Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-12-11 FENCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 11, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, B. Isaac, P. Britton and D. Cybalski. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider applications regarding variances to Chapter 630 (Fences) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code. The Committee will not make a decision on these applications but, rather, will make a recommendation that will be forwarded to the Committee of the Whole and Council for final decision. The Chair explained that the Committee's decisions with respect to fence variances are recommendations to City Council and not a final decision. He advised that the Committee's recommendations will be forwarded to City Council on Monday, January 14, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. NEW BUSINESS Submission No.: 1.FN 2001-014 Applicant: Richard Shapiro Holdings Property Location: 696 Fairway Road South Legal Description: Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 988 Appearances: In Support:Mr. D. Murray 306 Whitmore Drive Waterloo ON N2K 2N5 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing galvanized chain link fence topped with barbed wire and used as a secure compound for vehicles sold or leased on the property, setback 0 m from Courtland Avenue/Fairway Road South for a distance of 30.48 m (100 ft.), having a maximum height of 2.1 m (6.9 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing chain link fence topped with barbed wire having a height of 2.1 metres (6.9 ft.), located 0 metres from the front lot line, rather than the permitted 7.62 metres (25 ft.). The subject property is located at the point where Fairway Road South and Courtland Avenue East meet. The property is developed with automotive uses, being service, repair, sale and rental of motor vehicles, all of which are permitted uses in the Campus Commercial zoning category. The applicant has erected a 2.1 metre (6.9 ft.) high chain link fence topped with barbed wire that projects inward to the area enclosed by the fence. The applicant suggests that the fence of this height in this location is required to safeguard the vehicles for sale or lease on the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 27 -DECEMBER 11, 2001, 2001 Submission No.: 1.FN 2001-014 (Cont’d) property against vandalism, and that the front yard is the only suitable location for the fenced compound. The Fence By-law permits commercial properties to locate a fence in the front yard provided they maintain a minimum setback of 7.62 metres (25 ft.), and do not exceed 0.9 metres (3 ft.) in height. The configuration of this property is such that the building is set back approximately 22.2 metres (73 ft.) from the front lot line and 26 metres (85 ft.) from the left side lot line. The fence is located along Fairway Road South for a distance of approximately 30 metres (100 ft.), along the left property line and across the rear of the property and back to the front lot line, creating the enclosed compound. The abutting properties to the left and rear are vacant open space land, while the abutting property to the right is another automotive related business. Across Fairway Road south is a gas station and carwash. In addressing the appropriateness of the fence, impact on the streetscape of the high profile location was taken into consideration. Staff are of the opinion that the height and location of the fence has a negative impact on the streetscape. However, staff believe that an enclosed compound for the storage of vehicles can be considered an appropriate use of the commercial property. The subject property is entirely surfaced with asphalt, and is large enough to accommodate an enclosed compound maintaining the required 7.62 metre (25 ft.) front yard setback. Staff are of the opinion that moving the fence back 7.62 metres (25 ft.) will still provide more than enough vehicle storage space while better maintaining the intent of the by-law. The City’s By- law Enforcement Officer, who responded to the original complaint, visited the site on several occasions to take photographs. At no time was the enclosed compound area full of vehicles. The intent of the 7.62 metre (25 ft.) setback for fences on commercial properties is to ensure an appropriate streetscape is maintained and that any front yard storage is sufficiently located away from the front property line. In this case, the intent of the Fence By-law is not being met, particularly given the high profile location of the property on a Primary Arterial Road. Staff cannot support the variance as submitted, but can recommend that the fence be relocated 7.62 metres (25 ft.) from the front property line. A variance to the height of the fence at 2.1 metres (6.9 ft.) rather than the permitted 0.91 metres (3 ft.) would be required in this location. Staff are of the opinion that a variance to permit the 2.1 metre (6.9 ft.) high fence with the required 7.62 metre (25 ft.) setback is appropriate as the integrity of the streetscape will be maintained. Accordingly, Business & Planning Services recommends refusal of Submission FN 2001-014, but support the relocation of the fence to comply with the required 7.62 metre (25 ft.) setback from the front lot line abutting Fairway Road South with a maximum height of 2.1 metres (6.9 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, the Traffic & Parking Analyst 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 refusal of the application as submitted; however, would support relocation of the fence to comply with the required 7.62 m (25 ft.) setback from the front lot line abutting Fairway Road South and with a maximum height of 2.1 m (6.9 ft.). The Chair inquired if Mr. Murray had anything further to add. Mr. D. Murray advised that the fence had been constructed without knowledge that it was improper and following its erection, he was advised by City staff that it did not comply with the Fence By-law. He stated that the only reason the fence had been erected was to protect the property against vandalism and theft of the vehicles stored on the property. He stated that the requested 25 ft. setback was not impossible; however, was of the opinion that this would leave wasted space between the fence and the property line and should it be necessary for vehicles to be parked in this area it would leave them vulnerable to vandalism and theft. He commented that it would be preferred to have the fence approved as it exists now; however, would abide by the Committee’s decision. He further pointed out that the issue of theft is of great concern, noting that the business experienced between $25,000-$35,000 in theft this year. He pointed out that COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 28 -DECEMBER 11, 2001, 2001 Submission No.: 1.FN 2001-014 (Cont’d) the fence was erected primarily to defend against vandalism and theft at his own expense even though he only leases the property. In response to Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Murray advised that the area in question is currently asphalt as opposed to landscaped and vehicles have been parked in this area for some time. Mr. Murray stated that this is the central location for this business with over 400 vehicles coming and going. Mr. P. Britton inquired if the parking of vehicles on this property was considered legal non- conforming and Ms. Given advised that the use of the property permits the storage of its product; ie. vehicles, and accordingly, it is not an issue relative to parking or legal non-conformance. Mr. P. Britton inquired how close vehicles could be parked to the front lot line if the issue was relative to parking requirements and Ms. Given responded that the setback requirement would be 3 m (10 ft.) from the property line. Mr. B. Isaac inquired how access to the enclosed compound would be affected should the fence be relocated. Mr. Murray advised that access to the enclosed area is by a sliding gate at the rear of the property and accordingly, the proposed setback would not interfere with access. Ms. J. Given advised that she had several photographs of the property and submitted those for the Committee’s review. During review of the photographs, it was clarified as to the revised location of the fence at the 25 ft. setback. Mr. P. Britton requested staff to comment on what they would prefer to see take place on the lands between the fence and the front lot line should the fence be relocated. Ms. J. Given responded that ideally landscaping would be preferred; however, staff were not requiring this as a condition. Mr. P. Britton commented that the storage of vehicles is a permitted use up to the lot line under current zoning regulations and it is only because of the fence that an application was required to be submitted. In this regard, he requested staff to comment relative to the potential impact their recommendation would have to the operation of the business in reducing the usability of the existing storage area. Ms. J. Given responded that significant space to the rear of the property currently exists for storage of vehicles and at no time during several site visits was the entire storage area full to capacity. She stated that staff do not view their recommendation as having any negative impact to the operation of the business; however, are of the opinion the fence poses a negative visual impact to the streetscape given its high profile location on a primary arterial road. In response to the Chair, Mr. Murray advised that there was approximately 2 to 3 ft. of landscaped area between the fence and the City sidewalk. Ms. Given clarified that this would be part of the boulevard. In response to Mr. P. Britton, Mr. Murray advised that capacity of vehicles in the storage area varies and at times the lot may not be full. He advised that he attempts to buy the right quantity of vehicles to limit the need for storage; however, even at 10% capacity a considerable amount of vehicles require storage. He further stated that if necessary, vehicles would be stored outside the fenced area; however, this is not preferred as this leaves the vehicles open to theft and vandalism. Mr. P. Britton questioned the practicality of accessing the space between the fence and the front lot line should the fence be moved back 25 ft. Mr. Murray indicated that as access is to the rear he was unsure if the area in question could effectively be accessed. Mr. Britton inquired if it was possible to reduce the height of the fence to 3 ft. and remove the barbed wire from the length of fence facing Fairway Road. Mr. Murray stated that while this would not be preferable it could be done; however, he questioned if the fence would be allowed to stay in its present location if this was accommodated. Ms. J. Given advised that the fence would still be required to be setback 25 ft. Mr. P. Britton commented that, in his opinion, there is a conflict between the Zoning By-law and the Fence By-law in this situation wherein the zoning determines what is appropriate in terms of use and the storage of vehicles up to the lot line is a permitted use. He further commented that the need to erect the fence for security reasons is apparent. Accordingly, he advised that he was prepared to support the application as submitted given that relocating the fence back 25 ft. could COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 29 -DECEMBER 11, 2001, 2001 Submission No.: 1.FN 2001-014 (Cont’d) potentially reduce the operation of the business, the use is permitted and the fence is required for security. The Chair agreed with Mr. Britton’s comments adding that, in his opinion, the fence in its present location does not negatively impact the streetscape given the commercial characteristics of Fairway Road and there are trees existing along side the fence. He further suggested that in today’s society, wherein there is need to protect private property, the merits of the fence must be carefully weighed against that of aesthetics. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Richard Shapiro Holdings requesting permission to legalize an existing galvanized chain link fence topped with barbed wire and used as a secure compound for vehicles sold or leased on the property, setback 0 m from Fairway Road South, rather than the required 7.62 m (25 ft.), for a distance of 30.48m (100 ft.), and having a maximum height of 2.1 m (6.9 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 988, 696 Fairway Road BE APPROVED South, Kitchener, Ontario, . It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are 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 Municipal Code Chapter 630 (Fences) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m. th Dated at the City of Kitchener this 11 day of December, 2001. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment