Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2001-05-29 FENCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 29, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, D. Cybalski, and B. Isaac. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. C. Ladd, Director of Planning and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. P. Britton, Acting 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, June 11, 2001, 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 2001-004 Applicant: Karl Janzen Property Location: 48 Denlow Street Legal Description: Lot 31, Registered Plan 1678 Appearances: In Support:Mr. K. Janzen 48 Denlow Street Kitchener ON N2B 3T6 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a wooden fence setback 0.48 m (1.6 ft.) from the westerly side yard adjacent to Westchester Drive, from the rear yard and continuing along the side yard a distance of 18.63 m (61.12 ft.), having a height of 1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant wishes to maximize the useable yard area and also provide adequate fencing for a future swimming pool. The intent of the 0.91 m maximum height within 4.5 m of the sideyard abutting a street is to ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular visibility. Staff note that the neighbouring property at 205 Westchester Drive, to the rear of the subject property has driveway access which would be abutting the proposed fence. Staff of the Traffic and Parking Division advise that to allow the 1.82 m (6 ft.) along the property line they will need to provide a 4.5 m (15 ft.) driveway visibility corner. The proposed fence is to be located approximately 15 m (50 ft.) from the intersection of Denlow Street and Westchester Drive thus having no impact on traffic movements at the corner. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 9 -MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 1.FN 2001-004 (Cont’d) The proposed fence is appropriate for the property provided a 4.5 m (15 ft.) driveway visibility corner is maintained for the neighbouring property at 205 Westchester Drive. The variance for the fence can be considered minor in nature as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Fence By-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission FN 2001-004 provided a 4.5 m (15 ft.) driveway visibility corner is maintained. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and can support the proposed fence, provided a 4.57 m driveway corner triangle be implemented at the driveway of 205 Westchester Drive. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised they have no objection to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to a 4.5 m driveway visibility corner being maintained, and inquired if Mr. Janzen had anything further to add. Mr. Janzen advised that he had reviewed the staff report and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Karl Janzen requesting permission to construct a wooden fence setback 0.48 m (1.6 ft.) from the westerly side yard adjacent to Westchester Drive, from the rear yard and continuing along the side yard a distance of 18.63 m (61.12 ft.), having a height of 1.82 m BE (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), 48 Denlow Street, Kitchener, Ontario APPROVED , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall alter the fence to provide a corner driveway visibility triangle setback 4.5 m (15 ft.) from the northwest corner along the rear lot line adjacent to the driveway of 205 Westchester Drive to the satisfaction of the Traffic & Parking Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1.The variance approved 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 Municipal Code Chapter 630 (Fences) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried The Chair advised Mr. Janzen that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council, which will be considered at the Council meeting of June 11, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber and he may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. Submission No.: 2.FN 2001-005 Applicant: Michael Dopson Property Location: 185 Wilfred Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 207, Registered Plan 914 Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 10 -MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 2.FN 2001-005 (Cont’d) In Support:Mr. & Mrs. M. Dopson 185 Wilfred Avenue Kitchener ON N2A 1X2 Contra:None Written Submissions: In Support:None Contra:Mr. & Mrs. A. KlinkMr. H. Speck 116 Kenneth Avenue80 Kenneth Avenue Kitchener ON N2A 1W2Kitchener ON N2A 1V8 Mr. D. J. WarehamMr. G. Stubbert 106 Kenneth Avenue100 Kenneth Avenue Kitchener ON N2A 1W2Kitchener ON N2A 1W2 Ms. T. Stolch 184 Wilfred Avenue Kitchener ON N2A 1X1 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a wooden fence 0 m from the front lot line adjacent to Wilfred Avenue and the northerly side yard adjacent to Kenneth Avenue, having a height of 1.52 m (5 ft.) along the front lot line and the northerly side yard for a distance of 6.52 m (21.4 ft.), and having a height of 1.82 m (6 ft.) along the remainder of the northerly side yard for a distance of 12.37 m (40.6 ft.); rather than the permitted height of 0.91 m (3 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the maximum height for a fence within the front yard which abuts Kenneth Avenue, and within 15 metres of the side lot line, which abuts Wilfred Avenue, is 0.91 metres (3 feet). In addition, staff note that the fence is also located in the 15 metre (49.2 feet) corner visibility triangle. The applicant states that he wishes to construct the fence so that he can place a pool on his property in the future. It is noted that the hand-drawn sketch submitted indicates that a portion of the fence will be located outside the property line that is shown on the survey, which was also provided. The owner has been advised that this application can only consider the fence that will exist within his lot lines and an encroachment agreement would be required with the City's Legal Department for that portion of the fence on City land. The intent of the 0.91 metre height restriction within a front yard, within 4.5 metres of a side lot line abutting a street, and within the corner visibility triangle is to ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular visibility. The Traffic Division has concerns regarding visibility for cars using the driveway and for cars at the intersection of the streets. It is recommended that the fence be altered to include two visibility triangles: a 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle at the intersection of the street lines and a 4.5 metre corner visibility triangle at the intersection of the driveway with the lot line abutting Wilfred Avenue. After consultation with the applicant, he has decided not to construct the 1.5 metre (5 foot) high fence in the side yard abutting Wilfred Avenue and he has also agreed to provide the 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle required as recommended by the Traffic Division. Therefore staff recommend that this variance be amended to request a fence located in the front yard abutting Kenneth Avenue, and partially located in the corner visibility triangle, with a height of 1.82 metres rather than the permitted maximum height of 0.91 metres as shown on the drawing attached to the staff report. As a result of the amendments to the fence, there will now be no apparent impact on vehicular or pedestrian safety as the corner visibility triangle required by the Traffic Division has been met. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 11 -MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 2.FN 2001-005 (Cont’d) It is the opinion of staff that this variance, as amended, could be considered minor in nature as the general intent and purpose of the Fence By-law will be maintained. In addition, as a result of the above noted changes to the fence, it appears that the fence would not adversely affect the neighbouring properties. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the minor variance FN 2001-005, as amended and as shown on the drawing attached to the staff report. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and cannot support the location and the height of the proposed fence. Firstly, the proposed 1.8 m fence cannot be located in the 7.6 m corner visibility triangle at the intersection of Wilfred Avenue and Kenneth Avenue. Should this fence be located within the 7.6 m corner visibility triangle, the proposed fence could only be 0.9 m high. Secondly, the proposed fence greatly reduces the visibility for motorists exiting the driveway of 185 Wilfred Avenue. Therefore, we are recommending that a 4.57 m driveway corner triangle be implemented at the driveway. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. The Committee noted written comments from Mr. & Mrs. A. Klink, Mr. H. Speck, Mr. D. Wareham, Mr. G. Stubbert and Ms. T. Stolch in which they advised that they are opposed to this application for the following reasons. The fence height and location suggested will create an anomaly, and a precedent since there is no other such construction along the fronts of either Wilfred Avenue or Kenneth Avenue nor on the surrounding streets. The reduction in peripheral visibility because of the anomalous and unexpected presence of such a fence, may obstruct vision for automobiles and pedestrians, particularly children, approaching the Wilfred Avenue/Kenneth Avenue corner, and thus lead to an increase in traffic hazard; accordingly, a traffic study would be necessary. In as much as the purpose of the fence is to enclose an above-ground swimmimg pool on a front lawn, we feel that such a location is inappropriate and a side or back lawn would be a more suitable location. The fence height and location suggested will jar with and destroy the open concept of the surrounding locale consisting for the main part of well-kept front lawns and shrub landscaped homes visible to pedestrians and motorists alike, aesthetically, such a structure would not harmonise with the fronts of the suburb, however well-maintained the structure may prove to be. It would be an eye-sore. The by-law height of 3 ft. fence on the front of a property is pertinent in order to maintain the aesthetic appeal, uniformity and re-sale value of the homes of the neighbourhood. A change in this parameter would have a negative effect on the above. The Committee noted the comments of the Legal Department in which they advised that the applicant has requested permission to construct the fence along the Kenneth Avenue side of his property so that it encroaches 3.5 ft., more or less, into the road allowance. Since we cannot permit an illegal fence on City property and the Committee of Adjustment cannot make a ruling on a variance for a fence that is not on the applicant’s property, the applications are reviewed simultaneously so that approvals, if granted, are subject to obtaining approval for the other application. Staff from the Public Works Department and the Traffic Division have reviewed the encroachment request and in order to maintain clearance from the sidewalk, do not recommend COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT- 12 -MAY 29, 2001 Submission No.: 2.FN 2001-005 (Cont’d) that the fence project beyond the property line on the Kenneth Avenue side of the property. The encroachment request will be denied. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to the amendments as shown on the drawing attached to the staff report. The Chair inquired if Mr. Dopson had anything further to add. Mr. M. Dopson reviewed the plans, indicating that in response to neighbourhood concerns he had agreed not to construct a 6 ft. fence along Wilfred Avenue and would provide a corner visibility triangle at the intersection of the streets as recommended by Traffic staff. In response to questioning, Mr. Dopson advised that the proposed swimming pool would be located on the Kenneth Avenue side of his property. The Chair referred to the comments of the Legal Department in which they advised an encroachment onto City lands would not be permitted and pointed out to Mr. Dopson that the Committee only has jurisdiction to consider construction of the fence within the limits of his property line. Mr. Dopson stated that in view of the Legal Department’s comments, he was prepared to construct the fence within the limits of the lot line along Kenneth Avenue. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Michael Dopson requesting permission to construct a wooden fence 0 m from the front lot line adjacent to Kenneth Avenue, from the easterly sideyard and continuing along the front lot line an average distance of 11.5 m (37.9 ft.), having a height of 1.82 m (6 ft.), rather than the permitted 0.91 m (3 ft.), on Part Lot 207, Registered Plan 914, 185 Wilfred BE APPROVED Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall alter the fence to provide a corner visibility triangle setback 7.5 m (25 ft.) from the intersection of Kenneth Avenue and Wilfred Avenue to the satisfaction of the Traffic & Parking Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1.The variance approved 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 Municipal Code Chapter 630 (Fences) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried The Chair advised Mr. Dopson that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council, which will be considered at the Council meeting of June 11, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber and he may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 29th day of May, 2001. Janet Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment