Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2007-06-19COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 19, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski, B. McColl & A. Head OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. T. Kraemer, Administrative Clerk. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of May 15, 2007 as mailed to the members, be adopted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2007-018 Applicant: Laurel View Homes Property Location: Edgewater Crescent Legal Description: Block 289, Registered Plan 58M-393 and Part of Lot 117, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: K. Barisdale Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting Permission to locate dwellings on Blocks/Units 2, 3, 10, 14 and 15 with a rear yard of 4.5m (14.76') rather than the required 7m (22.96'), and to allow rear decks on these same dwellings with a Om rear yard rather than the required 7m (22.96'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 11, 2007 advising that the subject property is located on the southeastern corner of Edgewater Crescent. The property is constrained by Idlewood Creek to the north and the Grand River to the south. The owner intends to develop the lands as a Vacant Land Condominium, consisting of 15 single detached dwellings, fronting onto a private internal roadway. This application was deferred by the Committee on May 15, 2007 to allow the owner to address concerns raised by the City's Environmental Planning staff and by the Grand River Conservation Authority staff. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 99 JUNE 19, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-018 tCont'd) The applicant originally requested minor variances for Vacant Land Condominium Units 2, 3, 10, 14 & 15, to allow: 1. a minimum rear yard setback of 4.5 metres rather than the required 7.0 metres; and 2. a minimum setback of 0.0 metres for a deck that is not covered or enclosed and exceeds 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level, rather than 4.0 metres. Staff note that according to Special Regulation Provision 381 R, as applied to the land, the required rear yard setback for a Vacant Land Condominium is actually 7.5 metres, rather than 7.0 metres are stated above. The 7.0 metre rear yard setback in 381 R only pertains to standard condominiums. Therefore, staff recommend that the variance should be: to allow a minimum rear yard setback of 4.5 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres. Several concerns arose in response to the original circulation of this application from both the City's Environmental Planning staff and from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). Environmental Planning staff were concerned with the regenerating buffer north of the retaining wall and requested a Detailed Vegetation Plan (DVP) to help support the application for Minor Variance and the Plan of Condominium. City staff are in receipt of a DVP and based on its review have recommended that the area of Blocks 10-15 be limited by the retaining wall as shown on the attached plan and that the rear portion of these lots become part of the Common Element and that a Conservation Easement be registered on the lands. These items will be addressed through the approval of the Draft Plan of Condominium and Site Plan Approval. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) was also concerned with the requested variances. They felt that any reduction to the rear yard setback would increase the likelihood that a future owner will encroach into the required slope stability setback and the regenerating edge. City staff have consulted with the applicant and their Environmental Engineer in this regard and, as discussed above, the owner has agreed that the retaining wall will be the rear `lot' line of the vacant land units. The Detailed Vegetation Plan indicates that there will be a permanent fence at the top of the retaining wall and that home owners will not have access to the steep slope or the regenerating edge. The regenerating edge, the retaining wall and the fencing will become Common Elements in the plan of condominium, which will ensure that individual home owners will not have access to the area. Finally, through the Site Plan Approval and the approval of the Draft Plan of Condominium, staff and the GRCA will work with the owner to ensure appropriate conservation measures such as fencing are implemented for the remaining blocks backing onto the steep slope. In regard to the reduced setback for the decks, and based on conversations with the applicant, planning staff suggest that a 0.6 metre rear yard setback would be more appropriate than a 0.0 metre setback as requested. This setback should be applied to units 2-3 and 10-15. Both Environmental Planning staff and the GRCA are satisfied that a 0.6 metre rear yard setback for the decks, along with the fence and retaining wall, as described above, will be sufficient to protect both the steep slope and the regenerating edge. Staff feel that these measures will protect the regenerating vegetation and steep slope. However, while the size of the blocks can be decreased, the size of the building envelopes must remain large enough to accommodate a single detached dwelling. Therefore, staff recommend that a 4.5 metre rear yard be considered for Blocks 11, 12 & 13 in addition to Blocks 2, 3, 10, 14 & 15 as originally requested. Staff note that the affected Blocks all have a minimum depth of less than 26.5 m. Therefore, planning staff suggest that the request be amended as follows: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 100 JUNE 19, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-018 tCont'd) To allow all Units in a Vacant Land Plan of Condominium, having a minimum `unit' depth of less that 26.5 m (Blocks 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 as shown on the attached Site Sketch) to have: 1. a minimum rear yard setback of 4.5 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres; and 2. a minimum setback of 0.6 metres for a deck that is not covered or enclosed and exceeds 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level, rather than 4.0 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. Staff feel that the requested variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. This designation allows for a range of housing at an overall low intensity of use. Staff feel that because the requested minor variances will support the development of single detached dwellings the intent of the Official Plan is maintained. Staff feel that the requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The property is currently split into three different zoning categories. The lands nearest Edgewater Crescent and adjacent to the internal roadway are zoned Residential Six Zone with Special Regulation 381 R. The lands further east, and adjacent to the internal roadway are zoned Residential Six Zone with Special Regulation 381 R and 1 R. Special Regulation 381 R allows for single detached dwellings to front a common element roadway and for purposes of this regulation, dwellings constructed on each unit shall comply with the R-6 regulations of the Zoning By-law, with the front lot line deemed to be the shortest lot line abutting the internal private roadway. Special regulation 1 R requires that the owner obtain a permit for the GRCA prior to construction. The lands within 7 metres of the northern and southern steep slopes leading down to Idlewood Creek and the Grand River are zoned Hazard Land Zone (P-3). This zoning protects the required slope stability setback from any development. Finally, the General Regulations of the Zoning By-law require that decks having a height greater than 0.6 metres be setback a minimum of 4 metres from the rear property line. The R-6, 381 R zoning applied to each `unit' requires a 7.5 metre rear yard setback between the building and the `unit' boundary. The purpose of a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to ensure adequate private amenity space for the owners, and to ensure adequate distance separation between the rear of dwellings. Staff note that there are no rear neighbours for any of the units in this development; therefore, maintaining a distance separation to other homes is not a large concern. Staff feel that private amenity space is important for home owners; however, because these units are part of a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium there is some shared open space available on the site. In addition, the dwellings have not yet been constructed and the developer has indicated that the future dwellings will be custom designed to the specifications of purchasers. Therefore, the individuals purchasing homes will be aware of the size of the property and will be able to design the depth of their homes accordingly. In this regard, staff are in receipt of a letter from Laurel View Homes recognizing that the dwellings will need to be designed to accommodate the wide- shallow `units'. The General Regulations of the zoning by-law require a minimum 4.0 metre rear yard setback for decks having a height greater than 0.6 metres. The owner has requested a reduction for this setback to 0.0 metres. Staff have considered this request and due to slope stability issues, and the location of the retaining wall feel that a 0.6 metre rear yard setback to the deck is more appropriate. A 0.6 metre setback will allow COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 101 JUNE 19, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-018 tCont'd) space for the owner to maintain their rear yard, and to access both the deck and the retaining wall/fence for required maintenance. The purpose of a 4.0 metre rear yard setback for a raised deck is to ensure that the privacy of rear neighbours is maintained. Staff note that there are no rear neighbours for these lots whose privacy must be protected and suggest that a deck will help to ensure that home owners will have a more useable rear yard amenity space. The variances are minor and are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The requested variances will help the owner to create a development that is suitable for and will make good use of this irregularly shaped parcel of land. In addition, the variances will help to ensure that the regenerating area along the northern slope and the slope stability setbacks are protected. Staff feel that the reduced rearyard variance will still allow sufficient rear yard amenity space for future owners and the useable amenity space will be further enhanced by allowing the decks within 0.6 metres of the rear property line. Further, there will not be any rear yard neighbours who will be impacted by permitting the reduced setbacks. For these reasons, staff feel that the revised variances are minor and are appropriate for the future use of the lands. