Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2005-05-10 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 10, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. D. Angel and Messrs. D. Cybalski and Z. Janecki. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. T. Malone-Wright, Senior Planner, Mr. B. Sloan, Planner, Ms. T. Kraemer, Administrative Assistant, and Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary- Treasurer. Mr. D. Cybalski, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:15 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of April 12, 2005, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1. A 2005-023 Applicant: 1623377 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 151 Louisa Street Legal Description: Part Lot 315, Registered Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Clinckett Mr. C. Denison Contra: Mr. & Mrs. F. Schilling Mr. & Mrs. J. Court Mr. K. Lippert Ms. S. Wilson Mr. D. Pellerin Mr. C. Balcerczyk Ms. V. Baulk Mr. & Mrs. M. Petricevic Written Submissions: Mr. C. Denison Mr. & Mrs. G. Clark Mr. R. Henderson Ms. S. March & Mr. S. McDonald Ms. L. Ouellette-Wade Mr. P. Myslywec Mr. & Mrs. I. Campbell Mr. & Mrs. B. Sutton Ms. L. Klein Mr. & Mrs. R. Evans Mr. & Mrs. B. Smith Mr. & Mrs. W. Kennedy Mr. & Mrs. I. Good Mr. & Mrs. K. Thomas COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 75 Submission No.: 1. A 2005-023 (Cont’d) Mr. S. Msoya Mr. & Mrs. S. Bridgman Ms. A. Achternichul Mr. & Mrs. R. Huffman Ms. C. Laurie Mr. M. Laurie Mr. & Mrs. C. Cheesman Mr. & Mrs. J. Habkirk Ms. H. Ilowski Ms. V. Baulk Mr. & Mrs. G. Prattis It was noted that an Application for Minor Variance for this property was before this Committee on April 12, 2005, and was deferred without any consideration, to allow the applicant to amend the application to include a lot width variance of 13.518m rather than the required 15 m for a triplex. The application was amended by the applicant, on April 12, 2005, and a new Notice of Hearing for this application was published in The Record on April 22, 2005. The current application before the Committee requests permission to convert the existing dwelling to a triplex. This requires 22 minor variances to reduce the minimum lot area from 495 m (5,328.3 sq. ft.) to 325 m (3,498.38 sq. ft.), to reduce the minimum lot width from 15 m (49.21’) to 13.5 m (44.29’) and to permit 2 parking spaces in front of the building façade on Duke Street, in the existing driveway, up to 0.0 m (0 ft.) of the street line. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated May 4, 2005, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the northeasterly corner of Louisa and Duke Streets in the Mount Hope-Huron Park neighbourhood, just outside of the Downtown. The owner is proposing to convert the existing dwelling to a triplex. A minor variance application was submitted for the proposal. There is significant interest from surrounding property owners, including a petition from residents in the neighbourhood. The th application was deferred from the April 12 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow the owner to amend the application to include a lot width variance, and for a meeting to occur with neighbourhood residents, the applicant and staff. The owner has formally amended the application to include the following minor variances: 1) Reduced lot width for a triplex from 15.0 metres to 13.48 metres; and, 2 2 2) Reduced lot area for a triplex from 495 mto 325 m. Also, through the resident meeting, the unit size and parking requirements were clarified. Currently, for a duplex the existing tandem parking scenario is legal under the City’s Zoning By- 2 law. The new unit is less than 51 mand according to the Zoning By-law does not technically require an additional parking space on the property. Therefore, it is staff’s opinion that there is no variance required to permit parking for a multiple dwelling between the building façade and the street line. st A meeting was held April 21 with the owners and their agent, approximately 15 neighbourhood residents, the Ward Councillor and Planning staff helped facilitate the meeting. The following is a list of the main issues identified at the meeting: ? Amount of parking – on-site availability, practicality and on-street restrictions ? Lack of outdoor amenity space ? Noise impacts on immediate neighbours ? Impact of proposed door entrance at the interior side lot line ? Safety – sidewalk, neighbourhood ? Fire Code compliance of all units ? Snow removal and garbage ? Potential number of people in the building ? Student housing ? Tenant “actions, behaviours and transient-nature” COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 76 Submission No.: 1. A 2005-023 (Cont’d) ? Absentee landlord – overseeing tenants, property maintenance and selling of property ? Impact on neighbourhood transition – currently positive “family-oriented” direction and relatively stable, but fear is approval of application could contribute to a reverse trend Some of these issues could potentially be addressed or negotiated through site details or perhaps site development conditions. However, many other issues relate to implications of social impacts, or would need assurances that are difficult to provide. Several items discussed are perhaps reflective of a broader scope of issues common in many of the Central Neighbourhoods that are dealing with triplex applications or the prospect of intensification or student housing. Staff requested that the applicant provide updated site drawings to include more detail and specific dimensions for building setbacks, driveway and parking space specifications and to a metric scale. Updated drawings have been provided to staff and the Committee; however, the requested dimensions are not identified. Notwithstanding, 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 offer the following comments on the variances. 1) Lot Width Variance (13.48 m instead of 15.0 m) The land use designation in the City’s Municipal Plan is Low Rise Residential, which permits a range of residential dwelling types including a triplex dwelling. This area currently does not have any additional Secondary Plan policies regarding Low Rise Conservation or other special policies. Therefore, the variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The main intent of the larger lot width requirement (15.0m) for a multiple dwelling as opposed to a single detached dwelling (9.0m) is to ensure that there is enough frontage for an adequately sized building and to accommodate a driveway that would lead to a rear yard parking area. The subject property has an existing building and it is a corner lot that does not require a driveway from the Louisa Street frontage, but instead utilizes an existing driveway from the flanking Duke Street to the rear parking area. Therefore, the lot width reduction meets the intent of the By-law. With respect to the impact of a lot width variance, one of the few items under consideration with the dwelling conversion on the existing lot, is that the applicant wishes to create a new door that would exit the house to interior side lot line (instead of currently exiting through the garage). There is 0.6m to 0.9m of space along the side of the house instead of typical 1.2m in new construction. If there was no specific treatment done along the common interior side lot line, there could potentially be some impact to the immediately adjacent neighbour at 153 Louisa Street. Given that it is an existing setback situation, and balanced with consideration of any other impacts on the surrounding area specifically related to the lot width reduction, the overall impact of the variance to legalize the existing lot width for a triplex can be considered minor. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. There is limited, if no, opportunity to increase the frontage of the subject property in order to comply with the By-law requirement. Given that the driveway for the subject lands is not at the Louisa Street frontage, there is no added benefit or need to have additional lot width. Therefore, a frontage of 13.5 metres is appropriate in this particular circumstance. Therefore, staff could support a lot width variance from 15.0 metres to 13.46 metres, contingent upon any other variances or requirements. 22 1) Lot Area Variance (325 m instead of 495 m) The land use designation in the City’s Municipal Plan is Low Rise Residential, which permits a range of residential dwelling types including a triplex dwelling. This area currently does not have any additional Secondary Plan policies regarding Low Rise Conservation or other special policies. Therefore, the variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 77 Submission No.: 1. A 2005-023 (Cont’d) With respect to whether or not the lot area variance maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law, has minimal impact or is appropriate for the development and use of the land, planning staff considered the following related issues. Generally, the intent of the Zoning By-law requirement for a larger lot area for a multiple dwelling (triplex) than a single detached dwelling is to ensure that there is sufficient space for an adequately sized building, parking area and private amenity space for the tenants. The subject 2 property is one of the smallest lots (325 m) in the immediately surrounding area. Generally, lots 22 on Louisa Street between Weber and Waterloo Streets range in size from 330 m to 770 m and are predominantly single detached dwellings and the occasional duplex. Beyond Louisa Street, there are a limited number of lots in the surrounding area that are either similar or smaller than this site. The subject lot is closer to the minimum size requirement for a single detached dwelling than it is to the minimum size requirement for a triplex. Currently, the rear yard, and to a lesser extent the interior side yard and a portion of the side yard abutting Duke Street are deficient with respect to current Zoning requirements (thus reflective in the size of the lot). Each of these setbacks are legal under the Vacuum Clause provisions of the By-law; however, the practical usability of these yards (primarily the rear yard) is diminished on this site; therefore the potential impacts to neighbours is increased. Specifically, the rear yard from the garage to the common property line with 362 Duke Street is approximately 2.5 metres (versus the typical minimum standard of 7.5 metres). Based on the considerations of staff, and those potential impacts identified by the neighbours, it does not appear that there is sufficient space available for this particular lot and dwelling to adequately provide privacy so as to minimize impacts on the surrounding area. The subject lot needs to ensure that there is adequate space for parking, storage and private amenity space for the proposed 3 units. Staff question whether there is sufficient space to fit a car into the garage and to have one or two cars located wholly on the property between the garage and Duke Street property line and between the existing stairs that encroach in to the driveway and side lot line (the applicant’s drawing does not clearly indicate this). This property has a very small rear yard (and overall lot area) and the intensification of use needs to be carefully considered. Planning staff are generally supportive of intensification in existing serviced areas and encourage the provision of a range of housing options, including affordable rental units, in appropriate locations. The question is whether or not this particular lot is appropriate for an additional dwelling unit in a neighbourhood that already has a fair share of various dwelling types, including multiples. Further, locations such as the Downtown, the “Re- urbanization” or transit corridors, Mixed-Use corridors, and appropriately sized sites may be more suitable to direct multiple dwellings and help keep the interior portions of the City’s Central Neighbourhoods stable. At a broader scale, and as it relates to potential student/rental housing, staff will be exploring multiple dwelling conversions as it relates to the Student Housing Strategy and the implementation thereof. If the subject property were to remain as a duplex dwelling (perhaps with more bedrooms per unit than a triplex in this building would have), this would still provide the opportunity for adequate “population density” and continue to allow for moderate intensification (beyond purely singles) within the neighbourhood. Based on the foregoing comments, the variance does not appear to sufficiently maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law, the impact may not be minor and the reduced area of this specific lot for a triplex may not be the most appropriate development and use of the land. Considering that there are difficulties with the lot area variance meeting each of the 4 tests as set out in the Planning Act, Planning staff recommend that the application be refused. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 4, 2005, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee was in receipt of, and considered, a substantial number of written submissions from neighbourhood residents, listed above, in opposition to this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 78 Submission No.: 1. A 2005-023 (Cont’d) The Committee was in receipt of a written submission from Mr. C. Denison, the new owner of this property, and the applicant, in response to neighbourhood concerns expressed at a neighbourhood meeting held on April 21, 2005, at City Hall, which was considered by the Committee. The Committee was provided, this date, with a revised site plan of this property, from Mr. J. Clinckett, on behalf of the applicant. As a number of neighbourhood residents were in attendance to voice their concerns about this application, the Chair questioned whether they were willing to choose 1 or 2 spokespersons to voice their concerns, and Ms. V. Baulk and Mr. M. Petricevic were chosen as spokespersons for the group. Mr. Clinckett reviewed the application and the newly submitted site plan. He advised he has met with staff of the City’s Building Division who have no concerns with the proposed conversion from their perspective. Also, he has met with Fire Department staff who have no requirements for this conversion, as it is covered by the Building Code. He stated that when the lot sizes in this area of the City were established, people didn’t have automobiles. With respect to the privacy issue, Mr. Clinckett advised the lot is half a metre higher at the rear of the lot. The rear yard is landscaped with pavers and there is a 5’ high fence along the rear lot line, and the side lot line abutting the rear yard. It is the intention of the applicant to add 1 ½ feet of fencing to the top of this existing fence. The Committee next considered the location and size of the proposed residential units, and Mr. Clinckett advised the existing basement unit will continue. There will also be a 2 bedroom, ground floor unit at the Louisa Street frontage, and behind that, a 2 bedroom, 2 storey unit, with an entrance on the Duke Street frontage of the property. It was noted that currently, the basement unit has an entrance at the interior side yard. It was noted by the Committee that the interior side yard is only 1.57’ wide at this entrance. The Committee questioned Mr. F. Schilling, owner of the abutting property at 153 Louisa Street, whether he has ever had any difficulties with respect to usage of the basement apartment access. Mr. Schilling responded the basement tenant usually parks their vehicle on Louisa Street, and walks to and from their vehicle along his driveway. Mr. Clinckett suggested the option of having the basement unit exit through the garage. He advised there is a window in the garage wall that is adjacent to the Duke Street neighbour. This window could be removed, and a door installed which could give access to the basement unit. The Chair then questioned the location of outdoor amenity area for each unit. Mr. Clinckett advised the basement unit has amenity area in the rear yard; the 2 storey unit has a small patio at the Duke Street entrance, and a balcony on the second floor; the Louisa Street unit has the front yard. Ms. V. Baulk addressed the Committee advising this property has been well maintained as an owner occupied duplex. This is a nice neighbourhood, and the neighbours want to keep it that way. She stated 2 of the main concerns of the neighbours is the lack of parking and the lack of out door amenity area. With respect to parking, Ms. Baulk noted the Louisa Street/Duke Street intersection is well traveled, and there is no room for on-street parking. There is a school bus pick-up/drop-off zone across Louisa Street from this property, and parked cars on the street make this situation dangerous for the children. With respect to the property itself, vehicles are regularly parked over the sidewalk already, and there are only 2 units and 2 vehicles there at this time. Other issues addressed by Ms. Baulk relate to the fact that there is not enough room for an entrance to the basement unit at the interior side yard. An additional unit will also bring problems with noise and garbage. When questioned by the Committee, Ms. Baulk advised there are 2 small parks in the area, one at the corner of Louisa and Weber Streets, and a small playground 2 – 3 blocks away. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 79 Submission No.: 1. A 2005-023 (Cont’d) Mr. M. Petricevic addressed the Committee complimenting Development & Technical Services staff, stating they were thorough throughout the public meting process. They dealt fairly with all parties at the public meeting, and their report to the Committee is fair. Mr. Petricevic commented that he does not believe the proposed triplex on this property is appropriate development. Many of the residents have lived in this neighbourhood for a long time, and have worked hard to clean-up the neighbourhood. The residents are not opposed to there being duplexes or triplexes in the area, but they must be located on appropriately sized lots. The subject property is too small to accommodate the necessary parking and outdoor amenity areas without encroaching on the neighbours. He stated this neighbourhood does not want to experience the same type of thing as the “Cedarhill” neighbourhood has been through. He urged the Committee to carefully consider all applications that come before it for Downtown neighbourhoods. Mr. Sloan spoke of the neighbourhood meeting, at which 15 neighbours, the Ward Councilor, and the applicant were in attendance. The main issues raised at the meeting related mainly to the social implications of this application. The applicant presented himself well. Housing intensification in the City’s central areas, primarily with respect to student housing, is evolving, and as it evolves, neighbourhoods will need to participate just as this group has done. The applicant appears to be willing to address the neighbours’ concerns; however; he questioned what would happen if / when this property is sold. Mr. Sloan noted this is one of the smallest lots in the neighbourhood. Upon questioning by the Committee, Mr. Sloan advised that a couple of issues at the public meeting related to fencing, were resolved. However, many issues related to non-planning matters. Mr. Schilling, the owner of the abutting property on Louisa Street, was again questioned about trespassing on his property by tenants in the basement unit. He advised this would no longer be a problem for him because he will be erecting a fence along the common lot line. When questioned by the Committee as to where the basement unit access will be located if a fence is erected along that lot line, and Mr. Clinckett advised an appropriate location will have to be considered. Mr. Denison addressed the Committee advising he has owned this property since March 29, 2005. He commented that most of the people in the room have been renters at one time. He acknowledged this property has limitations. He stated he will rent to the right people. He advised his current tenants are graduate students who spend most of their spare time away from the property. The tenant in the basement works in Downtown Kitchener, and has no car. He stated his commitment to this property is long term, the property will be well maintained, and it does not suit him to have problems. He also stated the current duplex use has the same potential for problems. Ms. S. Wilson, a resident of Louisa Street, addressed the Committee advising she is the resident landlord of a duplex. She stated being a landlord is at times difficult, and tenants are not always what they appear. She stated the neighbourhood does not have difficulty with the continuance of a duplex on the subject property. Ms. Wilson advised the proposal has far reaching affects: there is no guarantee as to how long Mr. Denison will own the property; an absentee landlord will have problems with tenants; there is no overnight parking on the street in winter; and there is an issue with garbage spreading out onto the street. The Chair stated this Committee can only look at the planning aspects of this proposed development. This proposal would create an overcrowded situation, and there would not be adequate outdoor amenity area, and he can not support this application. Mr. Janecki stated there are good arguments on both sides of this application; however, the social issues are beyond this Committee’s jurisdiction. With respect to the planning issues, the lot is too small for the intended use, there is insufficient amenity are, and there are parking problems. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 80 Submission No.: 1. A 2005-023 (Cont’d) He stated the applicant has good intensions; however, the property is not suitable for the proposed use. Ms. Angel spoke against the application, stating the basement unit does not have an appropriate exit, and there is insufficient amenity space. Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of 1623377 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to convert the existing 2 dwelling to a triplex with a minimum lot area of 325 m (3,498.38 sq. ft.), rather than the required 2 495 m (5,328.3 sq. ft.) and a lot width of 13.5 m (44.29’) rather than the required 15 m (49.21ft.) BE REFUSED on Part Lot 315, Plan 376, 151 Louisa Street, Kitchener, Ontario, . It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is not minor in nature. 2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is not being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 2. A 2005-024 Applicant: Deborah Davies & Ondrej Havelka & Danielle Havelka Property Location: 549 Marl Meadow Crescent Legal Description: Block 3, Plan 1832, Part 60, Plan 58R-12889 Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. O. Havelka Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for a reduction of the minimum rear yard setback from 5 m (16.4’) to 1.5 m (4.92’) and a reduction of the minimum side yard setback from 1.2 m (3.93’) to 0.6 m (1.96’) to allow for a raised deck at the rear of the existing single detached dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 2, 2005, in which staff advised they have no objection to the application provided the variance applies to the deck generally as shown on the plans submitted with this application. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 26, 2005, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mrs. Havelka explained that the elevation of the rear yard is lower than the front yard, and the deck will allow them to make more use of the rear yard. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 81 Submission No.: 2. A 2005-024 (Cont’d) Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Deborah Davies & Ondrej & Danielle Havelka requesting permission to construct a raised deck at the rear of the existing single detached dwelling, with a rear yard setback of 1.5 m (4.92 ft.) rather than the required 5 m (16.4 ft.), and a side yard of 0.6 m (1.96 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft.), on Part Block 3, Registered Plan 1832, being Part 60, BE APPROVED, Reference Plan 58R-12889, 549 Marl Meadow Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed deck generally as shown on the plan submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 3. A 2005-025 Applicant: Monarch Corporation Property Location: 281 Ridgemere Court Legal Description: Lot 21, Plan 58M-337 Appearances: In Support: Mr. K. Dietrich Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for a reduction of the minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 m (24.6’) to 7.3 m (23.95’) to allow for the construction of a new single detached dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 2, 2005, advising staff have no objections to the approval of this application. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 26, 2005, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Monarch Corporation requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling with a rear yard of 7.3 m (23.95’) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6’), on Lot 21, BE APPROVED, Registered Plan 58M-337, 281 Ridgemere Court , Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the single detached dwelling generally as shown on the plans submitted with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 82 Submission No.: 3. A 2005-025 (Cont’d) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 4. A 2005-026 Applicant: Jennifer & David Barg Property Location: 52 Cameron Street North Legal Description: Lot 2, Plan 126 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: Mr. R. Reinhart The Committee was in receipt of correspondence from Mr. R Reinhart, agent for the applicant, requesting consideration of this application be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for June 14, 2005, and the Committee agreed to this request. Submission No.: 5. A 2005-027 Applicant: 1260848 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 950 Highland Road West Legal Description: Part Lot 35, Part 18, Registered Plan 58R-10060, German Company Tract Mr. Z. Janecki declared a pecuniary interest in this application as he is employed by the same planning firm as the applicant’s agent, and did not participate in any discussion on voting with respect to this application. This application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. Patterson Mr. M. Sinden Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for a reduction of the minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 m (24.6’) to 3 m (9.84’) to allow the construction of a new convenience commercial retail plaza. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 2, 2005, advising they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 26, 2005, advising they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 83 Submission No.: 5. A 2005-027 (Cont’d) Mr. Patterson advised he had been requested to locate this building as far to the rear of the property as possible. He noted there would be no loading bays or doors along the rear wall and all unloading of vehicles will take place at each store’s front entrance. Abutting the rear of this property is the Detweiller Greenway, which is 30 m wide, and separates this commercial property from the closest residential property. He also advised the rear of the plaza would be given an upgraded design and landscaping. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of 1260848 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a new convenience commercial retail plaza with a rear yard setback of 3 m (9.84ft.) rather than the required from 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Part Lot 35, German Company Tract, being Parts 3, 13 & 18, BE APPROVED, Reference Plan 58R-10060, 950 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed convenience commercial retail plaza generally as shown on the plans submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 6. A 2005-028 Applicant: Rose Lehmann Property Location: 87 Ellis Avenue Legal Description: Subdivision Of Lot 4, Pt Lot 24, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Lehmann Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for an increase in the maximum floor space ratio from 0.6 to 0.78 to allow for the construction of a four unit multiple dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated April 29, 2005, in which they advised that the subject property is located at the corner of Ellis Avenue and Raitar Avenue. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single detached dwelling and replace it with a 4-unit multiple dwelling that will be constructed as 4 street townhouse dwellings (to become a future condominium). The applicant received approval of a zone change in February of 2005 to re-zone the property to Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Regulation Provision 422R. The zone change set out a general building envelope and permits the use of the property for a multiple dwelling. At the time the zone change was considered, no specific site plan had been developed for the subject property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 84 Submission No.: 6. A 2005-028 (Cont’d) Since approval the zone change, the applicant has completed a more detailed concept plan. The applicant has met preliminarily with staff, and staff feels the conceptual design is suitable for a future site plan approval. The current site plan requires a variance to increase the maximum floor space ratio, from 0.6 to 0.78, and the applicant has requested a minor variance to achieve this. Under the current floor space ratio, the applicant could develop 4 townhouse units which are each 1,125 square feet. The applicant, however, wishes to build larger units, 3 of which would be 1,341 square feet and one unit which would be 1,769 square feet. The purpose of the additional floor space is to provide additional bedrooms on the second floor, so that they will be attractive to the “family” market place and to increase the value of these units. 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 offer the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan for the following reasons. The Municipal Plan suggests that in Low Rise Residential areas, a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6 shall be applied to multiple dwellings and no residential building shall exceed three stories in height. The general intent of this policy is to limit the number of potential residential units and to minimize the affects of building mass on adjacent properties. In this case, the additional floor space will not result in additional units, only larger sized units. The additional floor space will not result in additional height, only additional massing at the second floor level. Also as the units will only be 2 storeys in height, the units will not adversely impact adjacent properties. Although the proposal qualifies under the zoning by-law as a multiple, it will be designed as street fronting town houses. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The regulations of the amending zoning by-law (special regulation provision 422R) were intended to limit building mass above the second storey and to mitigate impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed additional floor space will not result in a third floor. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The proposed building footprint and building height meet the requirements of the zoning bylaw. As the additional floor space will result only in additional building mass on the second floor, and not result in a bigger footprint or taller building, the increased impact will be minimal. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The site can be developed with 4 small townhouse units which are 2 storeys high. Developing 4 larger townhouse units which are still 2 storeys high, is more likely suited to typical community desires and expectations. Communities are generally looking for high quality housing that fits in with the neighbourhood and provides family accommodation. The proposed plan will achieve just that. The 0.6 floor space ratio would result in units which may not be marketable to families. In summary, Planning staff commends the applicant on preparing a plan which reflects new urbanism principles of creating people friendly residential development. This proposal hides the garage, brings porches to the street line, and encourages outdoor activities in a collective amenity space, rather than in backyard areas. The proposal promotes eyes on the street and encourages community interaction. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 26, 2005, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Lehmann addressed the Committee advising the proposed development for this property is street fronting townhouses, and an increased floor space ratio is required to construct marketable units. He stated his mother currently lives on this property, and doesn’t want to move. The house is in need of repair, and the sale of the townhouses will provide the necessary capital. The development has been designed in such a way to make those units fronting Ellis Avenue similar to other homes on the street. The Committee was also advised this property is recently been rezoned, and the proposed development meets all the other requirements of the Zoning By-law. The floor space ratio was not changed through the rezoning as they did not have a final design for the development at that time. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 85 Submission No.: 6. A 2005-028 (Cont’d) Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Rose Lehmann requesting permission to construct a 4 unit multiple dwelling with a floor space ratio 0.78 rather than the permitted 0.6, on Part Lot 24, Subdivision of BE APPROVED, Lot 4, German Company Tract, 87 Ellis Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the 2 storey multiple dwelling generally as shown on the site plan submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 7. A 2005-029 Applicant: Ioan Nicoli Property Location: 52-54 Waterloo Street Legal Description: Part Lot 47, Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Clinckett Contra: Mrs. S. Court Mr. K. Lippert Ms. S. Wilson Mr. J. Shumka Mr. D. Pellerin Mr. C. Balcerczyk Ms. V. Baulk Mr. & Mrs. M. Petricevic Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests a reduction of the minimum lot area from 22 495 m (5,328.31 sq. ft.) to 479 m(5,156.08 sq. ft.), a reduction of the minimum side yard setback abutting a street (Waterloo Street) from 4.5 m (14.76’) to 0.32 m (1.05’) and a reduction of the minimum front yard setback (Wellington Street) from 4.5 m (14.76’) to 1.14 m (3.74’) to allow the conversion of an existing duplex into a triplex. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 2, 2005, in which they advise they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 26, 2005, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submissions from the neighbourhood residents, listed above, in opposition to this application. Mr. Clinckett spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the application and lay-out of the 3 proposed units. He noted, with respect to the requested variances, that the side yard and front yard are exsisting, and no changes are proposed to the outside of the building. The building is COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 86 Submission No.: 7. A 2005-029 (Cont’d) located as close to the street as it is, because it used to be a store. With respect to the neighbours’ written submissions, Mr. Clinckett responded that there was one call for service relating to a woman who visited the property, and the only way the sheds on the property could be a safety concern to the neighbours is if they trespass on the property. In reviewing the site plan submitted with the application, Mr. Janecki commented that a driveway width of 14’7” is inadequate to allow vehicles to turn into and out of the proposed parking spaces. Mr. D. Pilleri spoke on behalf of the neighbours in attendance, advising he has been a resident in this area for 18 years, and the subject property has never been used as a store as long as he has lived there. There have been numerous calls for service to the Police; as there have been problems with drugs on this property, among other things. He stated the building is currently being used as a triplex, and submitted photographs of the property, taken 2 days prior, to support his statement. He advised the neighbourhood concerns about this property relate to garbage and calls for service, and the current landlord has allowed these things to continue for the past 2 years. There are also a lot of safety issues. Mr. Pilleri asked that the Fire Department inspect this property. He asked that the neighbours be informed of the details of the plans for the property. When questioned by the Committee, Ms. Malone-Wright advised staff have had a preliminary meeting with the applicant regarding his site plan, but he will still require site plan approval. The Committee can state what matters/conditions they would like to have addressed with respect to the site. In reviewing the requested variances, Ms. Malone-Wright advised the front yard and side yard variances are the same for a duplex as for a multiple dwelling. The lot area variance of 16 sq. m. is minor in her opinion. The Committee questioned the 2 sheds in the rear yard, and Mr. Clinckett advised that addressing their condition is on his work plan. Mr. Janecki stated he can support this application, but he has a concern about the turning space available to access the parking spaces. With respect to the neighbours’ concerns about garbage all over the street, Mr. Janecki advised the neighbours should contact the City’s By-law Enforcement staff. He also suggested the owner provide some form of garbage storage on-site. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Ioan Nicoli requesting permission to convert a duplex to a triplex on a lot having an area of 479 sq. m. (5,156.08 sq. ft.) rather tan the required 495 sq. m. (5,328.31 sq. ft.), with a front yard setback from Wellington Street of 1.14 m (3.74 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m. (14.76 ft.), and a minimum side yard setback abutting Waterloo Street of 0.32 m (1.05 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m. (14.76 ft.), on Part Lot 47, Plan 376, 52-54 Waterloo Street, , BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall receive site plan approval from the City of Kitchener for the proposed development, which shall include, among other matters: (a) a proper turn around space, as determined by staff, for access to and egress from the required parking spaces; (b) removal of the existing wooden shed in the rear yard; (c) proper pathways for internal circulation on the property; and, (d) re-landscaping the boulevard in front of the property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 87 Submission No.: 7. A 2005-029 (Cont’d) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 8. A 2005-030 Applicant: Max Becker Enterprises Ltd. Property Location: 1187 Fischer-Hallman Road Legal Description: Block 1, Reg Plan 58M-307 Appearances: In Support: Ms. N. Horne Mr. V. Bender Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests a reduction of the minimum front yard setback (Max Becker Drive) from 7.5 m (24.6’) to 6.2 m (20.34’) to allow the construction of a new commercial building and a reduction of the minimum front yard setback from 7.5 m (24.6’) to 1.65 m (5.41’) to allow for an overhead canopy for the proposed entrance to the commercial building. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 2, 2005, advising they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 26, 2005, advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. N. Horne explained the need for this application, and that the variances are located at one corner of the building, abutting the lot line along Max Becker Drive. There is a jog in the lot line as it abuts the round-about at the intersection of Max Becker Drive and Main Street. Ms. Horne displayed an elevation of the proposed building showing a column at the corner, and addressing the issue of visibility for on-coming traffic. Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Max Becker Enterprises Ltd., requesting permission to construct a commercial building with a setback from Max Becker Drive of 6.2 m (20.34’) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6’), and an overhead canopy for the proposed front elevation of the commercial building with a front yard setback of 1.65 m (5.41 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Part Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-307, 1187 Fischer-Hallman Road, Kitchener, BE APPROVED Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed development generally as shown on the plans submitted with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 88 Submission No.: 8. A 2005-030 (Cont’d) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT Submission No.: 1. B 2005-019 Applicant: Meta Pataky Property Location: 30 Charlotte Crescent Legal Description: Lot 201, Plan 1055 Appearances: In Support: Mr. M. Pataky Ms. T. Pataky Ms. L. Pataky Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests consent to sever a parcel of land to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property at 34 Charlotte Crescent. The severed lands would 2 have approximately 0.7 m (2.29’) of frontage and a lot area of approximately 60 m (645.85 sq. ft.). The retained lands would have approximately 13.7m (44.94’) of frontage and a lot area of 2 approximately 677 m(7,287.4 sq. ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 2, 2005, advising staff have no objections to this application, subject to certain conditions. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo, Planning Housing & Community Services, dated May 4, 2005, advising they have no objections to this application. Ms. M. Pataky advised she owns property adjacent to her in-laws, and prior to her selling this property, she wishes to convey to them property which they have been using as part of their garden. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Meta Pataky requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having 2 approximately 0.7 m (2.29’) of frontage and an area of approximately 60 m (645.85 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to 34 Charlotte Crescent, on Part Lot 201, Registered Plan 1055, 30 Charlotte BE GRANTED, Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 89 Submission No.: 1. B 2005-019 (Cont’d) 2. That the land to be conveyed in this application shall be added to the abutting property at 34 Charlotte Crescent and title shall be taken in identical ownership with any subsequent conveyance complying with subsections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being May 10, 2007. Carried Submission No.: 2. B 2005-021 to B 2005-026 Applicant: 970722 Ontario Inc. c/o RBJ Schlegel Holdings Inc. Property Location: Snowdrop Court Legal Description: Part Lot 132, RP58R-14269, Parts 193 & 194, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Ms. N. Horne Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests consent to sever 6 parcels of land from the lands formerly known as the Eby Estate to be able to convey as lot additions to 6 blocks in the adjacent draft plan of subdivision. As a result, 6 new lots will be created on Snowdrop Court. Each of the new lots will have a lot width of 9.1m (29.85’) on Snowdrop Court and having lot 22 areas ranging from 516 m (5,554.35 sq. ft.) to 1,127 m(12,131.32 sq. ft.). The retained lands will have a frontage on Bleams Road of 410.8 m (1,347.76’) and an area of 30.8 ha (76.07 acres). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 3, 2005, in which they advised the subject property is located at the end of Snowdrop Court, north of Bleams Road and south of Activa Avenue in the Laurentian West Neighbourhood. The lands are currently part of a large property with frontage on Bleams Road, known as the former “Eby Estate”. The entire site, including the proposed lands to be severed, is currently th going through a zone change application being considered at the May 9 Council. The applicant has submitted applications for consent to create 6 parcels for lot consolidations at the end of Snowdrop Court. The intent is to construct single detached dwellings. Through consideration of this application, it has been identified that currently there are only 2 parcels of land from the adjacent Activa subdivision to which the subject lands could be consolidated with instead of 6 parcels. Also, the adjacent subdivision included lotless blocks that went through part lot control and do not have lot consolidation parcels with appropriate conditions (see the attached drawing). Considering that the intent is to create 6 lots this means that additional applications for consent will be required in order to further divide the adjacent existing 2 parcels for proper lot consolidations. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2005 90 Submission No.: 2. B 2005-021 to B 2005-026 (Cont’d) Therefore, planning staff recommend that the current applications for consent for lot additions be deferred until such time as new applications are submitted for the adjacent parcels of land (owned by Activa) so that all lot additions are considered concurrently. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo, Planning Housing & Community Services, dated May 4, 2005, advising they have no objections to these applications. Ms. Horne advised that she is in agreement with staff’s requested deferral. It was generally agreed by all parties that consideration of these applications be deferred pending receipt of corresponding applications from the abutting property owner. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 10th day of May, 2005. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment