HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-039 - A2024-001 - 3273 King St EREPORT TO:Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING:January 16, 2024
SUBMITTED BY:Tina Malone-Wright,Manager,Developmental Approvals
519-741-2200ext. 7765
PREPARED BY:Sheryl Rice Menezes,Senior Planning Technician,
519-741-2200 ext. 7844
WARD(S) INVOLVED:Ward 2
DATE OF REPORT:January 6, 2024
REPORT NO.:DSD-2024-039
SUBJECT:Minor Variance Application A2024-001 -3273 King St.E.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A 2024-001 for 3273 King Street East requesting
permission to permit a legal non-conforming single detached dwelling in a RES-7
zone to be used for a Single Detached Dwelling and a Personal Services Use (Hair
Salon); to permit a parking space to be located 0.5metresfrom the street line
instead of the minimum required 3metres, to permit a parking space to be located
in a Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas the By-law does not permit
encroachments into the DVT; and, to permit one barrier-free parking space to be 2.4
min widthinstead ofthe required 3.4metres, to facilitate the use of the existing
building for a Single Detached Dwelling and a Personal Services Use (Hair Salon),
generally in accordance with the drawings attached to Minor Variance Application
A2024-001, and in this report,BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1.Thatthe required parking spaces be demarcated on-site, as shown on the
drawing in this staff report,and barrier-free signage is to be installed and
provided in accordance with the Cityof Kitchener Urban Design Manual,
2.That the property owner shall complete the work, identified in Condition No. 1
above byJuly 1, 2024. Any request for a time extension must be approved in
writing by the Manager, Development Approvals prior to completion date set out
in this decision. Failure to complete the condition will result in this approval
becoming null and void.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to review and make recommendations with respect to the
requested application for permission for 3273 King Street East.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
The key finding of this report is that the application be approved.
There are nofinancial implications.
Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising
that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the
application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property
and this report was posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee of Adjustment meeting.
This report supports the delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the south side of King Street East, between Fairway
Road South and Hofstetter Avenue,and is currently being used as a non-complying
personal service (hair salon) use and one legal non-complying dwelling unit.The property
is surrounded by high rise residential uses with parking lots on immediately adjacent to it
on either side. And on the opposite side of King Street to the north of the property exist
various COM-2 (Commercial)uses.
The property is identified as ‘Community Area’ on Map 2 –Urban Structure and is
designated as ‘High Rise Residential Seven (RES-7)’in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The
land use designation is ‘High Rise Residential’in the 2014 Official Plan.
The purpose of the application is to legalize a non-complying personal service (hair salon)
use and recognize the existing legal non-conforming single detached dwelling.
Figure 1 -Aerial photo (2022)
.
Figure 2 -View from left side of property.
Figure 3 -View from right side of property.
History
The original single detached dwelling on the property was constructed approximately 1925
when the land was zoned Agricultural inTownship By-law878-A. It was annexed into the
City of Kitchener in 1958.
A detached garage in the rear yard was constructed in 2006 accessory to a single
detached dwelling which was approved as an expansion of a legal non-conforming use by
Committee of Adjustment in Decision A2006-044.
The current owner purchased the property in December 2019.At that time, the property
was already being used, without City permission, for a personal service (hair salon) on the
main floorby the previous owner since approximately 2018.The current owner would like
to legally establish the personal service (hair salon) in the legal non-conforming single
detached dwelling.
Given that the use of the property is a legal non-conforming single detached dwelling and
the applicant would like to continue to use the existing building for residential purposes,
the owner is making application for Permission for the Committee to consider a use of the
land that is similar for the purposes it was used on the day the by-law was passed or
which is more compatible with the uses permitted in the ‘RES-7’zone.
Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act:
ii)the use of such land, building or structure for a purpose that, in the opinion of the
committee, is similar to thepurpose for which it was used on the day the by-law
was passed or is more compatible with the uses permitted by the by-law than the
purpose for which it was used on the day the by-law passed, if the use for a
purpose prohibited by the by-law or another use for a purpose previously permitted
by the committee continued until the date of the application of the committee.
The applicant has attached a parkingplan to theapplication to show how the existing
property has been developed with parking.See ‘ParkingPlan’below.
REPORT:
Case law sets out the tests to be applied by the Committee of Adjustment in considering
applications under Section 45(2)(a)(ii). It should be noted that the test to be applied is not
the four-part test for minor variances under Section 45(1) but rather whether the approval
of the application:
1.Is in the public interest; and,
2.Creates unacceptable or adverse impact upon abutting properties.
Is the Approval in the Public Interest?
Staff are of the opinion that the approval ofthis application is in the public interest as it
would allow for the continuation of the existing use of the single detached dwelling (SDD)
while introducing a personal service use (hair salon). The personal service (hair salon)use
will introduce a non-residential use without requiring major renovations for existing the 1 ½
-storey building. It is noted that the owner has submitted a building permit for the personal
service use in a Single Detached Dwelling (SDD).Staff note that subject land is a small
parcel surrounded by larger ‘RES-7’lots which havedeveloped and/or consolidated with
high density multiple dwellings. There is limited uses for this piece of land in the High Rise
Residential designation.
The SDD and Personal Service (hair salon)use offers the community with service that is
in line with the intent of the ‘RES-7’zone which permits personal services in larger
buildings. Given that the uses and parking area have existed since approximately 2018,
there would not be a discernable impact on the streetscape or neighbourhood.
And Adverse or Unacceptable Impacts?
Staff are of the opinion that permittingthe personal service (hair salon) use in the legal
non-conforming SDD will not create any adverse or unacceptable impacts. The property
contains sufficient parking for both uses. One(1)parking space for the dwelling unit and
three(3)parking spaces for the personal service (hair salon) use. It is noted that the
properties on both sides have their parking areas in the front yard and therefore the
property does not have a negative impact on the streetscape.Lastly, Transportation
Planning staff have advised that they have no concerns (see comments below).
Figure 4 -Parking plan–Parking spaces # 1, 2 and 4 are 2.6 m x 5.5 m in size.
Parking space # 3, barrier-free space is 2.4 m x 5.5 m.
Drive aisle beside barrier-free space is 1.5 m wide.
Barrier-free signage to be placed on pavement and sign on post.
Walkway to porch beside space # 1 is 0.9 m wide.
Environmental Planning Comments:No concerns.
Heritage Planning Comments:No concerns.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. A Building Permit
Application has been submitted and is currently under review.
Engineering Division Comments:No concerns.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:No concerns.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services staff can support the proposed variances given that the existing
building and business have been operating as is for years with no adverse impacts on
traffic safety.
The proposed encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle should not impose any
impacts on vehicle sightlines and driveway visibility given how far set back the property
line is from the municipal sidewalk, and also King Street East.
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 council / committee meeting.A notice sign was placed on theproperty advising that
a Committee of Adjustment meeting 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 property. As well, notice of the application was posted in the local newspaper, The
Record.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Planning Act
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020)
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020
Regional Official Plan
Official Plan (2014)
Zoning By-law 2019-051
Minor Variance Decision A2006-044