Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-078 - A 2022-005 - 86 Chestnut St. Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: February 15, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Bateman, Brian, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7869 PREPARED BY: Zhang, Tara, Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7760 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: January 31, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-078 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2022-005 86 Chestnut St Owner Thomas Mirmotahari and Afshin Mirmotahari RECOMMENDATION: That minor variance application A2022-005 requesting relief from Section 5.22 to convert an existing detached garage in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling into an Accessory Dwelling Unit, on a lot having a width of 12.19 metres rather than the minimum required 13.1 metres, and to allow a northly side yard setback of 1.03 metres for the principle dwelling rather than the minimum required 1.2 metres, be approved. Location Map: 86 Chestnut St. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Low Conservation Ain the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan and identified as Community Areas on Map 2 - Urban Structure in the 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) with Special Use Provision 129U in Zoning By- law 85-1. The applicant is proposing to convert an existing detached garage, at the rear of the subject property, into an Additional Dwelling Unit. Minor Variance A2022-005 was deferred from the January 2022 Committee of Adjustment Agenda for the following reasons: 1. Concerns of a parking deficiency; 2. Concerns that the property is operating as an Airbnb rental; 3. Concerns of privacy because of ; 4. Concerns of an illegal dwelling unit in the basement. 1. Parking The proposed use of the property will require a total of 2 parking spaces with a minimum dimension of 2.6m x 5.5m per parking stall. The applicant can provide one parking space for the main dwelling and another parking space for the ADU. The proposed parking spaces and location on the property will meet the Zoning By-law regulations. 2. Airbnb Currently the City of Kitchener does not have any short-term licensing requirements and does not regulate or license Airbnbs. Also, the Zoning By-law does not regulate the use of Airbnb. Consequently, any use of the property for short-term rental does impact the need for any additional minor variances to permit the detached garage to be used for an ADU. 3. Privacy -law to facilitate the development of additional dwelling units reviewed the location of ADUs on properties and proposed minimum setbacks to ensure that they do not impact adjacent properties. The existing detached garage and proposed ADU will meet the minimum setbacks in the Zoning By-law. The applicant is not requesting any reductions to the setbacks for the ADU. The variances to recognize the lot width of the subject property and the location of the existing dwelling do not inhibit the ability of the ADU to meet all required setbacks. The 1-storey ADU meets the minimum 0.6 metre side yard setbacks without any overlook on the neighbouring property. Building staff has confirmed that the windows meet the Building Code. 4. Duplex The applicant has confirmed that a room in the basement in the dwelling on the subject property is occasionally rented out. The applicant provided floor plans of the basement and first floor of the dwelling for staff to review. Building Department staff have reviewed the plans and can confirm that the existing dwelling is not considered a duplex dwelling. Planning Department staff have also reviewed the floor plans and can confirm that the existing dwelling is not considered a duplex dwelling in Zoning By-law 85-1 because the basement does The short-term rental of the basement is not regulated by licensing or the Zoning By-law and does not trigger the need for additional variances. REPORT: Planning Comments: In considering the four tests for the 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 subject property is designated Low Conservation A in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in the 1994 Official Plan. The intent of the Low Rise Conservation designation is to preserve the scale, use and intensity of existing development. The permitted uses are restricted to single detached dwellings, semi- requested variances are conforming to the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The requested variances to facilitate the conversion of the existing detached garage into an Additional Dwelling Unit on a lot having a width of 12.19 metres, instead of the minimum 13.1 metres and with the principal dwelling having a side yard setback of 1.02 metres, instead of the minimum required 1.2 metres, meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the regulations is to ensure that ADUs are constructed on lots which have a sufficient area to provide amenity space, fire emergency access, and required parking. The subject property has a lot area of 464 square metres which is 69 square metres greater than the minimum required 395 square metres. The deficiency in the minimum lot width of 0.91 metres does not impact the ability of the property to function appropriately with respect