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommend that the application be approved to allow all Units in a Vacant Land Plan of Condominium, having a minimum `unit' depth of less that 26.5 m, Blocks 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 to have: 1. a minimum rear yard setback of 4.5 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres; and 2. a minimum setback of 0.6 metres for a deck that is not covered or enclosed and exceeds 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level, rather than 4.0 metres. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority dated June 14, 2007 advising that rear setbacks from the Development Setback line on the Site Plan meet or exceed 7.5 m for Lots 10 through 13. Lot 14 will have a 4.5 m rear yard setback on the west corner and Lot 15 will have a 4.5 m rear yard setback on the both corners. Lots 2 & 3 will have a 6.5 m and 7.5 m setback respectively on one corner of the lot and a 4.5 m setback on the other corner (along the adjacent lot lines between these two units). We also understand that the developer has agreed to install a permanent fence along the top of the retaining wall spanning lots 10 to 14. We recommend the following: • that a permanent fence be extended across the rear of lot/unit 15 as well. • Lots/units 1 through 9 should have a similar permanent fence or bollard demarcation along the rear lot lines to ensure the unit owners do not extend their rear yards into the setback limit. • This fencing or other permanent demarcation (bollards or concrete posts) should be included in the condominium agreement to ensure it remains in place following the transfer of the lots/units. Ms. Barisdale advised that since this application was last before the Committee, she has worked with City staff and the Grand River Conservation Authority to resolve the issues. In consideration of the Grand River Conservation Authority report to this Committee, Ms. Barisdale advised that their requirements are being included in the site plan and condominium plan prepared for this development, and they will be complied with. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 102 JUNE 19, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-018 tCont'd) Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Laurel View Homes requesting permission for all units in this Vacant Land Plan of Condominium, having a minimum unit depth of less than 26.5 m (86.94 ft.)(Blocks 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13 14 & 15 as shown on the sketch attached to the Development & Technical Services Department report, dated June 11, 2007) to have minimum rear yards of 4.5 m (14.76') rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6'), and minimum setback of 0.6 m (1.96') for a deck that is not covered or enclosed and exceeds 0.6 m (1.96') in height above finished grade level, rather than the required 4 m (13.12'), on Block 289, Registered Plan 58M-393 and Part Lot 117, German Company Tract, Edgewater Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall comply with the following requirements of the Grand River Conservation Authority: (a) that a permanent fence shall be extended across the rear of lot/Unit 15; and, (b) that lots/units 1 through 9 should have a similar permanent fence or bollard demarcation along the rear lot lines to ensure the unit owners do not extend their rear yards into the setback limit; and, (c) this fencing or other permanent demarcation (bollards or concrete posts) should be included in the condominium agreement to ensure it remains in place following the transfer of the lots/units. 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. 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 This meeting recessed at 9:50 a.m. and reconvened at 10:20 a.m. with the following members present: Messrs. D. Cybalski, A Head and B. McColl. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2007-024 Applicant: Calvin Strong Property Location: 36 Oneida Place Legal Description: Lot 137, Registered Plan 1447 Appearances: In Support: C. Strong Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 103 JUNE 19, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-024 tCont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct a rear addition to have a rear yard of 6.4m (20.99') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated May 28, 2007 advising that the subject property is located on an internal corner of Oneida Place. The subject property has a frontage of approximately 19.5 metres on Oneida Place, approximately 30.0 metres on the flanking side abutting Oneida Place, an area of approximately 585 square metres. The property is developed with a single detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow a 6.4 metre rear yard setback whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum 7.5 metre rear yard setback. The need for the reduced setback is that the owner wishes to construct an addition to the rear of the dwelling. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The intent of this designation is to accommodate a full range of housing to achieve an overall low intensity. The reduced rear yard setback will permit the owner to build an addition to the existing single-detached dwelling. This Low Rise Residential use will be maintained as will the intent of the Official Plan. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law for the following reasons. The property is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) which requires a 7.5 metre rear yard setback. The purpose of the rear yard setback in the Zoning By-Law is to provide private outdoor amenity space. The remaining rear yard of 6.4 metres coupled with the 7.6 metre side yard abutting a street will continue to provide adequate private outdoor amenity space. It is staff's opinion that the intent of the by-law will be maintained. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The reduced rear yard setback is only 1.1 metres shorter than the minimum rear yard setback requirement. This minor reduction in setback will not have a significant visual impact on the neighbourhood, and as discussed above, adequate private amenity space will be maintained. The variance is appropriate development and use of the subject lands for the following reasons. First, the proposed 6.4 metre rear yard setback is considered appropriate because the rear yard will continue to function as a rear yard; second, there will be no negative impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood; and third, sufficient outdoor amenity space is maintained. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated May 29, 2007, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Strong advised that he has a 1200 sq. ft. house and has a lot of land at the rear. He advised that he could construct an addition at the side of the house but it would create an odd appearance. He stated that he would rather construct an addition to his home than have to move to get the size of home he requires. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Calvin Strong requesting permission to construct a rear addition to have a rear yard of 6.4m (20.99') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 137, Registered Plan 1447, 36 Oneida Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 104 JUNE 19, 2007 1. Submission No.: A 2007-024 tCont'd) 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. 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 2. Submission No.: A 2007-025 Applicant: Barbara Gubler Property Location: 230 Tilt Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 5, Registered Plan 58R-4316, Parts 1 & 2, Biehns Tract Appearances: In Support: B. Gubler Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct an addition with a 2.33m (7.644') side yard rather than the required 7.5m (24.6') The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 12, 2007 advising that the subject property is approximately 7.49 hectares in area and is located west of the intersection of Tilt Drive and Apple Ridge Drive in a rural area at the south end of Kitchener. The property is mainly comprised of open space and forest, is used for agricultural purposes, and contains a single detached house. The adjacent property is similar in character and contains a single detached house, located approximately 7 metres south of the subject house. The portion of the property containing the house is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Agricultural (A-1) in the Zoning By-law. A portion of the property is the subject of a subdivision application (application number 30T-04209) that proposes a maximum of 47 single detached units on a 3.64 hectare parcel of land. In order to implement the subdivision, the owner has also applied for a zone change application (application number ZC/04/28/T/DR) to change the zoning from A-1 to Residential Three Zone (R-3), Residential Four Zone (R-4), Residential Six Zone (R-6), Open Space Zone (P-2) and Hazard Land Zone (P-3). These applications are planned to be discussed at the June 18, 2007 Development and Technical Services Committee meeting. Council would normally act on the recommendation of staff at the following Council Meeting to be held June 25, 2007. Planning staff are in support of both applications. Although the single detached house is a permitted use in the A-1 Zone, the property is considered to be legal non-conforming, due to the following zoning by-law deficiencies: • Required minimum side yard setback: 7.5 m; current: 4.27 m; proposed: 2.33 m • Required minimum lot area: 0.4 ha -1.2 ha; proposed: 7.48 ha • Required minimum lot width: 60.Om; proposed: approximately 51 m COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 105 JUNE 19, 2007 2. Submission No.: A 2007-025 tCont'd) The owner is proposing to build a 4.67 metre by 6.50 metre master bedroom addition onto the existing single detached house with a height of 5.08 metres. The addition would encroach into the existing rear yard and legal non-conforming side yard. The owner has applied for permission under Section 45(2)(a)(i) of the Planning Act in order to extend the single detached dwelling on a legal non-conforming lot. It should be noted that the proposed subdivision and zone change would have the effect of recognizing the existing house and ensuring that the resultant lot would comply with the Zoning By-law. The owner is applying to the Committee of Adjustment in order to facilitate the timing of the construction of the addition. The Committee of Adjustment procedure to permit the addition would take less time than the subdivision/zone change procedure to achieve the same effect. The Committee should consider the following questions when deciding on the subject application: 1. Does the proposal perpetuate the legal non-conformity of the property, and if so, would there be a negative impact? Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposal does perpetuate the legal non-conformity of the property since the proposal would increase the size usability of the existing house; however, staff advise that the impact would be minor considering the relatively small size of the proposed addition compared to the large area of the property. 2. Does the proposal represent good planning? Staff have taken considerable time in reviewing the subdivision and zone change application for this property and advise that the subject proposal would not compromise the future development of the property. The property would be recognized as part of the zone change application and would be zoned R-3, should the application be approved. In addition, provision has been be made for adequate street frontage for the proposed road as part of the subdivision application. In addition, even though the property is zoned A-1, the property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan, meaning that at some point the property is intended to be rezoned to low rise residential use, which the proposal represents. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal does represent good planning. 3. Does the proposal have a negative impact on surrounding properties? Although the proposal would further frustrate the non-conformity of the side yard setback (required setback: 7.5m, current setback: 4.27m, proposed setback 2.33m), staff advise that this is not an issue considering the relative size of the addition when compared to the size of the subject and adjacent properties. The lot width and lot area deficiencies should not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties for the same reason. In addition, the proposed zoning of the subject and adjacent property is R-3, which requires a 1.2 metre side yard setback for single detached houses. Currently, the house on the adjacent lot has a side yard setback of approximately 3 metres, while the subject house has a side yard setback of 2.33 metres. Should the proposed zoning be approved, the subject house would comply with the Zoning By-law. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommend that the application be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated May 29, 2007, advising they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 106 JUNE 19, 2007 2. Submission No.: A 2007-025 tCont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated June 6, 2007, advising they have no concerns with this application; however, the property contains steep slopes and a portion of the Strasburg Wetland Complex, a Provincially Significant Wetland. Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation). Ms. Gubler advised that she is in agreement with the staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Barbara Gubler requesting permission to expand a legal non- conforming single family dwelling by constructing an addition to have a side yard of 2.33 m (7.644') rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6') on Part Lot 5, Biehn's Tract, being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-4316, 230 Tilt Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee: 1. The variances requested 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 Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. 4. That the proposal in this application represents good planning. 5. That the approval of this application does not negatively impact the surrounding properties. 6. That approval of this application complies with the Official Plan designation of this property as "Low Rise Residential". Carried 3. Submission No.: A 2007-026 Applicant: 1210899 Ontario Ltd. Property Location: 156-166 Duke Street West Legal Description: Lot 159, Part Lots 158 & 160, Registered Plan 374 Appearances: In Support: R. Hardie Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests legalization of off-street parking located 2.42m (7.93') from the lot line along Duke Street rather than the required 3m (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 12, 2007 advising that the subject property is located on the north side of Duke St. W. between Water St. N. and College St. It is zoned D-5 (Commercial Residential) and the Official Plan designation is Commercial Residential. The use as a multiple dwelling is permitted. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 107 JUNE 19, 2007 3. Submission No.: A 2007-026 tCont'd) The applicant is requesting permission to legalize the off-street parking spaces to be located 2.42 metres (7.93 ft) from the lot line abutting Duke St. rather than the required 3 metre (9.84 ft) setback for parking areas. In regards to the variance staff has considered the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The 3 metre setback requirement for parking spaces is to provide a landscaped area between the front lot line and parking areas in order to buffer the effect of vehicles parked on the property. The existing parking spaces are located 2.42 metres from the lot line abutting the street which still provides for landscaping. The variance could be considered minor in nature for the following reason. The requested reduction of 0.58 metres is not onerous and still provides for landscaping as noted above. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reason. The location of the parking spaces has existed for some time and there has been no concerns received. The landscaped area between the lot line and parking area is landscaped with plantings and looks aesthetically appropriate for the residential use of the lands. Staff notes that the owner is currently in the process of obtaining Site Plan approval for the remaining portions of the parking lot. A site visit has determined that the parking area has not yet been developed to meet regulations of Site Plan. This would include the garbage bin not in its proper location, but located in spaces 18 and 19 and a garbage enclosure that is proposed to be relocated obstructing access to spaces 19 and 20, this has resulted in a parking deficiency at this time. Therefore staff would like it noted that this minor variance approval does not legalize any other existing parking or site plan situation on site. Based on the above comments, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated May 29, 2007, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Hardie advised that he is in support of the recommendation in the Development and Technical Services Department report. He advised that there was a previous site plan for this property, and subsequently a new survey has been prepared. Based on the new survey, a new site plan is being prepared; however, approval of this application is required before the site plan can be approved. He also advised that the garbage container will be moved from parking spaces 20 & 21 and placed on the concrete pad in front of parking space number 18. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 1210899 Ontario Ltd. requesting legalization of off-street parking located 2.42m (7.93') from the lot line along Duke Street rather than the required 3m (9.84'), on Lot 159, Part Lots 158 & 160, Registered Plan 374, 156-166 Duke Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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 ADJUSTMENT 108 JUNE 19, 2007 3. Submission No.: A 2007-026 tCont'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 4. Submission No.: A 2007-031 Applicant: Vahid Moosavi Property Location: 408 Hearthwood Drive Legal Description: Lot 38, Registered Plan 58M-135 Appearances: In Support: V. Moosavi Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct a deck, to have a height of 1.5m (4.92'), to have a rear yard of 1.5m (4.92') rather than the required 4m (13.12'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated May 24, 2007 advising that the subject property is located on the north side of Hearthwood Drive, between Evenstone Avenue and Hearthwood Crescent. The property, which backs onto a public school, is zoned Residential Three (R-3) and is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan. The owner intends to extend the existing deck in the rear yard by building an additional one on site. The reasons for this application stem from the unique topography of the subject property. The applicant's backyard is on a slope and is useless and difficult to use for the family's child. The existing deck allows for some recreational space, but is inadequate. Extension of the deck would allow for better use of the site. The governing regulations that dictate terms in this situation come from Zoning By- Law 85-1 of the City of Kitchener. Specifically, section 5.6A.4.c, states that terraces, porches and decks must be "set back a minimum of 4.0 metres from a rear lot line provided they are not covered or enclosed and exceed 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level". The applicant's plans would violate these restrictions. As such, the applicant is requesting two minor variances to allow the construction of an extension to his existing deck. Firstly, relief from the by-law is requested in regards to the minimum setback from a rear lot line from 4.0 metres to the proposed 1.5 metres. Secondly, relief is also sought from the maximum permitted height above finished grade level from 0.6 metres to the proposed 1.5 metres height. The owner has not applied previously for a minor variance in respect to this property. The purpose of the regulations set out in the Zoning By-Law derives from privacy issues. By limiting the extent of a deck in regards to the rear yard line, concerns of users from one site overlooking users of another site are addressed. The maximum height allowed from a finished grade level of 0.6 metres further reinforces this. In requesting a reduction of this minimum setback of 4.0 metres to 1.5 metres, and of maximum height from 0.6 metres to 1.5 metres, Planning staff must look to the four tests of minor variances to determine the appropriateness of this application. They are, (1) be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure; (2) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, (3) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Municipal Plan and lastly, (4) be minor. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 109 JUNE 19, 2007 4. Submission No.: A 2007-031 tCont'd) The property contains a dwelling located in an R-3 Zone and designated as Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan. As a single detached dwelling, this land and building are suitable for a family to live in. Since the rear yard contains a steep slope which makes enjoyment of said yard difficult to use, extending a deck so as to increase recreational area for children would be appropriate. Therefore, the construction of such a deck would be appropriate to the land, building and structure. Privacy concerns formed the basis of the Zoning By-Law regulations in regards to the minimum setback and maximum height allowed for a deck. However, since the rear yard of the applicant's property faces onto a greenfield of a school, privacy issues are not nearly as applicable due to the transient use of the school playground. Thirdly, the Municipal Plan states in its objectives of the general policies plan, Section 1: Housing, that "the City will consider not only the characteristics of housing which might address those needs, but also the appropriateness and quality of the community settings in which housing is being delivered," including supporting "the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing stock", and supporting "a high quality of life in residential neighbourhoods". Construction of a deck to improve quality of life would be in keeping with the Municipal Plan. Lastly, the question of whether this variance is minor is rather a subjective one. Staff takes the stance that determining whether something is "minor" can be accomplished through the examination of its context and its potential impacts on others and other nearby sites. As the proposed variances of 1.5 metres height from 0.6 metres and 1.5 metres setback from 4.0 metres pose relatively little effect on surrounding neighbours, notably the school directly opposite of the applicant's property, such an application can be considered to be minor and appropriate in this context. Privacy concerns from the viewpoint of the school are largely of no great consequence, and this proposed deck extension does not negatively impact on surrounding uses. Thus, based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommend that the application be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated May 29, 2007, advising they have no concerns with this application. Upon questioning, it was noted by staff that this raised deck will not have an adverse impact on the neighbours. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Vahid Moosavi requesting permission to construct a deck, to have a height of 1.5m (4.92') rather than the permitted 0.6 m (2'), to have a rear yard of 1.5m (4.92') rather than the required 4m (13.12'), on Lot 38, Registered Plan 58M- 135, 408 Hearthwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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. 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 110 JUNE 19, 2007 5. Submission No.: A 2007-032 Applicant: George Gray/2127501 Ontario Corporation Property Location: 1321 King Street East Legal Description: Lot 13. Registered Plan 258 Appearances: In Support: G. Gray Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct a 3 unit townhouse building on a lot having a width of 10.5m (34.44') rather than the required 16m (52.49'); to have a 1.2m (3.93') set back from Sheldon Avenue rather than the required 3m (9.84'); a set back from King Street of Om rather than the required 3m (9.84'); a side yard of 1.9m (6.23') rather than the required 3m (9.84'); and, permission to locate parking Om from the lot line along King Street East rather than the required 3m (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 12, 2007 advising that the subject property is located at the southeast corner of King Street East and Sheldon Avenue South. Designated to be within the King Street East Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) in the Municipal Plan, the property is currently zoned Commercial Residential Four (CR-4), with the potential of being re-zoned as Mixed Use Three (MU-3) later this year. The owner intends to proceed with the development of three townhouse units on the subject land prior to approval of the MUC Zoning. However, when the new zoning takes effect, all of the variances will be legalized. The applicant is requesting the following minor variances: 1. a 10.54 metre lot width for a multiple dwelling whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum 16 metre lot width; 2. a 1.2 metre front yard setback rather than 3 metres required by Zoning By-law 85-1 3. a 0 metre side yard setback from a street whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a 3 metres side yard abutting a street 4. a 2 metre side yard setback rather than 3 metres required by Zoning By-law 85-1 5. 0 metre setback for off-street parking from a street line whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a 3 metre setback In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan for the following reasons. The intent of the Mixed Use Corridor designation is to promote intensive, transit- supportive and pedestrian-oriented developments with a high standard of urban design. Mixed Use Corridors have strong pedestrian linkages with surrounding areas. To strengthen these linkages, new development is encouraged to orient a portion of the building mass to the street while limiting vehicular parking between the building fagade and the street. Staff feel that the proposed built form of the multiple dwelling is compact and pedestrian-oriented. The 2-storey building with main fagade and entrances oriented to King Street will increase on-street activities and pedestrian linkages to transit services. Allowing the building to be located closer to the streets will achieve these objectives. The proposed reduction in lot width, front yard, side yard, and parking setback will help this compact infill development intensify the area, thereby meeting COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 111 JUNE 19, 2007 5. Submission No.: A 2007-032 tCont'd) the intent of the Municipal Plan. An aesthetic wall to be built between the off-street parking and the sidewalk along King Street will beautify the streetscape and provide an urban solution to the reduced setback provision for off-street parking. Similarly, the proposed landscaped area between the property and King Street will help support a higher level of urban design. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. As previously mentioned, the City is in the process of implementing the Municipal Plan Policies by imposing a more intensive zoning along the Mixed Use Corridors. It is intended to accommodate higher density development and to locate properties on major transit routes closer to the right-of-way. With the potential of being designated as High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-3), the current development would be subject to largely-reduced front yard and side yard setback requirements that promote a more compact and transit supportive built form. The intent of the current setback requirements of front yard is to ensure adequate distance between buildings and the public right-of-way and to provide sufficient space for landscaping. Technically, this property fronts onto Sheldon Street. However, since the building is oriented toward King Street, the front yard will function as a side yard. Staff feel that the reduction of front yard from 3 metres to 1.2 metres, while still maintaining appropriate space for landscaping, will support the rationale of the MUC zoning in having buildings fronting closer to the streets. The applicant also requested a reduced side yard and parking abutting the street from 3 metres to 0 metre. The intent of a 3-metre setback between a building and the street as well as between off-street parking and the street is to ensure adequate spaces for landscaping. As shown on the proposed site plan, the owner agreed to provide enhanced landscaping along the entire portion of King Street's boulevard as a soft surface buffer. Furthermore, the aesthetic wall previously mentioned will be installed to help screen the visual impact of the off-street parking on the east portion of the site. Planning Staff are of the opinion that these measures will address the impact of the reduced landscaped buffer while enhancing pedestrian walking experience. Therefore, together with the aim of orienting the building closer to the main street under MUC policies, staff feel that the reduction of side yard and parking abutting the street supports the zoning intents. With regard to the variance on the reduction of lot width, the intent of having a 16- metre requirement is to ensure that adequate space is provided for commercial or residential uses on the subject land. Typically, permitted uses in CR-4 zone require more space. However, less space is necessary to accommodate the current use because of the orientation of the proposed building on the lot. Staff are of the opinion that the current lot dimension is sufficient to accommodate the proposed multiple dwelling and therefore meeting zoning's rationale. Moreover, visibility concerns formed the basis of this regulation as well. The site plan shows that a 7.5-metre visibility triangle is retained at the intersection of King Street East and Sheldon Ave South, and that the corner is landscaped. Therefore, this will maintain the visibility at the intersection and meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. With respect to the request for the relief on side yard setback, a 3-metre setback is required for buildings with building height exceeding 10.5 metres whereas 1.2 metres is needed for those with height below 10.5 metres. This is intended to provide sufficient separation between high properties. In this case, the proposed dwelling is 11.2 metres high, which is slightly above the former requirement. Therefore, staff are of the opinion that the 2-metre side yard setback provided should appropriately accommodate the additional height. Moreover, private fencing of 1.8 metres high and landscaping will be provided between the two lots to lessen the visual impact. Staff feel that these measures will sufficiently provide necessary separation between adjacent lots, thereby meeting the intent of Zoning By-law. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 112 JUNE 19, 2007 5. Submission No.: A 2007-032 tCont'd) The variances are minor for the following reasons. The main consideration in determining whether the variance is minor is whether the variance will have a greater than minor adverse impact on the adjacent properties. Staff feel that it will have positive effect on the adjacent properties and help facilitate human-scale and transit supportive development. Additionally, the proposed use is compatible with other residential uses in the proximity of the subject land. As such, the adverse impact to the surrounding area is minor. Staff feel that the variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variance will facilitate pedestrian scale development and on-street activities. It will also allow expansion of residential uses within the neighbourhood which ought to bring in more commercial redevelopment opportunities in the Mixed Use Corridor. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommend that the application be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated May 29, 2007, advising this property is also the subject of Site Plan Application SP 07/42/K/KA. All concerns regarding this site will be addressed during site plan review. Mr. Parent advised that Transportation Planning staff have work closely with the City's Urban Design Planner for several months on this project. He stated this design integrates well with the site, and any concerns with this development have been addressed through site plan control. Further, the site plan before this Committee is the one supported by staff. Mr. Parent also noted that this development will comply with the proposed new zoning by-law. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of George Gray/2127501 Ontario Corporation requesting permission to construct a 3 unit townhouse building on a lot having a width of 10.5m (34.44') rather than the required 16m (52.49'); to have a 1.2m (3.93') set back from Sheldon Avenue rather than the required 3m (9.84'); a set back from King Street of Om rather than the required 3m (9.84'); a side yard of 1.9m (6.23') rather than the required 3m (9.84'); and, permission to locate parking Om from the lot line along King Street East rather than the required 3m (9.84'), on Lot 13, Registered Plan 258, 1321 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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. 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 6. Submission No.: A 2007-033 Applicant: Hart Falkenberg Property Location: 201 Bruce Street Legal Description: Lot 59, Registered Plan 773 Appearances: In Support: H. Falkenberg W. Krohn Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 113 JUNE 19, 2007 6. Submission No.: A 2007-033 tCont'd) Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct a second storey rear addition to have a rear yard of 5.47m (17.94') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 3, 2007, advising that the subject property is located on the west side of Bruce Street between Edinburg Road and Bournemouth Avenue in the Central Frederick neighbourhood. The subject property is developed with a triplex and the surrounding land use is mixed residential. The subject lands are zoned Residential Five (R-5) in By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to build an addition to the second storey unit only that will cantilever over the existing parking area located in the rear yard. As a result, the applicant is requesting rear yard setback relief of 5.5m at the shortest point as opposed to the required setback of 7.5m stipulated under the R-5 zoning. The purpose of the addition will be to provide additional living area for the owner of the building, who resides in the second unit. As a result, Site Plan Approval is not required as the addition will not increase the usability of the site. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The proposal meets the intent of the Official Plan as the subject property is designated Low Rise Residential and the use of the property as a triplex is consistent with this designation. In addition, the Official Plan recognizes the need and desire of residents who wish to adapt their housing needs that change over time. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of the 7.5m rear yard setback is to provide outdoor amenity space. It is Staff's opinion that 5.5m of rear yard space still provides for an outdoor amenity space especially given that the addition will be cantilevered over top of the existing parking area. Therefore, the impact to the outdoor amenity space will be minimal given the existing situation. The variance is considered minor in nature as there will be adequate separation from the proposed addition to abutting residential property. There may, however, be some visual impact from proposed bedroom windows that will overlook the rear yard of the abutting property. To mitigate the impact, Planning staff are recommending that the applicant prepare and implement a landscape plan to the Department's satisfaction, which proposes to provide a vegetation screen starting from southeast corner of the garage and running along the rear property line. Planning staff are confident that the combination of a 5.5m setback and screening will be adequate to address any resulting visual impact. Traffic staff has expressed a concern with respect to vehicles being able to exit the property in a forward motion. To address this concern, Planning staff are recommending that the owner submit a plan demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Transportation staff, that vehicles can exit the site in a forward motion. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that application A2007-033 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner submit a Landscape Plan illustrating vegetation screening along the rear property line and receive approval from the Director of Planning. The Owner agrees to implement the said Plan within one year of receiving a building permit. 2. That the Owner submit a Parking Plan demonstrating that vehicles can exit the site in a forward motion to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Planning. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 114 JUNE 19, 2007 6. Submission No.: A 2007-033 tCont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated May 29, 2007, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Falkenberg questioned who they are to deal with to satisfy the conditions recommended by staff, and was advised to contact the Planning Division with respect to condition no. 1, and the Transportation Planning Division with respect to condition no. 2. The Chair was advised that site plan control is not required for this development; however, all planning concerns can be addressed through the landscaping plan and parking plan. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Hart Falkenberg requesting permission to construct a second storey rear addition to have a rear yard of 5.47m (17.94') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 59, Registered Plan 773, 201 Bruce Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner submit a Landscape Plan illustrating vegetation screening along the rear property line, as well as all existing surface features, and receive approval from the Director of Planning. The Owner agrees to implement the said Plan within one year of receiving a building permit. 2. That the Owner submit a Parking Plan demonstrating that vehicles can exit the site in a forward motion to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Planning. 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. 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 7. Submission No.: A 2007-034 Applicant: Ontrea Inc. Property Location: 2960 Kingsway Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 962, Part Lots 10 & 14, Registered Plan 961, being Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 22, 24 & 25, 58R-1539 Appearances: In Support: G. Scheels Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to locate off- street parking 1.5m (4.92') from the lot line abutting Highway 8 rather than the required 3m (9.84'). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 115 JUNE 19, 2007 7. Submission No.: A 2007-034 tCont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated May 29, 2007 advising that the subject property is located on a large parcel of land south of Kingsway Drive, bordered to the east by the Highway 7/8 off-ramp, to the west by Wilson Avenue and to the south by Fairway Road South. The property is zoned Regional Shopping Centre Zone (C-5), with special provision 16R and is designated as Primary Node in the Municipal Plan. The building that exists on the site consists of part of the Fairview Park Shopping Mall, a one storied commercial property that has existed as a shopping centre for the last 35 years and acts in "both acity-wide and a regional orientation and will provide for the largest mix and concentration of employment, tourism, housing and cultural uses" as defined by the Primary Node designation in Kitchener's Municipal Plan. The building is zoned C-5 or Regional Shopping Centre which permits retail that exists on the site. Special provision 16R states that "the maximum gross leasable commercial space permitted shall be 72,000.0 square metres." The applicant has requested a minor variance regarding the regulations for off-street parking as set out in Zoning By-Law 85-1, section 6.1.1.1 a.) iv). It stipulates that "unless otherwise regulated herein, parking spaces for motor vehicles or major recreational equipment, displayed for sale or lease and aisles giving direct access to abutting parking spaces, excluding driveways or portions thereof extending directly from the street, shall not be located within 3.0 metres of a street line." The setback that currently exists on the site is 0 metres due to the fact that Fairview Park Mall developed prior to this regulation. Now that the applicant is upgrading the parking lots at Fairview Park Mall, the applicant must act in accordance with the 3 metre setback as set out in the by-law. However, it has been argued that "the provision of a full 3 metre setback at this location will have a significant impact on the overall parking supply for the development." Further, a 3 metre setback is argued to be "not necessary to provide a visual or physical barrier from the traveled portion of the Highway 7/8 ramp and Fairway Road at this location given the large depth of the boulevard along the ramp and, secondly, the elevation of the ramp above the parking lot." The purpose for this buffer is multifold. Firstly, it provides a visual separation between the property in question and the street. Secondly, this visual barrier also acts as a physical one. Further, it acts as an area for landscaping. In requesting a reduction of this buffer zone from 3.0 metres to 1.5 metres, Planning staff must look to the four tests of minor variances to determine the appropriateness of this application. They are, (1) be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure; (2) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, (3) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and lastly, (4) be minor. Firstly, the buffer acts as a separation from the lot and street traffic. Parking is a crucial necessity at this site due to its retail commercial use. Significantly reducing the number of parking spaces would have a negative impact on the site's use. Therefore, a proposed 1.5 metre buffer as opposed to 3 metre buffer would be more appropriate to the land, building and structure. The intent of the Zoning By-Law is to provide for a visual and physical barrier as well as an area for landscaping separating the site and the street. Given that there is a large depth in the boulevard along the Highway 7/8 ramp already, a reduction in requirements from 3 metres to 1.5 metres is not significant. The existing edge is sufficient. In regards to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, the site in question is considered as Primary Node, which is mentioned in the Plan to "require adequate vehicle parking associated with all new development." COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 116 JUNE 19, 2007 7. Submission No.: A 2007-034 tCont'd) Lastly, the question of whether this variance is minor is rather a subjective one. Staff takes the stance that determining whether something is "minor" can be accomplished through the examination of its context and its potential impacts on others and other nearby sites. As the proposed 1.5 metre buffer borders solely the Highway 7/8 ramp, which already has deep setbacks of, in many instances, 20 metres or greater, a reduction from a 3 metre requirement to a provided 1.5 metre setback can be seen to be as minor and of no great consequence. As such, Planning staff recommends that this application for a minor variance to the buffer be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated May 29, 2007, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Ministry of Transportation, dated June 7, 2007, advising they will require a current site plan for this proposal. The following outlines requirements and conditions of approval that must be satisfied before the Ministry will issue permits for grading/construction of the parking lot and the building expansion: 1. The minimum setback distance from the future right-of-way to the parking lot is 1.5 m, as previously discussed with the developer. 2. The minimum setback distance from the future right-of-way to the building is 14 m. 3. The minimum setback distance from the future right-of-way to the nearest edge of the Kingsway Drive access lane is 4 m. If this lane is absolutely necessary to the business the setback distance should be increased to a minimum of 8 m as any further expansion of the highway in the future could result in the loss of this lane. 4. To ensure that stormwater runoff from this property does not affect our highway drainage system or right-of-way, we require the owner(s) to submit a stormwater management report along with grading/drainage plans for the proposed development for our review and approval as a condition of our permit approvals. 5. Prior to final approval, the owner shall submit an illumination plan indicating the intended treatment of the site lighting glare and any vehicle headlight glare from traffic on the site directed towards Highway 8. 6. A clause must be included in the site plan agreement, and registered on title, whereby the owner acknowledges that future highway expansion may result in the loss of parking spaces and the Kingsway Drive access lane and understands and agrees that the MTO will not compensate the owner for such a loss. Mr. Scheels advised that this Mall was first constructed in the 1960's or 1970's, before the current zoning requirements. As the Mall expands and renovates, they are trying to bring this property into compliance with the current requirements, and they are making incremental improvements at this time. The issue of the parking set-backs has arisen during the most recent site plan process. With respect to the area around the Highway 8 ramp, Mr. Scheels advised that they currently have a Om setback for the parking and they are proposing to provide 1.5 m. There is quite a wide setback from the paved portion of the ramp and Fairway Road, and in some areas of the parking lot there is a 3 m setback. They will also be working with Transportation Planning staff to develop a better solution with organizing cars. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 117 JUNE 19, 2007 7. Submission No.: A 2007-034 tCont'd) With respect to the correspondence received from the Ministry of Transportation, Mr. Scheels advised the property owner had an extensive discussion with the Ministry approximately 2-3 years ago, and there is an agreement in this regard registered on title. These current comments from the Ministry look like the ones received from them 3 years ago. He noted that there will not be any new building and no change in grading will be taking place. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that all site plans will be submitted to the Ministry of Transportation for their review. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Ontrea Inc. requesting permission to locate off-street parking 1.5m (4.92') from the lot line abutting Highway 8 rather than the required 3m (9.84'), on Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 962, Part Lots 10 & 14, Registered Plan 961, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 22, 24 & 25, 58R-1539, 2960 Kingsway Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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. 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 8. Submission No.: A 2007-035 Applicant: Ontrea Inc. Property Location: 2960 Kingsway Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 962, Part Lots 10 & 14, Registered Plan 961, being Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 22, 24 & 25, 58R-1539 Appearances: In Support: G. Scheels Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to locate off- street parking Om from Kingsway Drive rather than the required 3m (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated May 29, 2007 advising that the subject property is located on a large parcel of land south of Kingsway Drive, bordered to the east by the Highway 7/8 off-ramp, to the west by Wilson Avenue and to the south by Fairway Road South. The property is zoned Regional Shopping Centre Zone (C-5), with special provision 16R and is designated as Primary Node in the Municipal Plan. The building that exists on the site consists of part of the Fairview Park Shopping Mall, a one storied commercial property that has existed as a shopping centre for the last 35 years and acts in "both acity-wide and a regional orientation and will provide for the largest mix and concentration of employment, tourism, housing and cultural uses" as defined by the Primary Node designation in Kitchener's Municipal Plan. The COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 118 JUNE 19, 2007 8. Submission No.: A 2007-035 tCont'd) building is zoned C-5 or Regional Shopping Centre which permits retail that exists on the site. Special provision 16R states that "the maximum gross leasable commercial space permitted shall be 72,000.0 square metres." The applicant has requested for a minor variance regarding the regulations on off- street parking as set out in Zoning By-Law 85-1, section 6.1.1.1 a.) iv). It stipulates that "unless otherwise regulated herein, parking spaces for motor vehicles or major recreational equipment, displayed for sale or lease and aisles giving direct access to abutting parking spaces, excluding driveways or portions thereof extending directly from the street, shall not be located within 3.0 metres of a street line." The applicant is requesting a variance from the required 3 metre buffer to one that is 0 metres along a section of Kingsway Drive opposite of the existing Wal-Mart. Due to the fact that Fairview Park Mall was developed prior to this regulation, the current existing buffer is 0 metres. Now that the applicant is upgrading the parking lots at Fairview Park Mall, the applicant must act in accordance with the 3 metre setback as set out in the by-law. However, compliance with the by-law would be difficult since it would eliminate parking, making proper operation of parking and of the mall less than optimal. The purpose for this 3 metre buffer is multifold. Firstly, it provides a visual separation between the property in question and the street. Secondly, this visual barrier also acts as a physical one. Further, it acts as an area for landscaping. In requesting a reduction of this buffer zone from 3.0 metres to 0 metres, Planning staff must look to the four tests of minor variances to determine the appropriateness of this application. They are, (1) be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure; (2) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, (3) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and lastly, (4) be minor. Firstly, the buffer acts as a separation from the lot and street traffic. Parking is a crucial necessity at this site due to its retail commercial use. Significantly reducing the number of parking spaces would have a negative impact on the site's use. Therefore, a proposed 0 metre buffer as opposed to 3 metre buffer would be more appropriate to the land, building and structure. The intent of the Zoning By-Law is to provide for a visual and physical barrier as well as an area for landscaping separating the site and the street. This proposed variance meets this criterion by the fact that Kingsway Drive is a relatively minor access street to Fairview Park Mall, and modifications to the buffer site are tempered by the parking islands at the end of the stalls at each row. In regards to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, the site in question is considered as Primary Node, which is mentioned in the Plan to "require adequate vehicle parking associated with all new development. However consideration may be given to reduced parking requirements or shared parking arrangements where residential units are proposed within a large mixed use development or where transit facilities are provided on-site or nearby." This is the case at Fairview Park Mall where there is an existing bus terminal that services nearby areas. Lastly, the question of whether this variance is minor is rather a subjective one. Staff takes the stance that determining whether something is "minor" can be accomplished through the examination of its context and its potential impacts on others and other nearby sites. As the proposed 0 metre buffer borders Kingsway Drive, which acts as a secondary road for access into Fairview Park Mall, a reduction from a 3 metre requirement to a provided 0 metre setback is not prominent. The majority of users enter from Wilson Avenue and Fairway Road S. from the highway, while the entrance on Kingsway Drive is relegated to an unsignalled left turn lane. As such, the effect of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 119 JUNE 19, 2007 8. Submission No.: A 2007-035 tCont'd reducing the buffer can be seen to be as minor and of no great consequence. Further, the addition of islands at the end of parking stalls during the site plan approval process provides added landscaping to the parking lot, making it more amenable for pedestrians. These can all be seen in a positive light which makes up for the lack of the landscaping buffer along Kingsway Drive. As such, Planning staff recommends that this application for a minor variance to the buffer to be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated May 29, 2007, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Ministry of Transportation, dated June 11, 2007, advising that entrance, building/land use and sign permits are required from the Ministry of Transportation before any grading/construction commences. The ministry has no concern with the setback requirements along Kingsway Drive. The owner should be aware, however, that for the portion of their property adjacent to Highway 8 ministry setbacks govern. They will not permit a 0 m setback along the highway frontage. Mr. Scheels advised that most of the Kingsway frontage has a 3m parking setback, and when the Wal-Mart Store is redeveloped, the parking lot will be redeveloped with a 3m setback. The current application will allow for repaving the existing parking lot. Further, the owner is continuing to pursue redevelopment in this area of the property, but this future development is not likely to take place for the next 5 to 10 years. As the mall intensifies there will probably be a need for a parking structure, and when there is a change in this area of the property, they will provide the required landscape strip. The Committee considered the imposition of a condition that in the event that the approved site plan is to be amended, that the owner be required to provide the 3 m landscape strip. Mr. Parent commented that staff are in support of the current application; however, should any major change come forward for this property, the City will require the 3 m landscaped strip, and the Region will require a sidewalk. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Ontrea Inc. requesting permission to locate off-street parking Om from the lot line along Kingsway Drive rather than the required 3m (9.84'), on Part Lots 10 & 14, Plan 961 and Part Lot 4, Plan 962, being Parts 1-6, Plan 58R-1539, except Part 1, Plan 58R-14450, 2960 Kingsway Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That should major site improvements be contemplated in the future, the subject lands shall be subject to full site plan approval, including the provision of 3 m (9.84 ft.) landscape strips along Kingsway Drive. 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. 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 120 JUNE 19, 2007 CONSENTS 1. Submission No.: B 2007-016 Applicant: McCrory Associates Ltd. Property Location: 1191 Weber Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 267 Appearances: In Support: S. McCrory Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to give an easement over a parcel of land having a width on Weber Street East of 20.117m (66'), a depth of 71.826m (235.64'), and an area of 1445 sq. m. (15,554.35 sq. ft.), for access to the abutting property. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 5, 2007, advising that the subject land is located at 1191 Weber St. E. The land is designated Mixed Use Node in the City's Official Plan, and is zoned Service Commercial Zone (C-6) with Special Use Provision 3U which permits certain types of manufacturing and 3350 which permits retail to a maximum of 5,000 m2. The site currently contains a vacant building which was considered as a "Phase 2" of a larger plaza complex and associated parking which received Site Plan approval in 2005. The first phase of the plaza has been constructed on neighbouring lands (1241 Weber St E) and currently contains a large drug store, a gas station, a car wash, adrive-thru restaurant and other arterial commercial uses. The owner of the subject lands has now applied for Site Plan Approval for the subject lands, and plans to construct a Mr. Lube near Weber St. E., and will retain the existing building (currently vacant). In 2005 when the first Site Plan was approved, Arlington Blvd. separated the subject lands from the neighbouring plaza; however Arlington Blvd. was closed and sold in order to allow the owner to create one large plaza. At the time, planning staff assumed that 1191 and 1241 Weber St E would merge on title and become one property, but for various reasons, the owner has chosen to keep the lands as two separate properties, and the closed portion of Arlington Boulevard was added to 1191 Weber St. E. Both the subject lands and the adjacent plaza currently have access to Weber St. E. However, while the site was originally planned as a contiguous plaza, technically, one of the entrances that provides access to 1241 Weber St E is located on 1191 Weber St. E. This entrance is part of the Fire Route and is necessary for proper site circulation on 1241 Weber St. E. For this reason, the owner of 1191 Weber St. E. is requesting aright-of-way (shown as Part 2 on the applicant's plan) for overland vehicular access, in favour of 1241 Weber St E, from Weber Street East to the end of the driveway at the rear of the property. Upon close examination of the reference plan and the Site Plan, as submitted with the application, planning staff recommend that the width of the proposed right-of-way be narrowed to the width of the driveway and those parking spaces gaining direct access from the driveway. As such staff recommend that the owner be required to submit a revised reference plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, showing a revised the right-of-way, having a width of approximately 16.4 metres, extending from the property line dividing the 1191 & 1241 Weber St. E. to the western edge of parking spaces 10-12 and 27-37 (as shown on the Site Plan submitted with the application), and having a length of approximately 76.5 metres, extending south from Weber St E to the end of parking space 37 (the full length of Part 2 of the attached reference plan). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 121 JUNE 19, 2007 1. Submission No.: B 2007-016 tCont'd) Staff note that the existing 14m utility easement will be widened by 6.3m as part of the Site Plan approval process to ensure that municipal water and sanitary services can be properly maintained. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street and both parcels of land will be serviced with adequate service connections to municipal services. All other site development matters have been dealt with through the site plan process. The application does not conflict with any applicable provincial plans or policies. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommend that the application be approved subject to certain conditions. That application B2007-016 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Design Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall provide a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, be registered against title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access to both properties are maintained in perpetuity. 4. That the owner shall provide a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-of-way approved by the City's Director of Planning. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing and Community Services, dated June 11, 2007 advising they have no objection to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Ministry of Transportation, dated June 11, 2007, advising the Ministry has no objection to the granting of this application. However, the owner shall be aware that building/land use and sign permits are required from the Ministry of Transportation before any grading/construction commences. It was generally agreed that the application be amended, as recommended by staff. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of McCrory Associates Ltd. requesting permission to give an easement over a parcel of land having a width on Weber Street East of 16.4m (53.8'), a depth of 76.5 (250.98'), and an area of 1254.6 sq. m. (13,504.84 sq. ft.), for access to the abutting property, on Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 267, 1191 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 122 JUNE 19, 2007 1. Submission No.: B 2007-016 tCont'd) 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Design Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement with the owner of the abutting property at 1241 Weber Street East, to be approved by the City Solicitor, and registered against title of both properties, to ensure that rights-of- way for access to both properties are maintained in perpetuity. 4. That the owner shall submit a draft reference plan showing the proposed right- of-way for approval by the City's Director of Planning. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being June 19, 2009. Carried 2. Submission No.: B 2007-017 Applicant: Anthony & Sandra Freeman Property Location: 100 Trussler Road Legal Description: Part Lot 38. German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: A. Freeman W. Brubacher Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for a partial discharge of mortgage and to convey a parcel of land having a triangular shape and having an area of 507.7 sq. m. (5,465.01 sq. ft.), as a lot addition to the abutting property at 110 Trussler Road. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 12, 2007, advising that the subject properties are located on the East side of Trussler Road near the intersection of Trussler Road and Waldau Crescent. The properties are zoned Residential Two Zone (R-2) and are designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to sever a portion of the property at 100 Trussler Road as a lot addition to 110 Trussler Road. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 123 JUNE 19, 2007 2. Submission No.: B 2007-017 tCont'd) The lots have been developed as single detached dwellings and each parcel meets the Zoning By-Law requirements. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, the uses of both the parcels are in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan, the lands front on an established public street, and are compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The size of the proposed parcels will be suitable for the uses as permitted by the R-2 zone and the lot addition is intended to improve vehicular access to the property at 110 Trussler Road. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing and proposed use of the lands and are currently serviced by septic tanks. It is the opinion of staff that the properties meet Official Plan policy and Zoning By- Law regulations and are considered to be proper and orderly development. The uses of the severed and retained lands are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and they conform to or do not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or plans. That application B2007-017 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 2% of the value of the land to be severed. 3. That the land to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting land and title shall be taken in identical ownership; with any subsequent conveyance or transaction complying with Subsection(s) 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended. 4. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the (severed lands and/or retained) lands. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing and Community Services, dated June 11, 2007 advising they have no objection to this application. Mr. Brubacher advised that the purpose of this application is for a lot addition and a partial discharge of mortgage, so as to convey land to 110 Trussler Road to allow them better access to their rear yard. He also advised that no minor variances are created and no services are required. He stated that the lots are approximately 1 to 1 ~/2 acres in that area, and the only visual change will be the relocation of the fence. In discussing the City's requested condition #4, it was agreed between the Committee and Mr. Brubacher that to provide municipal services in this instance is an onerous requirement and such a condition will not be imposed. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Anthony & Sandra Freeman requesting permission for a partial discharge of mortgage and to convey a parcel of land having a triangular shape and having an area of 507.7 sq. m. (5,465.01 sq. ft.), as a lot addition to the abutting property at 110 Trussler Road, on Part Lot 38, German Company Tract, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 124 JUNE 19, 2007 2. Submission No.: B 2007-017 tCont'd) 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 2% of the value of the land to be severed. 3. That the land to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting land and title shall be taken in identical ownership; with any subsequent conveyance or transaction complying with Subsection(s) 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being June 19, 2009. Carried 3. Submission No.: B 2007-018 Applicant: Deerfield Homes Ltd. Property Location: 171 David Bergey Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 137, German Company Tract, Registered Plan 58R-14528, Part 1 Appearances: In Support: M. Hallett Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to give an easement over a parcel of land having a width on David Bergey Drive of 2.367 m (7.765') and having an irregular shape, to the benefit of the abutting condominium corporation. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 5, 2007, advising that the purpose of this consent application is to convey a sanitary sewer easement to Waterloo Standard Condominium Corporation 398, 175 David Bergey Drive over a 332 square portion of property located at 171 David Bergey. The easement was the requirement of site plan approval and the developer is now fulfilling his obligation. The subject lands are designated as Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan and zoned Residential Six (R-6) with special regulation 291 R in By-law 85-1. 175 David COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 125 JUNE 19, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-018 tCont'd) Bergey Drive is developed as a 98 unit townhouse condominium complex. 171 David Bergey is a vacant parcel of land. That application B2007-018 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Design Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing and Community Services, dated June 11, 2007 advising they have no objection to this application. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Deerfield Homes Ltd. requesting permission to give an easement over a parcel of land having a width on David Bergey Drive of 2.367 m (7.765') and having an irregular shape, to the benefit of the abutting condominium corporation, on Part Lot 137, German Company Tract, being Part 1, 58R-14528, 171 David Bergey Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Design Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 126 JUNE 19, 2007 3. Submission No.: B 2007-018 tCont'd) Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being June 19, 2009. Carried 4. Submission No.: B 2007-019 Applicant: William Roberts Property Location: 715 Glasgow Street Legal Description: Blocks H & I, Registered Plan 1273 Appearances: In Support: A. Lavallee W. Roberts Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Gallarno Court of 23.509m (77.129'), a depth of 26.146m (85.78'), and an area of 564.5533 sq. m. (6,077 sq. ft.), to be developed with a residential building. The retained land will have a width on Glasgow Street of 76.532 m (251.089'), a depth of 128.827m (422.66'), and an area of 11,250.2708 sq. m. (121,100.869 sq. ft.), and contains an existing dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 12, 2007, advising that the subject property is located on the South side of Glasgow Street between Knell Drive and Westwood Drive and the proposed lot to be severed would have frontage on Gallarno Court. The retained property at 715 Glasgow St is zoned Residential Two Zone (R-2) and the proposed severed property is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3). Both properties are designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to sever a portion of the property at 715 Glasgow Street for a parcel of land described as Part of Lot 6, Plan 693, City of Kitchener being Parts 6, 10 and 11 on Reference Plan 58R-9388 and Blocks H and I, Plan 1273, City of Kitchener. The retained lot has been developed with a single detached dwelling and the proposed lot is currently vacant. The retained and proposed parcels would continue to meet the Zoning By-Law requirements. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, the uses of both the parcels are in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan, and the lands front on an established public street. The proposed lot will have frontage on Gallarno Court which still has future development potential. It is the opinion of staff that the inclusion of Block H, Plan 1273 as part of the proposed severed parcel, would severely limit the future development of Gallarno Court as this Block could provide frontage onto Gallarno Street for another lot to be created. A tree management plan should also be prepared prior to any consent approval to determine if a building could reasonably fit on any severed parcel. The uses of the severed and retained lands are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and they conform to or do not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or plans. It is the opinion of staff that the properties meet Official Plan policy and Zoning By- Law regulations but with the current configuration of the proposed parcel including Block H, Plan 1273 they can not be considered to be proper and orderly development. That application B2007-017 be refused. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 127 JUNE 19, 2007 4. Submission No.: B 2007-019 tCont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing and Community Services, dated June 11, 2007 advising they have no objection to this application. The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, dated June 8, 2007, requesting that approval of this application be subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are granted. 2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted. Mr. Roberts submitted photographs of the subject property, and a letter received from the City of Kitchener, dated January 16, 2004. The letter indicates that the City was inviting Mr. Roberts to sell some of his land or purchase land from the City, which he did, to create a developable lot with frontage on Gallarno Court. Mr. Roberts explained the views in the photographs, noting that photograph #1 shows the intended lot, photograph #2 shows the trees at the back of his property, his house being on the other side of the trees, and photograph #3 shows his back yard. Ms. Lavallee advised that the City of Kitchener approached Mr. Roberts to purchase Blocks H & L Mr. Roberts wants to retain 2.73 acres for his home. If Mr. Roberts is to retain Block H for future development, the configuration of the new lot would be such that the house on the new lot, because of the required building setback, would be overlooking his house. Mr. Robert's house is at the back of his lot, and privacy is very important to him. Ms. Lavallee then provided the Committee with an example of a property on Inadale Court which has a similar configuration to the lot that Mr. Roberts proposes to create. Ms. vonWesterholt noted that staff recommended refusal of this application as submitted because of the configuration of the proposed severed parcel. Staff are attempting to maintain the ability for the rest of the land at the end of Galarno Court to be developed in the future. Further, the way the road is configured, as a cul-de-sac, requires pie-shaped lots. Ms. vonWesterholt also advised that staff are concerned about maintaining the trees. Ms. Lavallee responded that Mr. Roberts is prepared to submit a tree management plan. Following further discussion, the Committee members advised that they wished to defer their consideration of this application, and directed that staff meet with Mr. Roberts and his representative(s) to develop a proper configuration for the severed land. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That consideration of Submission No. B 2007-019 - 715 Glasgow Street, be deferred and referred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday July 17, 2007, and that staff work with the applicant to develop a better configuration for the severed parcel, in relation to the shape of Gallarno Court. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 128 JUNE 19, 2007 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of June 2007. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment