1.1.1 d) i) prohibits front yard parking, and goes on to say “In no case shall any parking
be located within the minimum front yard or minimum side yard abutting a street or within 3.0
metres of the street line.”
We’ve seen former single-detached dwelling propertiesbe converted in the area with
formalized parking at the rear of the property as per the above requirements. If such can’t be
accommodated on this site, then relief from the minimum parking space requirements could be
considered (reduced to 2, maximum) together with: a physical reduction to the existing hard-
surfaced parking area (which comprises nearly half of the entire frontage of the subject lot);
and, increased front yard landscaping (to eliminate the possibility of 3 or more cars parking in
the front yard). A development agreement registered on title can ensure this is maintained.
Otherwise, we see this as not maintaining the intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning By-law.
c) The Minimum Lot Area regulation under Section 39.2.4 of the City’s Zoning By-law is
unclear/vague; it is unclear if 495.0 square metres is required for each dwelling unit, or, if a
property is required that minimum area in order to have one multiple-unit dwelling. Regardless,
the Application was applied for, and circulated by the Planning Department, on the basis that
1,485 square metres was required for a 3-unit multiple-unit dwelling.
We are of the opinion that the Committee of Adjustment & Planning Department should
consider this application in a consistent manner with how the above-referenced Minimum Lot
Area regulation has been interpreted in the past. If the regulation has been interpreted
consistently by requiring 495.0 square metres of lot area for each dwelling unit, then this
application is well beyond being “minor in nature”.
d) Was the existing Duplex Dwelling lawfully established? We would request that, as a condition of
any approval, that the City’s Building Department be satisfied that the existing Duplex Dwelling
meets all applicable building/fire code requirements prior to the issuance of any building permit
for the property. We agree that the dwelling is likely in need of significant repair.
e) We understand that “additional dwelling unit” does not mean “Additional Dwelling Unit
(detached)”, as defined by the City’s Zoning By-law.
To summarize, we believe that the City’s official plan policies and zoning regulations should be upheld
and maintained in consideration of this application. There are many large dwellings that could be
converted, and there are some that can’t. We believe that the conversion of this dwelling is possible,
and can be considered appropriate for the area, if the on-site parking and the design/character of the
converted building is appropriate, and that the dwelling (existing and proposed) meets all applicable
code requirements.
We also request that our letter be included in the Committee’s agenda package, and that we be notified
of the Committee’s Decision.
Thank You,