to the provision of sufficient amenity area, and the ability to provide sufficient parking. The reduced side yard setback will not impact emergency fire access. A 1.1 metre walkway can be provided along the southerly (right) side of the property which is sufficient in width to allow for fire emergency access. The existing detached garage is setback 20.37 metres from the front property line. The conversion of the detached garage to a dwelling unit will not impact the first required parking space and the driveway will have sufficient parking on the property for both parking spaces in tandem in accordance with zoning regulations. the variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Minor? The requested variance to facilitate the conversion of a detached garage into an additional Dwelling Unit, on a lot having a width of 12.19 metres, instead of 13.1 metres, is considered minor as the structure is already existing and will not be increasing the building footprint through the renovations. The requested variance is only 0.91 metres while the lot area exceeds the minimum lot area requirement by 70 square metres. The reduced side yard setback of the principle dwelling of 1.03 metres, instead of 1.2 metres, is considered minor as the house is already existing and the reduced side yard setback of 0.17 metres will not impact fire emergency access. Staff is of the opinion that the variances will facilitate the provision of an additional dwelling unit while not presenting any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. Is the Variance Appropriate? Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances are desirable and appropriate as they will facilitate a form of gentle intensification of the subject property with the development of an additional dwelling within the existing detached garage that is compatible with the neighbourhood and will make use of existing infrastructure. rd City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on February 3, 2022 Street view of 86 Chestnut St Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the change of use of the detached garage into an ADU is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services can support parking spaces #1, #2, and #3 on the proposed plan, but cannot support parking spaces #4 and #5 as they encroach within the City right-of-way. Given that the proposal only requires two (2) legal parking spaces, there are no concerns. Heritage Comments: Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the minor variance application. 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 86 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. Engineering Comments: Engineering has no comment. Operations Comments: No comments. Environmental Planning Comments: No natural heritage. 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 Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find he application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: January 18, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Bateman, Brian, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7869 PREPARED BY: Zhang, Tara, Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7760 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: January 4, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-042 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2022-005 86 Chestnut St Owner Thomas Mirmotahari and Afshin Mirmotahari RECOMMENDATION: That minor variance application A2022-005 requesting relief from Section 5.22 to convert an existing garage in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling into an Accessory Dwelling Unit on a lot having a width of 12.19 metres rather than the required 13.1 metres; and, to legalize a northly side yard setback of 1.03 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres. 1) That the Owner applies for a Site Plan Application with Planning Division; and 2) That the Owner applies for a Building Permit with the Building Division *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Location Map: 86 Chestnut St. BACKGROUND: Plan and identified as Community Areas in the Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned Residential Five with provision 129U (R-5, 129U) in the By-law 85-1. The applicant is converting the existing detached garage into an Additional Dwelling Unit on a single detached dwelling. REPORT: Planning Comments: In considering the four tests for the 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 subject property is designated Low Conservation A Central Frederick Neighbourhood Plan. This designation places emphasis on compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale and design in order to support the successful integration of different housing types. It also places emphasis on the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas. The City will identify and encourage residential intensification and/or redevelopment, including adaptive re-use and infill opportunities, including additional dwelling units, attached and detached, in order to respond to changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of existing community infrastructure. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The requested variances to convert the existing garage into an Additional Dwelling Unit on a lot width of 12.19 metres and side yard of 1.02 metres meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the regulations is to ensure sufficient amenity space, fire emergency access, and parking. The subject property has a lot area of 464 square metres which is 69 square metres greater than the minimum required 395 square metres. The additional area can provide sufficient amenity space. The reduced side yard setback will not impact the emergency fire access. The 1.1 metre walkway can be provided along the South (right) side of the property to allow fire emergency access. The existing detached garage is 20.37 metres setback from the front property line. The conversion of the detached garage to a living space will not impact the first required parking space and the driveway will have sufficient parking on the property for both parking spaces in tandem. at it meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Minor? The requested Additional Dwelling Unit on a lot width of 12.19 metres is considered minor as the structure is already existing and will not be increasing floor area through renovations. The minimum lot width is 13.1 metres, and the requested difference is only 0.91 metres plus the lot area exceeds the minimum requirement. The reduced side yard setback of the main dwelling of 1.03 metres is considered minor as the house is already existing and will not conduct any renovations or impact fire emergency access. Staff is of the opinion the variance will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. Is the Variance Appropriate? The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The requested variance is not anticipated to impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. th City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on January 4, 2022 Street view of 86 Chestnut St Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the change of use of the detached garage into an ADU is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services can support parking spaces #1, #2, and #3 on the proposed plan, but cannot support parking spaces #4 and #5 as they encroach within the City right-of-way. Given that the proposal only requires two (2) legal parking spaces, there are no concerns. Heritage Comments: Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the minor variance application. 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 86 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. Engineering Comments: Engineering has no comment. Operations Comments: No comments. Environmental Planning Comments: No natural heritage. 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 Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. January 05, 2022 Kristen Hilborn City of Kitchener File No.: D20-20/ 200 King Street West VAR KIT GEN P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 (1) / VAR KIT, DESTARON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 21-41PIONEER DRIVE 85 GREEN VALLEY DRIVE ONTARIO INCORPORATED (2) /08 WEBER KIT, 82 WEBER STREET WEST INTER BUILDING INVESTMENTS LIMITED (7)/69, 110 MANITOU DRIVE SCOTT PATTERSON Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting January 18, 2022, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1) A 2022 - 001 85 Green Valley Drive No Concerns. 2) A 2022-002 79-87 Scott Street and 66-82 Weber Street East and 12-29 Pearl Place No concerns. 3) A 2022 - 003 53 Margaret Avenue No Concerns. 4) A 2022 - 004 470 Blair Creek Drive No Concerns. 5) A 2022 - 005 86 Chestnut Street No Concerns. 6) A 2022 - 006 49 Lower Mercer Street No Concerns. 7) A 2022 - 007 110 Manitou Drive No Concerns to the proposed minor variance. The owners are made aware that a dedicated road widening of approximately 5ƚĭǒƒĻƓƷ bǒƒĬĻƩʹ ЌВЊЌЍЎЉ tğŭĻ Њ ƚŅ Ћ 2.13m will be required along entire property frontage along Manitou Drive for any future development application e.g. a Site Plan/Consent application stage. 8) A 2022 - 008 210 Waterloo Street No Concerns to the minor variance. 9) A 2022 - 009 764 Stirling Avenue South No Concerns. 10) A 2022 - 010 129 Max Becker Drive No Concerns. 11) A 2022 - 011 43 Maurice 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: Sarah Goldrup CofA@Kitchener.ca 2 January 6, 2022 Sarah Goldrup Via email Committee Administrator City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Goldrup, Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting – January 18, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ Applications for Minor Variance A 2022-001 85 Green Valley Drive A 2022-002 79-87 Scott Street and 66-82 Weber Street East and 12-29 Pearl Place A 2022-003 53 Margaret Avenue A 2022-004 470 Blair Creek Drive A 2022-005 86 Chestnut Street A 2022-006 49 Lower Mercer Street A 2022-008 210 Waterloo Street A 2022-010 129 Max Becker Drive A 2022-011 43 Maurice Street Applications for Consent B 2022-001 26 Edgewood Drive B 2022-002 670 Fairway Road South B 2022-003 74 Rutherford Drive B 2022-004 to 006 32 Burgetz Avenue 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 jconroy@grandriver.ca or 519-621-2763 ext. 2230. Sincerely, Jessica Conroy, MES Pl. 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 1 of 1 the Grand River Conservation Authority. TO:The Committee of Adjustments RE:Written Submission – Application A2022-005 – 86 Chestnut Street FROM: My husband, and I moved into our home at in June 1992. We had rented at a triplex on Irwin Street and knew we wanted to live in the neighbourhood. For reasons set out below we are opposed to this particular application. Vibrancy of Downtown Neighbourhoods The City has done a lot to support our downtown neighbourhoods and foster vibrant neighbourhood associations and community. It has really paid off. While I agree with the idea of intensification in the core and the concept of accessory dwelling units, as a new initiative it must be managed well with a view to minimizing unintended consequences. These units cannot prejudice the enjoyment of homeowners or the community feeling that has been developed and nurtured overthe last few decades. Our experience has been when properties are bought for investment purposes and owners become absentee landlords that it has a detrimental effect on the community and in particular the adjacent landowners. This structureis a garagesituated right along the property of the adjacent owner. It will undoubtedly impinge on their enjoyment of their property. By-laws are in place to ensure that sight lines between buildings allow for a certain amount of privacy. If this variance is allowed it would set a dangerous precedent for others to follow. PropertyValues For most Canadians the investment in their homes allows them to create wealth and for many it is the only source of retirement income as they age. Having a rental property so close to one’s residence will significantly lower the value of that homeafter years of investing, maintaining, and bettering the property. This is not going to be a granny flat where the structure is tucked back into the area behind the principalresidencewith its owner renting out the unit.This garage is closer to the adjacentproperty owner than it is to the main dwelling. The concern is that if this new by law is not strictly adhered to and properly administered, outside investors will purchase these homes and look to create multiple units which is not consistent with the spirit and intention of the by law. The homes on Chestnut Street and throughout much of the downtown core have very narrow lots and shared driveways. This would create a significant amount of daily disruption and adversely impact the homeowners and the street.Granting the variance in my view would set a dangerous precedent and have significant unintended consequences to the value of properties in the area and adversely affect the vibrancy of these older communities. For these reasons I request that the committee reject the application for a variance. Sincerely, January 17, 2022 From: To:Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] In regards to 86 Chestnut Street Date:Sunday, January 16, 2022 8:08:27 PM To whom it may concern I believe although the city has good intentions with adding additional small homes on “in city“ properties there are issues for the neighbouring homes beside such a property. Our downtown properties are very narrow and allowing for variances because the property may be just a little too close to someone else’s is a very slippery slope. It may be great for the home owner who wants to build a small home/ unit on his/ her property but will open a slew of issues to other single family homes that are adjacent. I live in one of these downtown historical homes and have a shared driveway such as this property 86 Chestnut has. Parking for one I see as a huge issue. And this particular property on Chestnut does not have the space I believe to manoeuvre 3 units and their vehicles. Parking will be a huge issue. Privacy to adjacent homes will no doubt be a issue. Then also the noise issues, where will this potential unit provide an area that will not affect others if entertaining outside? Lastly, having lived in the downtown core where we have incredible neighbourhoods built by many families, property standards and community may be negatively affected. More people will be buying these character homes dividing them up into two and three units and we will have absentee landlords, un kept homes and our property values will decrease. Therefore I vote no to opening up variances to facilitate home owners to allow for small unit homes when the property involved is obviously not large enough to accommodate. Sincerely, Sent from my iPhone January 16, 2022 Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener committeeofadjustment@kitchener.ca Application A2022-005 – 86 Chestnut Street We are writing to you regarding the above noted application submitted by Thomas Mirmotahari. We are aware of the scope of the project and would like to express our full support. There are currently five homes in our block withmultiple rental units thatdo not have a homeowner living onsite. This is Thomas’ home. This is where he lives and he takespride in that. We are confident that he will ensure his rental unit does not have a negative impact on his home, his street or his neighbours. nd As 2generation in our home, there have been many changes over the 75+ years our family has lived here. We believe that Thomas’ proposal is a positive change and is in keeping with the City of Kitchener’s vision to allow these types of dwellings to provide additional housing. As such, he should be granted permission to proceed as he has proposed.