Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2006-10-17 FNCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, D. Cybalski and Z. Janecki. Ms. T. Malone-Wright, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. R. Brent, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Mr. P. Britton, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:00 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 (Fence) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code. The Committee will not make a decision on these applications but rather will make a recommendation which 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, October 30, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. NEW BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: FN 2006-005 Applicant: John Choma & Gail Dragutinovic Property Location: 901 Copper deaf Crescent Legal Description: Part dot 47, Reference Plan 58R-12815, Block 10, Registered Plan 58M-172 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Choma & Ms. G. Dragutinovic Contra: None Written Submissions: Neighbourhood Petition The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a existing 1.82m (6') high wooden fence located 0.66 m (2.1') from the lot line abutting Max Becker Drive rather than the required 1.5 m (4.9') setback. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated October 10, 2006, advising the applicant is proposing to legalize a 1.82 m high board fence located 0.66 m from the side lot line abutting a street. Planning staff understand that this application for minor variance is one of possibly 5-6 other properties in the immediate vicinity which want relief from the fence by-law. In reviewing this application for minor variance staff has considered that the intent of the City's Fence By-law is to have a fence greater than 0.9m setback a minimum of 1.5 m from a street line. The purpose of this requirement is to provide an adequate separation distance from a taller fence structure to the sidewalk and provide for appropriate width of landscaping between the sidewalk and the fence structure to soften the effect of the fence on the streetscape. Staff notes that the fence is nicely landscaped at the front and planters have been placed along the Max Becker side of the fence. Staff are also cognizant of other fences in the immediate vicinity that do not meet the fence by-law, some of which applications have been considered or will be considered at the next Committee of Adjustment meeting. However with respect to this COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 1. Submission No.: FN 2006-005 (Cont'd~ OCTOBER 17, 2006 particular application, staff has difficulty supporting the application as submitted given that the proposed variance does not achieve either purpose of the by-law. Staff has consistently not supported variances to allow 1.82 m high fences any closer than 1.5 m from the side lot line abutting a street. Accordingly, as the intent of the fence by-law is not maintained, planning staff cannot support the application. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 26, 2006, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered a neighbourhood petition signed by 45 neighbours in support of this application, which was submitted by the applicants. Mr. Choma advised the Committee that they are very proud of their properly, and have tried to make this fence aesthetically pleasing for pedestrians as well as themselves. The fence was constructed 4 years ago, and the neighbours are in support of them keeping this fence. He further advised that there are trumpet vines growing on both sides of the fence, and they will completely cover the fence in time. Mr. Parent advised there are no traffic safety or visibility concerns with respect to this fence. Further, this variance came to light when By-law Enforcement staff were called out to look at another fence in this area. Mr. Janecki commented on the need for screening on the outside of the fence 12 months of the year. The Chair noted that there is a potential for more Fence Variance applications in this area, and that there has been one previous Fence Variance application on this street. The previous application was recommended for approval subject to a condition requiring appropriate landscaping on the outside of the fence to help screen it 12 months of the year. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of John Choma & Gail Dragutinovic requesting legalization of an existing 1.82m (6') high wooden fence located 0.66 m (2.1') from the lot line abutting Max Becker Drive rather than the required 1.5 m (4.9'), on Parl Block 10, Registered Plan 58M-172, being Parl 47, Reference Plan 58R-12815, 901 Copper Leaf Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the existing fence only, as shown on the plans submitted with this application. 2. That the owners shall provide additional landscaping on the outside of the fence, satisfactory to the City's Planning Division, to soften the appearance of the fence 12 months of the year. 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 (Fence) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUST 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property location: legal Description: Appearances: In Support: MENT 10 OCTOBER 17, 2006 FN 2006-006 Scott Keeley 133 Max Becker Drive Part Lot 43, Reference Plan 58R-12815, Block 9, Registered Plan 58M-172 Mr. S. Keeley Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing 2.13m (7') high wooden fence located 0.762m X2.5') from the lot line along Copper Leaf Crescent rather than the required 4.57 m (15') setback. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated October 10, 2006, advising the applicant is proposing to legalize a 2.13 m high board fence located 0.762 m from the side lot line abutting a street. Planning staff understand that this application for minor variance is one of possibly 5-6 other properties in the immediate vicinity which want relief from the fence by-law. In reviewing this application for minor variance staff has considered that the intent of the City's Fence By-law is to have a fence greater than 1.82 m setback a minimum of 4.5 m from a street line. The purpose of this requirement is to provide an adequate separation distance from a taller fence structure to the sidewalk and provide for appropriate width of landscaping between the sidewalk and the fence structure to soften the effect of the fence on the streetscape. Staff notes that the fence is nicely landscaped at the front and planters have been placed along the Max Becker side of the fence. Staff are also cognizant of other fences in the immediate vicinity that do not meet the fence by-law, some of which applications have been considered or will be considered at the next Committee of Adjustment meeting. However with respect to this particular application, staff has difficulty supporting the application as submitted given that the proposed variance does not achieve either purpose of the by-law. Staff has consistently not supported variances to allow 1.82 m high fences any closer than 1.5 m from the side lot line abutting a street and this fence is greater than 1.82 m and located only 0.762 m from the side lot line abutting a street. Accordingly, as the intent of the fence by-law is not maintained, planning staff cannot support the application. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 26, 2006, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Keeley advised he has lived at this property just over a year, and he arranged to have this fence erected. The person who erected the fence is someone who does fencing on a regular basis, and he trusted that person to know the City's by-laws. Mr. Janecki noted he had visited this property prior to this meeting. He stated that the fence created a visibility problem when he was driving out of the driveway at 1162 Copper Leaf Crescent. Mr. Parent advised that Traffic Planning staff visited this property and the adjacent property on Copper Leaf Crescent, and are of the opinion that the fence causes no visibility problems because of the direction of the curve in the road. He advised that he would be willing to meet on site with the property owner to ensure there are no visibility problems for the abutting neighbour. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Scott Keeley requesting legalization of a 2.13m (7') high fence located 0.762m (2.5') from the lot line abutting Copper Leaf Crescent rather than the required 4.57m (15'), on Park Block 9, Registered Plan 58M-172, being Part 43, Reference Plan 58R-12815, 133 Max Becker Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 11 OCTOBER 17, 2006 2. Submission No.: FN 2006-006 f Cont'd1 1. That the owners shall provide additional landscaping on the outside of the fence, satisfactory to the City's Planning Division, to soften the appearance of the fence 12 months of the year. 2. That Transportation Planning staff visit this site to ensure proper visibility for the abutting property on Copper deaf Crescent. 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 (Fence) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:24 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of October, 2006. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment