Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-05-131 - Demolition Control Application DC 05/08/P/SR - 579 Park Street ) c,_> KITCHENER Development & Technical Services ~ Report To: Date of Meeting: Submitted By: Prepared By: Ward(s) Involved: Date of Report: Report No.: Subject: Development and Technical Services Committee September 12, 2005 Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning (741-2325) Sheryl Rice, Zoning Officer (741-2844) Ward 6 - West-Victoria Park August 25, 2005 DTS 05-131 DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 05/08/P/SR 579 Park Street Family & Children's Services of Waterloo Region s RECOMMENDATION: That demolition control application DC 05/08/P/SR requesting permission to demolish one duplex dwelling located at 579 Park St, legally described as Part Lot 10, Plan 408, be aooroved in principle, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner obtain final Site Plan Approval for a parking area not greater than 420 square metres and final Landscape Approval for the amenity area. 2. That the owner post securities, to the satisfaction of the Supervisor of Site Plan Development, to ensure implementation of plans approved in Condition 1. Upon satisfaction of the above noted condition, the Chief Building Official may authorize and issue a demolition permit under Section 33(6) of the Planning Act. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the south side of Park Street between Union Boulevard and John Street and contains two buildings, a duplex rental dwelling at 579 Park St and a residential care facility at 571 Park Street. It is zoned Institutional Two (1-2) with a special provision 102U under By-law 85-1. The building proposed for demolition contains two 1-bedroom dwelling units and its overall condition is generally good but could use some upgrades. When the agency operating the group home at 571 Park Street purchased the property in 2000/2001, the rental building at 579 Park Street was part of the same lot. It was not the intent of the agency to have a rental property and they state that the cost of operating and maintaining the duplex far exceeds the rental income received (letter attached). The eight residents of the group home at 571 Park Street do not have use of an outdoor amenity area as the rear yard is paved for a driveway that leads into a parking lot behind 579 Park Street. The agency wishes to demolish the rental building to create green space for their residents. REPORT: 1. Notification Preliminary circulation of the demolition control application was undertaken on June 10th to internal agencies and on July 29th to property owners within a 60 metre radius. Comments were received from three divisions (comments attached). No comments were received from the neighbourhood circulation. 2. Planning Comments Under the Planning Act, the purpose of Demolition Control is to maintain residential properties within the municipality and to prevent their removal without replacing them with new buildings. Where no new buildings are proposed, the municipality must determine whether or not the removal of the building is in the public interest. In order to assess whether or not the demolition is in the public interest, the proposal must be weighed against the seven criteria outlined in Council Policy 1-1010: 1. Property Subject to the Ontario Heritage Act This building is not listed or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. 2. Architectural and Historical Value of the Dwelling The City's Heritage Planner has indicated some concern with the proposed demolition as the structure is a century home that appears to be in good condition and indicated that the application may be premature (comments attached). 3. Condition of the Dwelling A City building inspector states that the structure is in generally good repair but could use some upgrades in order to continue the use as a rental property (comments attached). 4. Neighbourhood and Streetscape Quality The properties along Park Street are zoned 1-1 (Institutional) and the properties to the south are zoned R-5 (Residential). The Sunlife/Clarica office tower is located across the street to the north of the subject property. Although the streetscape contains some residential dwellings, it is not the predominant use on Park Street but part of a mixture of residential, institutional, health office and office uses. Should the building be demolished, adequate landscaping would have to be installed to ensure that the parking lot at the rear of the property is screened from the street. As well, creating an amenity area that clearly is part of the lot belonging to 571 Park Street would ensure that the space appears to operate as one lot. Suggested landscaping would include hedges, additional trees, berms, small structures such as a shed and low ornamental fencing. The building at 571 Park St is a large structure with no green space in the backyard. Creating an aesthetically pleasing green space in the side yard that blends the two parcels of land into functioning and appearing as one lot would not appear to be detrimental to the streetscape. 5. Timeframe of Redevelopment The applicant is proposing to demolish as soon as permitted and no new building is proposed. The use of the site for amenity area is proposed immediately after demolition. 6. Community Feedback No comments received. 7. Zoning Compliance of the Proposed Use The existing use of the lot as two dwellings (duplex and single family dwelling/residential care facility) is in violation of Section 5.12 of the Zoning By-law (number of dwellings per lot). The proposed use as an accessory parking lot and outdoor amenity area for the building at 571 Park Street is permitted. Considering the points noted above and the intent of the applicant, Planning staff appreciates that an outdoor amenity area would be a benefit for the use of the residents at 571 Park Street. However staff is concerned with the impact on the streetscape that demolishing a structure and leaving a void between existing buildings would create. The applicant has noted on the attached site plan that they propose to remove the driveway leading onto Park Street. A parking lot at the rear of 579 Park Street would remain for the use of the staff at the group home, and access would be obtained from an already existing driveway on Union Boulevard. Planning concerns would be alleviated by ensuring that appropriate site plan and landscaping approvals are obtained for the property after the building is removed. In regards to losing the rental dwelling units, it is noted that although the Heritage Planner has concerns with the application, the structures are not listed or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The City's Building Inspector has noted that upgrades are required to continue the use of the building as residential. The applicant has noted that they do not wish to upgrade, nor sever the property, as their main intention for the area is to provide needed green space for their eight residents. 3. Comments Received (copies of comments attached) A City Building and Plumbing Inspector advised that Building Division that the building is in generally good repair but could use come upgrades to continue its use as a rental property. It is noted that the estimated cost to upgrade is approximately $60,000. The City's Heritage Planner noted that although the structure is not on the Heritage Inventory nor listed as a Heritage property, the application appears to be premature as it is his opinion that the structure is in good condition and could continue to provide rental accommodation if upgrades were made. Engineering Services has no concerns with this application. 4. Summary Having considered the criteria established in Council Policy 1-1010, Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed demolition is justified, primarily because the resulting vacant site will function as a rear yard for the dwelling located at the street corner. As such, Planning Staff recommend that demolition control application DC 05/08/P/SR requesting permission to demolish the duplex dwelling located at 579 Park Street, legally described as Part Lot 10, Plan 408, be aooroved, subject to the conditions outlined in the recommendation. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None. Sheryl Rice Zoning Officer Jeff Willmer, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Attachments: Site Grading and Drainage Plan Department Comments (3) Letter from Family & Children's Services (dated Aug. 8, 2005)