Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-10-02COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 2, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, D. Cybalski and B. Isaac. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded Mr. B. Isaac That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of September 11, 2001, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1.A 2001-056 Applicant: The Palisades Kitchener Retirement Residence Inc. Property Location: 64 Benton Street Legal Description: Part Lot 10 to Part Lot 15 inclusive, Registered Plan 394, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-1378 Appearances: In Support:Mr. R. MillwardMs. L. Voll R.E. Millward & AssociatesProperty Manager 145 King Street WestThe Palisades Kitchener Suite 1000Retirement Residence Toronto, ON M5H 1J864 Benton Street Kitchener, ON N2G 4L9 Mr. R. Rom ColthoffMr. J. Ger Quadrangle Architects LimitedPresident and CEO 380 Wellington Street WestRetirement Life Communities Inc. Toronto, ON M5V 1E34038 Yonge Street Suite 4024 Toronto, ON M2P 1N6 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to enlarge an existing legal non-conforming use (apartment building) by constructing additions to the ground floor and roof top (penthouse) increasing the maximum gross floor area from 3.87 to 4.07. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 2, 2001 252 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-056 (Cont’d) Previous comments of Business & Planning Services dated August 31, 2001 in which they th requested deferral of this application and as documented in the minutes of the September 11 meeting, were further considered this date. The Committee noted revised comments of Business & Planning Services, also dated August 31, 2001, in which they advised that the subject property is located at the corner of Benton Street and Church Street. The property contains an existing 15-storey apartment building with 81 units which was originally constructed in 1976. The property is surrounded by a mixture of land uses, including established institutional and residential uses. The reason for the application is to permit an increase of the existing non-conforming floor space ratio of 3.87 to 4.07. The maximum Floor Space Ratio in the D-5 zone is 3.0 for multiple dwellings. It should be noted, however, that as a result of required road widening (discussed later in these comments), the requested Floor Space Ratio should be amended to 4.45. A number of changes are proposed to the existing building including three new 50.9 square metre th dwelling units on the 15 floor, a new ground floor addition fronting Benton Street, and a new driveway and access adjacent Church Street. The total number of units is intended to be 84. The building is intended to be used as a multiple dwelling geared to seniors. The new ground floor addition is intended to accommodate a dining area, multi-purpose room and craft room. It is understood that the use is not a residential care facility, but a multiple dwelling intended to be geared to seniors and able to provide services to residents as part of their tenancy. Staff note that based on the current site plan submitted with the minor variance application, an additional variance will be required, to permit the ground floor addition at a distance of 2.1 metres from Benton Street, whereas 3.0 metres is required. It should be noted that this setback is in fact consistent with, or greater than, other building setbacks along this portion of Benton Street. A road widening for Benton Street has also been identified as a requirement in this instance by the Region of Waterloo and has been accounted for in determining this setback. th Since the September 11 meeting, a site plan application has been reviewed by staff for the proposed additions to the building. The review indicates a 3.6 metre road widening will be required along Church Street and the 1.2 metre road widening along Benton Street tapering to 0 metres at the intersection with Church Street) will also be necessary. It should be noted that the Municipal Plan would permit a road widening up to 3.9 metres, but an existing 2-storey underground parking deck is set back 3.6 metres from Church Street, so the full extent of the widening cannot be taken. In order to accommodate the widening, a surface parking space will have to be eliminated as it cannot be located within a 3.0 metre setback from a street line and 6 spaces will be provided to the rear of the building. In addition, a few minor revisions to the site plan will be required i.e. relocation of stone/iron fence and a revision to a door shown opening on the Regional Road widening. Any required road widening will be made a condition of site plan approval. In general, staff are supportive of the current revised site plan and it is anticipated that site plan approval will be forthcoming. Section 45(2) of the Planning Act permits the enlargement of a legal non-conforming use in cases where the building continues to be used in the same manner as when the by-law was passed rendering the use non-conforming. The subject lands were zoned C5 under Zoning By-law 4830 and were re-zoned to D-5 under Zoning By-law 85-1 as part of By-law 92-232, which became effective October 13, 1992. In order to grant the proposed extension to the legal non-conforming floor space ratio for the existing use, consideration must be given to two tests: what is the impact of the extension on the surrounding neighbourhood? Would the extension perpetuate a non-conforming use? In regard to the first test, the ground floor addition/solarium will provide for recreational space for tenants and will provide an extension of compatible design and scale. The setback of the addition will be consistent with other adjacent building setbacks and will compliment the existing building. The additional units at the penthouse level will “fill in” an existing gap at this level from th fronting Benton Street. At this 15 storey level, the additional structure will have a minor impact COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 2, 2001 253 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-056 (Cont’d) on the overall appearance or function of the building. On this basis, staff consider that the proposed building additions will have a minor impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. In other words, an increase from a Floor Space Ratio of 3.87 to 4.45 will not have a significant visual impact on the immediate area. In regard to the second test, the extensions will not have the effect of perpetuating the non- conforming use. The current use has existed for approximately 25 years, although the number of units has varied. The current number of dwelling units in the building is 81. A total of 84 units are proposed. The overall use of the property as a multiple dwelling geared to seniors is therefore well established. The extensions will not therefore perpetuate a non-conforming use unnecessarily. There is relevant history regarding parking for the property. Of particular note, a minor variance was granted in 1990 in order to provide 45 parking spaces rather than the required 79 spaces for an apartment building containing 79 units (file no. A118/90). The current proposed site plan indicates a total of 48 spaces can be provided, 42 below grade and 6 above grade. The Zoning By-law requires that a total of 48 parking spaces be provided for the proposed 84 units, so the minimum number of parking spaces have been provided. Three of the 5 “new” units (the difference between the previous 79 units and the proposed 84 units) are less than 51 square metres each and are therefore calculated at 0.165 spaces per unit, requiring a total of 1 space for all 3 units. The other 2 units require one space each in accordance with the Zoning By-law. Finally, the additional required variance to permit a side yard of 2.1 metres from Benton Street is considered appropriate. Adjacent buildings to the south, such as a church and the Arrow Shirt outlet, are located at, or very close to, the street line. The proposed 2.1 side yard for the addition will therefore be compatible with the existing streetscape along Benton Street and will match typical front building lines in this part of the downtown. Based on the above comments, Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the Minor Variance Application A 2001-056 as revised and subject to the conditions listed below. Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2001-056, as amended to permit a Floor Space Ratio of 4.45 and a side yard abutting Benton Street of 2.1 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variance granted under Minor Variance Application A 2001-056 be in accordance with the site plan finally approved under SPR01/51/B/GR. 2. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. Previous comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst and the Grand River Conservation Authority, indicating no concerns and as documented in the minutes of the September 11, 2001 meeting were further considered this date. No further written comments were forthcoming from these agencies. Previous comments from the Region of Waterloo, dated September 6, 2001, in which they advised that a road allowance widening on Benton Street was required and would be requested when a site plan application is dealt with, were further considered this date. No further comments were forthcoming from this agency. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of this application subject to certain conditions and inquired if the applicant had anything further to add. Mr. R. Millward advised that he represented the applicant and introduced Mr. Josef Ger, owner of the subject property, together with Mr. R. Rom Colthoff, Architect and Ms. R. Voll, Property Manager. Mr. Millward advised that the existing building was constructed in 1976 as a 15 storey apartment and was considered legal non-conforming with respect to the floor space ratio. The application will add ground floor area to facilitate conversion to a seniors’ retirement residence, increasing the floor space ratio from 3.87 to 4.45. Mr. Millward noted that the Region requested a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 2, 2001 254 Submission No.: 1.A 2001-056 (Cont’d) road widening from Benton Street and the City also requested a road widening from Church Street, both of which are being accommodated. He further advised that the 4.07 floor space ratio originally proposed was impacted as a direct result of the widenings, increasing the floor space ratio to 4.45. Mr. Millward also advised that the required number of parking spaces for the development is being accommodated on site and, accordingly, there will be no impact to on-street parking. Mr. Millward concluded that he has reviewed the staff report and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. In response to concerns raised by the Chair respecting perpetuation of the legal non-conforming use, Mr. Millward responded that the existing building was well established and no change is proposed to the overall appearance or function of the structure. Ms. J. Given advised that with respect to perpetuation, it is a relative matter as to whether or not the addition will have the impact of making the non-conforming use more long term than without it. In this regard, she pointed out that Mr. Millward has indicated the building is well established and staff do not foresee a reduction in the floor space ratio occurring over time, even if no change is made. Therefore, staff feel the legal non-conforming use is not necessarily being perpetuated. She noted that the only physical change to the building is to be used for non-residential purpose; the issue of floor space ratio is relative to massing; and in terms of scale there will be no visual impact to the surrounding area. Mr. Rom Colthoff noted that the 4.45 floor space ratio is a direct result of the requested road widenings and prior to the widenings the increase in floor space ratio would have been 4.07. Mr. Rom Colthoff then reviewed the revised site plans for the benefit of the Committee. The Chair stated that while he had difficulty with the issue of perpetuation, he found merit in the point of view of staff, acceding to their opinion that the existing legal non-conforming use is not likely to change and, given the building is well established, will continue regardless of whether or not the current proposal is implemented. The remaining members of the Committee agreed with the comments of the Chair. The Chair pointed out that staff are recommending that the application be amended to allow for a floor space ratio of 4.45 and a sideyard adjacent to Benton Street of 2.1 m and inquired if the applicant was prepared to amend the application. Mr. Millward advised that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation and was prepared to amend the application accordingly. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of The Palisades Kitchener Retirement Residence Inc. requesting permission to enlarge an existing legal non-conforming use (apartment building) by constructing additions to the ground floor and rooftop (penthouse), having a floor space ratio of 4.45 and a sideyard abutting Benton Street of 2.1 m (6.89 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), on Part Lots 10 to 15 inclusive, Registered Plan 394, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-1378, 64 Benton BE APPROVED Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall be in accordance with the site plan finally approved under Site Plan Application SPR01/51/B/GR. 2. 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. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 2, 2001 255 Submission No.: 1.A 2001-056 (Cont’d) 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.: 2.A 2001-059 Applicant: Bridal Penthouse Limited Property Location: 9 Stirling Avenue North and 762-778 King Street East Legal Description: Part Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 77 The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter dated September 26, 2001 from Mr. W. Boehler, Artindale & Partners, advising that his client is requesting deferral of the application to the Committee’s November meeting. Accordingly, the Committee agreed to defer this application to its meeting scheduled to be held on Tuesday, November 20, 2001. CONSENT Submission No.: 1.B 2001-028 Applicant: Ventra Group Inc. Property Location: 657 Trillium Drive Legal Description: Part Lots 14 and 16, Registrar’s Compiled Plan 1471, designated as Part 1, on Reference Plan 58R-6387 The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter from Mr. A. Marr, Ventra Group Inc., advising that the application is being withdrawn. Accordingly, this application was not considered by the Committee. The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 9:55 a.m., in order to consider an application for minor variance to the City of Kitchener’s Sign By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:05 a.m. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1.A 2001-061 Applicant: Anne Heer, Michael Speck, Elsa Willms Property Location: 23 Fairlawn Road Legal Description: Lot 24, Registered Plan 1093 Appearances: In Support:Ms. T. Heppenheimer 23 Fairlawn Road Kitchener, ON N2C 1X8 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate one required parking space for a home business (personal service) 0 m from the front lot line, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 2, 2001 256 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-061 (Cont’d) The Committee noted the comments of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that staff note the applicant can locate one parking space for a home business 1.91 metres (6.28 ft.) from the front lot line, rather than 0 metres as requested; the decision should reflect this change. The property has a single detached dwelling with an attached single car garage. There is an existing driveway with a width of approximately 6.6 metres (21.66 ft.) which can adequately accommodate two vehicles beside each other. As the property has a single car garage, the double width driveway will allow two vehicles to be parked with independent access to and from the site. The purpose of the regulation is to improve streetscape appeal and ensure room to park a vehicle between the garage and lot line. As the existing driveway is 7.91 metres (25.96 ft.) in length, there is ample room to park two vehicles and still maintain a 1.91 metre (6.26 ft.) setback from the property line ensuring clear sight lines for pedestrians or vehicles. Further, the by-law does not prohibit non-required parking in the driveway so the aesthetic appeal is not an issue. A second parking space for a home business located ahead of the building line will not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic nor change the appearance of the site, and is therefore considered appropriate for the property. Approval of this application will have no impact on the neighbouring properties and will maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan. Accordingly, Business & Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A-2001-061. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for any construction required to accommodate the home business. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Ms. Heppenheimer had anything further to add. Ms. T. Heppenheimer advised that she was the daughter of one of the owners of the subject property. She further advised that she and her mother live at the subject property and she will be operating the business. Mr. D. Cybalski pointed out that staff are recommending the application be amended to allow the parking space to be located 1.91 m from the front lot line rather than 0 m as requested. In this regard, he inquired if Ms. Heppenheimer was prepared to amend the application. Ms. Heppenheimer advised that she did not understand and the amendment was explained. Ms. Heppenheimer then indicated that she was in agreement with amending the application. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Anne Heer, Michael Speck and Elsa Willms requesting permission to locate one required parking space for a home business (personal service) 1.91 m (6.28 ft.) from the front lot line, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Lot 24, Registered Plan 1093, 23 BE APPROVED Fairlawn Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to any construction required to accommodate the home business. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 2, 2001 257 Submission No.: 1. A 2001-061 (Cont’d) 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.: 2.A 2001-062 Applicant: Tash Goka & Dianne Koebel Property Location: 342 Frederick Street Legal Description: Part Lots 2 & 3, Registered Plan 117 The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of an e-mail transmission dated September 26, 2001 from Ms. Diane Koebel requesting that the application be deferred to the Committee’s next meeting. Accordingly, the Committee agreed to defer this application to its meeting scheduled to be held on Tuesday, October 30, 2001. Submission No.: 3.A 2001-063 Applicant: 584745 Ontario Limited Property Location: 4 Dineen Court Legal Description: Lot 1, Registered Plan 58M-121 Appearances: In Support:Mr. J. Silaschi 584745 Ontario Limited 270 Spadina Road East Kitchener, ON N2M 3X8 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The applicant is requesting permission to construct a single residential dwelling, having a northerly sideyard setback from Keewatin Avenue of 4.433 m (14.58 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject land is located on the easterly side of a cul-de-sac known as Dineen Court. The property has 15.49 metres (50.82 feet) of frontage on Dineen Court and a lot area of 521.47 square metres (5610.24 square feet). In pouring the foundation on the property in question, the applicant has discovered that the foundation has been inadvertently placed too close to the north side of the property line which abuts Keewatin Avenue. The result is a side yard abutting a street of 4.433 metres (14.54 feet), rather than the minimum 4.5 metres (14.76 feet). This is an infringement of 0.067 metres (0.20 feet). The owner has indicated that the reduction was not an attempt to build a larger house, but an honest error by the foundation crew. An application for minor variance is required to permit a side yard of 4.433 metres (14.54 feet). As it currently exists, the completed single-detached dwelling would surpass the permitted minimum side yard setback by 0.067 metres (0.22 feet) from the foundation of the dwelling to the side yard property line. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 2, 2001 258 Submission No.: 3. A 2001-063 (Cont’d) The setback can be considered appropriate and desirable since the foundation has been designed in general consistency with other single-detached dwelling foundations on Dineen Court. The design of the development has not altered significantly from that of the rest of the Court, maintaining continuity with surrounding urban form and character. Additionally, there are no adverse impacts on adjacent property owners. The variance is considered minor in nature since the amount of relief requested is a minimal difference, at 0.067 metres (0.22 feet). The application also maintains the general intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. Accordingly, Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A2001-063 be approved. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst, the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Silaschi had anything further to add. Mr. J. Silaschi advised that the contractor had incorrectly laid the foundation even though the property had been properly staked. The error had not been caught until after completion of the survey. In response to a question, Mr. Silaschi advised that the owner of the property operates a business known as Reliable Construction and he further stated that he was in agreement with the recommendation of staff. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of 584745 Ontario Limited requesting permission to construct a single residential dwelling having a northerly sideyard setback from Keewatin Avenue of 4.433 m (14.58 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), on Lot 1, Registered Plan 58M-121, 4 Dineen Court, BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, . 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 2001-051 Applicant: VMT Holdings Limited - Margaret Franjic Property Location: 36 Talbot Street Legal Description: Lots 197 to 205 inclusive, Registered Plan 266 and Part Lot 158, Streets and Lanes Appearances: In Support:None Contra:None Written Submissions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENTOCTOBER 2, 2001 259 Submission No.: 1. B 2001-051 (Cont’d) In Support:None Contra:None As no one appeared in support of the application, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the Committee’s next meeting scheduled for October 30, 2001. Submission No.: 2.B 2001-052 Applicant: Thomas Hugh O’Rourke Property Location: 19 and 21 Bingeman Street Legal Description: Part Lot A, Registered Plan 363 Appearances: In Support:None Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None As no one appeared in support of the application, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application to the Committee’s next meeting scheduled for October 30, 2001. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 2nd day of October, 2001. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment