Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2008-06-17COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 200$ MEMBERS PRESENT: Messers M. Hiscott, A. Head and B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. B. Cronkite, Traffic Analyst, Ms. K. Anderl, Senior Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary- Treasurer, Ms. D. Hartleib, Administrative Clerk. Mr. M. Hiscott Vice Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:37 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 20, 2008, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINSHED BUSINESS CONSENT 1. Submission Nos.: B 2008-016 Applicant: Richard and Karen Hardie Property Location: 260 Old Huron Road Legal Description: Part Lots 7 & 11, Biehn's Tract, being Part 4, Reference Plan 58R-4067 Appearances: In Support: R. Hardie Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Old Huron Road of approximately 76m (249.34') having an irregular shape, and having an area of approximately 1,651 sq, m. (17,771.79 sq. ft.). The proposed use of the property is a single family dwelling. The retained land will contain the existing single family dwelling and will have a width on Old Huron Road of approximately 34m (111.54') by a depth of approximately 38m (124.67') and an area of 1,323 sq. m. (14.241.11 sq. ft.). The Committee was provided, this date, with a revised report from the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 6, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located immediately south of the "T" intersection of Battler Road and Old Huron Road. The property abuts Brigadoon Park at its rear lot line. The property contains a single detached dwelling and a large detached garage. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Three (R- 3) with Special Regulation Provision 199R. The subject property has 110 metres of frontage on Old Huron Road and is approximately 2,974 square metres in area. The applicant is requesting consent to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 136 JUNE 17, 200$ 1. Submission No.: B 2008-016 tCont'd) sever a portion of land with a frontage of 76 metres on Old Huron Road and an area of 1651 square metres in order to create a new lot for a new single detached dwelling. Currently, the portion of land proposed to be severed is used for a large detached garage and open space. The existing detached garage would be removed to accommodate the proposed single detached dwelling. The retained lot would have approximately 34 metres of frontage on Old Huron Road with an area of approximately 1323 square metres and would contain the existing single detached dwelling and attached garage. The applicant had originally applied for a minor variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback for the proposed dwelling. The applicant has since requested that the minor variance be withdrawn. The applicant submitted a plan to the Planning Division on May 22, 2008 proposing the same severed/retained parcels as the on original application, but also conceptually demonstrating that a dwelling could be constructed that complies with the Zoning By-law. Planning staff is satisfied that all required setbacks could be maintained for the proposed dwelling. In addition, the severed and retained lots would comply with all regulations of the Zoning By-law. The subject application was deferred at that May 20, 2008 Committee of Adjustment meeting in order to allow certain departments/agencies and the applicant to resolve an issues related to a requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement with the Grand River Conservation Authority and an issue related to a requested road widening with the City's Transportation Planning Division. Transportation Planning staff has, after further review, confirmed that no road widening is required on the south side of Old Huron Road. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has stated that based on the submitted sketch, there is sufficient area on the proposed severed parcel for a building envelope outside the minimum GRCA watercourse setback requirements, and therefore, the GRCA has no concerns with the subject consent. The GRCA advises that the owner will be required to submit an Environmental Impact Study at the time of building permit application. As a standard condition, Community Services requires that the owner pay acash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5 percent of the value of the lands to be severed. 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 Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing use and proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street. In addition, Engineering Division advises that the severed and retained parcels of land will be serviceable in the near future. In the Development and Technical Services Department report, dated June 6, 2008, Planning staff provide the following comments from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). "On May 30, 2008, the GRCA conditionally approved permit # 261/08 for the construction of a single residential home. The proponent is required to submit detailed agrading/drainage plan and an erosion/sediment control plan. The information provided in these plans will satisfy the requirement of an Environmental Impact Study for the GRCA. Based on the attached plan (completed by the proponent), the residential building is located outside the 15 metre setback to a watercourse required under the GRCA's Comprehensive Policies for the Administration of Ontario Reg. 150/06. With recent amendments to GRCA's Policies (May 30, 2008), accessory structures can now be located within the 15 metre setback to a watercourse. The proponent's plan demonstrates there is sufficient area on the proposed severed parcel for a building envelop outside the minimum setback requirements. As a result, the GRCA has no further objection to the approval of the severance application." COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 137 JUNE 17, 200$ 1. Submission No.: B 2008-016 tCont'd) Mr. McColl questioned whether this property should be divided into more lots given the provinces Places to Grow policies. Mr. Hardie responded that the surplus land will likely be developed he can't act as the developer because it's his principle residence. Mr. Hardie questioned the need for a condition requiring municipal services, as services are being installed at this time. Ms. von Westerholt responded that the condition is a standard condition and if the services have been installed, it will be easy to clear this condition. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Richard and Karen Hardie requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Old Huron Road of approximately 76m (249.34') having an irregular shape, and having an area of approximately 1,651 sq, m. (17,771.79 sq. ft.), on Part Lots 7 & 11, Biehn's Tract, being part of Part 4, Reference Plan 58R-4067, 260 Old Huron Road, 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 two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu contribution for parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 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. 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 17, 2010. Carried This meeting recessed at 9:40 a.m. and reconvened 10:15 a.m. at with the following members present: Messrs. M. Hiscott, B. McColl & A. Head. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 138 JUNE 17, 200$ 1. Submission Nos.: A 2008-029 Applicant: Kanco -Old Carriage Ltd. Property Location: 100-200 Old Carriage Drive Legal Description: Block F, Registered Plan 1373 Appearances: In Support: S. Patterson Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to provide 232 off- street parking spaces for a new 4th apartment building containing 178 units, rather than the required 267 off-street parking spaces; and permission to locate these parking spaces between the facade of the new building and the lot line along Homer Watson Boulevard, to have a setback from Homer Watson Boulevard of 5m (16.4') rather than the required 15m (49.21'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 12, 2008 in which they advise that the subject application was deferred from the May 20, 2008 Committee of Adjustment meeting as an additional variance was identified which was not advertised in the notice in The Record. Since that time, the applicant has requested the second variance for the proposed development and the notice was advertised correctly. The subject property is located at the intersection of Homer Watson Boulevard and Old Carriage Drive in the south end of Kitchener. The property is zoned Residential Nine (R-9) and designated as High Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The property is presently developed with three multiple dwellings. Two buildings are three stories in height containing 54 units each and the third building is nine stories in height containing 108 units. The existing buildings were constructed in the late 1980's under a Section 40 Development Agreement. The Agreement registered on title at that time approved construction of a fourth building, 9 stories high with a total of 108 units. The fourth building was not constructed. The new owner of the property is now proposing to build the fourth building on site. The proposal is for an eleven storey building containing 178 units. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow construction of an eleven storey multiple dwelling containing 178 units with 232 parking spaces rather than the required 267 parking spaces and to allow parking between the fagade and the front lot line with a setback of 5.0 metres rather than the required 15 metres. When the original site plan was approved in 1987, Zoning By-law 4830 was in effect, which required multiple dwellings to provide parking at a ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit. As the proposed building is different from what was originally approved, the development is subject to the regulations of Zoning By-law 85-1, which requires 1.5 spaces per unit for multiple dwellings totaling 61 units or more. Section 6.1.1.1 d) of Zoning By-law 85-1 prohibits parking between the facade and the front lot line, and in no case shall parking be located within the minimum front yard setback. As the subject property is a corner lot, the shorter lot line abutting a street is considered to be the front lot line. In this case, Homer Watson Boulevard is the front lot line and the required front yard setback is 15 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 139 JUNE 17, 200$ 1. Submission No.: A 2008-029 tCont'd) The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan as the site is designated High Rise Residential and the proposed eleven storey 178 unit building supports and implements the policies of this designation. Further, a large portion of the subject property is covered by a treed area and the proposed development will preserve this environmental feature of the site. Public transit is available on Old Carriage Drive, and a Community Shopping Centre is located on the adjacent property to serve the needs of tenants in the development reducing the need for tenants to have vehicles. The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit is to ensure that adequate on site parking is provided for tenants as well as visitors. The applicant is proposing to provide parking at the ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit, the same as was provided for the existing buildings on site rather than 1.5 spaces per unit currently required. Transportation Planning staff undertook a parking study on the subject property which confirmed that the existing buildings have a parking surplus of approximately 7-8 percent. There is no record of parking complaints for the existing buildings nor is it anticipated that the situation would be any different for the proposed building. Planning Staff considered the location of this development and its proximity to both Conestoga College and the adjacent well developed Mixed Use Node. Staff is of the opinion that the reduction in parking maintains the intent of the by-law as the majority of amenities are located within a short walking distance and public transit is available on Old Carriage Drive. As alternate modes of transportation become more and more popular, it is anticipated that the demand for parking will also decrease. The parking between the fagade and front lot line with a setback of 5.0 metres rather than the required 15 metres also meets the intent of the By-law. The property is at a significantly higher grade than Homer Watson Boulevard and the parking area will essentially not be visible from the street. One of the existing buildings on site has parking in a similar location and this proposal would not create any adverse conditions either on the site or on the streetscape. Any mitigation measures deemed necessary to screen the parking area from the street will be dealt with through the landscape plan approval, as part of the Site Plan Approval process. The variances are minor for the following reasons. The applicant is proposing to provide 232 parking spaces on site which would provide each of the proposed 178 units one parking space. As well, 46 visitor parking spaces are being proposed which leaves a surplus of 8 parking spaces which could be assigned to a particular unit that may require two parking spaces. Through the Site Plan Approval process, staff will impose conditions that will further minimize the impact of the parking reduction. The owner will be required to provide increased bicycle parking facilities for tenant and visitor use, transit shelters with benches on Old Carriage Drive, and enhanced pedestrian connections linking all of the buildings on site and to the public sidewalk on Old Carriage Drive. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. Both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law support the proposed development without the need for any amendment. The original site plan approved a fourth multiple dwelling on site and the proposed building is not significantly larger than the original. Lastly, construction of a multiple dwelling immediately adjacent to a well developed Mixed Use Node and in close proximity to Conestoga College is appropriate. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 9, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Head comments that he is not convinced this variance is minor as the number of parking spaces doesn't leave much room for 2 car families. Also, visiter parking is usually taken up with two car units. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 140 JUNE 17, 200$ 1. Submission No.: A 2008-029 tCont'd) Mr. Cronkite stated that this is a unique situation that is close to Conestoga College, Staff checked the utilization of parking spaces on the site and utilization and of the existing parking spaces is less than 100%. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Patterson advised that the target market for these units varies, and students will usually rent the cheaper units. Further, Mr. Patterson was not able to advise if this apartment building is to be developed as a condominium. In response to question from the Committee, Mr. Cronkite advised there is no parking permitted on the street. He also advised that staff took into consideration the under utilization of the existing parking spaces and the proposed transportation demand management initiatives that are being proposed for the owner. He stated that if this building was in a different location, staff would have taken a different position. Mr. Hiscott stated that he is having difficulty with the reduction in the number of parking spaces, as the situation on this property can change over time. Messers. Head and McColl spoke in favour of this application because of the location of the property being close to Conestoga College and because of the proposed transportation demand management initiatives. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Kanco -Old Carriage Ltd. requesting permission to provide 232 off-street parking spaces for a new 4th apartment building containing 178 units, rather than the required 267 off-street parking spaces; and permission to locate these parking spaces between the facade of the new building and the lot line along Homer Watson Boulevard, to have a setback from Homer Watson Boulevard of 5m (16.4') rather than the required 15m (49.21'), on Block F, Registered Plan 1373, 100-200 Old Carriage Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall submit, and receive approval of a site plan for the proposed development. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Mr. M. Hiscott voted in opposition to this motion. 2. Submission Nos.: A 2008-037 Applicant: Frank and Suzette Sargeant Property Location: 39 Winding Wood Crescent Legal Description: Lot 48. Registered Plan 58M-158 Appearances: In Support: F. Sargeant Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 141 JUNE 17, 200$ 2. Submission No.: A 2008-037 tCont'd) Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that in the applicant requesting legalization of an existing shed having a side yard abutting Crest Haven Street of 2.43m (8') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 17, 2008, advising the subject property is located at the corner of Crest Haven Street and Winding Wood Crescent in the Doon South Community. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in By-law 85-1. Surrounding properties are single detached dwellings. The applicant is requesting a variance from the City of Kitchener Fence By-law to allow an existing fence abutting a street that is 2.1 metres (6' feet 8" inches) in height with a setback of 1.5 metres (5 feet) instead of the required 1.8 metres (6' feet). In addition, the applicant is requesting the legalization of an existing shed that is located 3.04 metres (10' feet) from the property line abutting a street instead of the required 4.57 metres (15' feet). In considering the requested variance to the City of Kitchener Fence By-law, Planning staff offer the following comments. The intent of the City's Fence By-law for corner lots is to have a larger setback requirement the higher the fence to be built. For example, a 0.9 metre (3' foot) high fence requires no setback whereas a 2.43 metre (8' foot) high fence is required to be setback 4.57 metres (15' feet). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure there is adequate separation distance from a taller fence structure to the sidewalk and provide for appropriate width of landscaping between the sidewalk and the fence structure to soften the visual impact of the fence on the streetscape. The visual impact of the fence on the streetscape is negligible given the fence steps down due to grading and is setback from the sidewalk. The presence of boulevard trees close to the sidewalk helps to visually soften the appearance. Staff also note that the existing fence does not pose any visibility concerns with respect to adjacent driveways or intersections. Accordingly, staff has no issue with the height of the fence being 20 centimetres (8" inches) higher than the permitted 1.82 metres in height for a setback of 1.5 metres (5' feet). With respect to the location of the accessory shed, the intent of the required 4.57 metre setback for a property abutting a street is for streetscape aesthetic purposes. The shed is screened behind the fence and therefore does not negatively impact the streetscape. Staff are, however, of the opinion that the planting of some trees in front of the fence as it juts out from the rear of the house would help to soften the view of not only the fence at this location but also the of top of the shed. Accordingly, staff recommends that the variance be approved as the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is being maintained. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 9, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Sargent advised that he is opposed to the condition recommended by staff, as to do so will take away from the fence, and he has recently planted a Mulberry tree in this area. With respect to softening the appearance of the shed, Mr. Sargent spoke to his neighbour who commented that they did not know he had a shed. When questioned, Mr. Sargent advised that his shed measures 8' x 8' and is approximately 8' high, and it was constructed in 2005. A discussion took place between the Committee and staff with respect to the type of trees that would be required through the requested condition. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that staff do no dictate the type of tree. Mr. Sargent can discuss the type of tree with staff, with the particular area for planting in mind. Ms. Von Westerholt also advised that the condition could be reworded to state "2 trees or other suitable landscaping". COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 142 JUNE 17, 200$ 2. Submission No.: A 2008-037 tCont'd) Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Frank & Suzette Sargeant requesting legalization of an existing shed having a side yard abutting Crest Haven Street of 2.43m (8') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76')., on Lot 48, Registered Plan 58M-158, 39 Winding Wood Crescent, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owners shall plant 2 trees or other suitable landscaping along that portion of the existing fence that juts out onto the left side yard, in order to soften the appearance of the fence at this location and to obstruct the view of the top of the shed, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 3. Submission Nos.: A 2008-039 Applicant: Mark Sommer and Brenda Thaler Property Location: 146 Kehl Street Legal Description: Lot 4, Plan 811 Appearances: In Support: M. Sommer Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to construct a new attached garage to have a northerly side yard of 0.69m (2.25') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 2, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the east side of Kehl Street near Hoffman Street. The property currently contains a single detached home with an existing attached garage. This property is also undergoing a change to the rear addition, which is being torn down and rebuilt as part of Building Permit #08 107157. This neighbourhood is comprised primarily of residential properties, with a school to the west side of Kehl Street. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow a 0.69 metre left side yard for a new garage whereas Zoning Bylaw 85-1 requires a minimum 1.2 metre side yard. The property is zoned Residential Six (R-6) under Zoning By-law 85-1, which permits residential uses subject to certain provisions. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 143 JUNE 17, 200$ 3. Submission No.: A 2008-039 tCont'd) The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The intent of the Low Rise Residential designation of the Official Plan is to permit residential uses. The subject lands are used as a single detached dwelling. The variance requested would not compromise the residential character of the neighbourhood and would in fact be creating a more aesthetically consistent structure with the rest of the neighbourhood. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law 85-1 for the following reasons. The intent of a 1.2 metre setback is to ensure sufficient space for maintenance of the exterior wall. The existing garage structure had shown signs of deterioration and the owner wishes to replace the garage with a new one that is structurally sound. The new garage is situated similarly to the old garage; however, is being brought closer to the street. The requested side yard setback of 0.69 metre would allow for maintenance of the new garage in a fashion similar to the existing garage. Further, if the garage were detached from the house, rather than attached, 0.6 metre side yard setback would be considered appropriate. Therefore, staff feels the proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The attached garage has been in place since 1956 without complaint, and was added one year after the original residence was constructed. The new garage will be in a similar location, with the same side yard setback, and will allow for maintenance to continue to occur in a fashion similar to the way the existing garage is currently maintained. An adequate side yard will be maintained, but will be reduced from 1.2 metres to 0.69 metres, which staff feel is sufficient in this case. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The proposed configuration of the building on the lot would be consistent with the established development within this mature neighbourhood and would not have any adverse impacts on the same. The requested variances are minor in nature and can therefore be supported. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 8, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Mark Sommer and Brenda Thaler requesting permission to construct a new attached garage to have a northerly side yard of 0.69m (2.25') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Lot 4, Plan 811, 146 Kehl Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. 4. Submission Nos.: A 2008-040 Applicant: Freedom in Christ Pentecostal Assembly Property Location: 1643 Bleams Road Legal Description: Part Lot 140, German Comgany Tract Carried Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 144 JUNE 17, 200$ 4. Submission No.: A 2008-040 tCont'd) In Support: J. Klujber Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming church by constructing a 388.6 sq. m. (4,183 sq. ft.) addition, to have an easterly side yard of 12m (39.37'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 4, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the south side of Bleams Road within the area known as the "West Side" lands. It is presently developed with a religious institution which has legal non- conforming status. The lands are zoned Agricultural (A-1) in the City's Zoning By-law and designated as Agricultural in the City's Official Plan. The applicant is requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming religious institution by 388.16 square metres. As the A-1 zoning of the property does not permit a religious institution, Committee of Adjustment approval is required to expand the existing legal non-conforming building. City staff met with the applicant in April of this year to discuss the feasibility of an addition to the existing legal non-conforming church. At that time it was pointed out to the applicant that considering an addition at this time is premature. The future disposition of these lands would be contingent on the recommendations stemming from the Growth Management Strategy for the entire west side area. Completion of the Growth Management Strategy is targeted for the end of 2008. The "West Side" lands represent the largest remaining area of undeveloped land in Kitchener. These lands do not currently have urban land use designations in our Official Plan, but are located within the City Urban Area of the Regional Official Plan. There are numerous issues and studies that have yet to be completed before appropriate land use designations are applied to the area. Comprehensive consideration must be given to the overall development of the west side lands before individual properties are developed or expanded. Staff are concerned that any expansion of the existing legal non-conforming church at this time may frustrate future development potential in the area. Staff are recommending deferral of the application until such time as the Growth Management Strategy has been completed and proper community development plans have been developed for the entire west side area. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be deferred until completion of the Growth Management Strategy and Community Plans for the West Side lands. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 9, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Chair commented on staff's requested deferral and Ms. von Westerholt advised that the study will be completed by the end of the year, so this application could be rescheduled for consideration later this year. Mr. McColl noted that such a deferral will delay this expansion for another year. Mr. Klujber stated that this areas of the City has had substantial increase in young families and their congregation is growing substantially. Further, this is a fairly small addition. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 145 JUNE 17, 200$ 4. Submission No.: A 2008-040 tCont'd) Mr. McColl stated that he understands the need for the study; however, things of this nature can't be put on hold for a year or more. He commented that he is pleased to see the church expanding and he is inclined to approve the application. Mr. Cronkite request that any approval be subject to site plan approval. Mr. Hiscott stated that church sites are hard to come by, and the church isn't going anywhere. He was of the opinion that to approved this application is not going to negatively impact the community. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Freedom in Christ Pentecostal Assembly requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming church by constructing a 388.6 sq. m. (4,183 sq. ft.) addition, to have an easterly side yard of 12m (39.37'), on Part Lot 140, German Company Tract, 1643 Bleams Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall submit and receive approval of a site plan for the proposed development. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The approval of this application is in the public interest. 2. The approval of this application represents good planning. 3. The construction on the proposed addition will not create unacceptable adverse impacts of abutting properties. 4. The use of this building as a church has existed since the day the by-law was passed prohibiting this use. Carried 5. Submission Nos.: A 2008-041 Applicant: Ray Sharpe Property Location: 73 Locust Street Legal Description: Part Lot 14, Registered Plan 144 Appearances: In Support: R. Sharpe Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to replace an existing porch such that he new porch will have a side yard abutting Mansion Street (side yard abutting a street) of 2.94m (9.64') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 8, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is used as a duplex and is located at the corner of Locust and Mansion Streets and is zoned R- 5 (Residential Five) with a designation of Low Rise Conservation "A" in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. The owner is requesting permission to replace an existing porch such that the new covered porch, which is located more than 0.6 metres above grade, will have a side yard abutting Mansion Street of 2.94 m (9.64 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 146 JUNE 17, 200$ 5. Submission No.: A 2008-041 tCont'd) ft) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft). A site visit was conducted on Friday, June 6, 2008. With respect to 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 and Official Plan. The intent of the regulation is to provide sufficient setback for a porch from any lot line abutting a street to ensure that it does not dominate or affect the streetscape or public areas such as sidewalks. The proposed setback is actually less than the existing porch which is considered to comply through a vacuum by-law (grandfathering clause). The proposed porch will replace the existing porch which has not been a concern in the past. The variance is minor in nature. The requested setback of 2.94 metres (9.64 feet) is in keeping with what currently exists for the porch which is actually setback slightly farther from the lot line than the dwelling. Staff is of the opinion that the requested setback is minor in nature, as it would not negatively affect surrounding uses or the streetscape. The variances are appropriate for the development of the land and surrounding area. The proposed porch is intended to replace what currently exists and there have been no complaints received to date concerning the existing porch. The porch will permit the occupants of the building to have use of an outdoor amenity area, as the backyard of the building is difficult to use. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 8, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Ray Sharpe requesting permission to replace an existing porch such that he new porch will have a side yard abutting Mansion Street (side yard abutting a street) of 2.94m (9.64') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), on Part Lot 14, Registered Plan 144, 73 Locust Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 6. Submission Nos.: A 2008-042 Applicant: Darlene & 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 147 JUNE 17, 200$ 6. Submission No.: A 2008-042 tCont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to construct a deck having a height of 0.78m (31 ") to be located 1.5m (4.92') from Oneida Place (side yard abutting a street) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 9, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on an internal corner of Oneida Place. The subject property has approximately 46 metres of frontage on Oneida Place and has an area of approximately 560 square metres. The property is developed with a single detached dwelling, constructed in 1985. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required minimum side yard abutting a street setback from 4.5 metres to 1.5 metres to allow the construction of a deck with a height of 0.78 metres. The owner previously applied for relief from the regulations of the Zoning By-law in 2007 to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.4 metres for an addition to the rear of the dwelling. The Committee of Adjustment granted approval of this application without conditions and the addition has since been constructed. 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 proposed variance will allow the construction of a deck while maintaining the low density character of the property. In addition, the reduced setback will not complicate any future widening since the City's Official Plan does not require a road widening on Oneida Place. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. In cases where a deck exceeds 0.6 metres in height, the Zoning By-law requires the deck to be set back a minimum of 4.5 metres from the side lot line abutting a street. The intent of this requirement is multifold. Firstly, it is to ensure that that adequate private outdoor amenity space is provided. The variance would continue to allow outdoor amenity space to be provided on a structure, rather than on the ground. Secondly, it is to ensure that an adequate visual setback is maintained from the public right-of-way. If the proposed deck was a maximum of 0.6 metres high (i.e., 0.18 metres lower than proposed), the Zoning By-law would require a minimum set back a minimum of 3.0 metres. In this regard, staff is of the opinion that the proposed 1.5 metre setback is inadequate. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance is not minor in nature nor desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The variance would allow a deck to be constructed that would stand out within the streetscape due to its height and proximity to the street. The deck may encroach on the privacy of pedestrians using the sidewalk located on the inside curve of Oneida Place. In this regard, there would be a significant negative impact on pedestrians using the sidewalk. Staff notes that the applicant has recognized the driveway visibility triangle in the deck design: although the proposed deck is located adjacent to an existing driveway granting access to Oneida Place from the side yard abutting a street, it has been angled in such a way as to not be located within the driveway visibility triangle. Consequently, staff cannot support the subject minor variance application; however, staff advises that the application could be supported if it is amended to request a minor variance to reduce the required minimum side yard abutting a street setback from 4.5 metres to 3.0 metres for a deck with a height of 0.78 metres, as all four Planning Act tests would then be met. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 9, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 148 JUNE 17, 200$ 6. Submission No.: A 2008-042 tCont'd) Mr. Strong advised the Committee that the height of the deck has been chosen because of the level of the walk-out doors. He advised that when the house was constructed the lag bolts for this deck were installed. He also advised that the current height of the deck makes it wheelchair accessible for his father. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Strong advised that there is a screen around this deck to match the fence he wants to install on either side of the driveway. He noted that a fence on this side of the lot would only have to be set back 1.5m from the lot line. He advised that the set back of his house from the street is substantial. He noted that there is a 2' drop in elevation from the back of his house to the rear lot line; the back yard is a hill and is unusable. The Chair noted the driveway location at the back of the house, and Mr. Strong responded that the driveway was in this location when he purchased the property. He has 2 children living at home and the driveway allows for the 4 family members to park their cars. Mr. Strong advised that he will erect a fence on either side of the driveway to match the one around the deck. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff do not have as much of a concern about the deck now that they know there will be a fence around the deck. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Darlene & Calvin Strong requesting permission to construct a deck having a height of 0.78m (31 ") to be located 1.5m (4.92') from Oneida Place (side yard abutting a street) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), Lot 137, Registered Plan 1447, 36 Oneida Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 7. Submission Nos.: A 2008-043 Applicant: Christopher Valdez Property Location: 106 Water Street North Legal Description: Lot 10 & Part Lots 6,7 & 11, Registered Plan 389 Appearances: In Support: S. Patterson C. Valdez Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to provide 2 parking spaces in tandem rather than 2 individually accessible parking spaces for an existing triplex. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 4, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 149 JUNE 17, 200$ 7. Submission No.: A 2008-043 tCont'd) located at 106 Water Street North, between Weber Street and Victoria Street. The property is developed with an existing 3-unit multiple dwelling. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow the two required parking spaces for this multiple dwelling to be arranged in tandem, rather than being independently accessible. 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 property is designated as Mixed Use Corridor in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan of the City's Official Plan. This designation supports the use of the property as a multiple dwelling. The Mixed Use Corridor areas are intended for intensive, transit supportive development. Again, the subject property provides the intensity of use with easy access to public transportation thus meeting the intent of the Official Plan. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The property is zoned Commercial Residential Three (CR-3) which permits the use of the property as a multiple dwelling. The Zoning By-law requires parking for any use to be accommodated on site. In this case, the existing driveway is of sufficient length to easily accommodate two vehicles in tandem with a setback from the front property line of 4.5 metres. In order to legalize the use of the property as a multiple dwelling, the owner has previously been granted approval from the Committee of Adjustment (A2008-003) for a reduction in lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback, subject to receiving approval of a site plan. In order to satisfy the condition of application A2008-003, the owner did submit a site plan. The site plan proposed two parking spaces in the rear yard and a second driveway being installed on the east side of the building to accommodate a third parking space. This plan effectively eliminated all useable amenity space on site and created another driveway access onto Water Street. In reviewing the proposed site plan, staff identified that the existing triplex would actually only require two parking spaces, rather than three spaces. Zoning By-law 85-1 requires multiple dwellings totalling three to five units to provide one space for each dwelling unit, except if any of the units are less than 51 square metres in area in which case no parking space is required. Of the three dwelling units in the subject property, one unit has a floor area less than 51 square metres, which means that the parking requirement for this 3-unit multiple dwelling would be two spaces. In light of this, staff advised the owner that it would not be good planning to have two parking spaces in the rear yard eliminating the usable amenity space on site and installing a second driveway to provide three parking spaces when only two spaces are required. Staff are of the opinion that as only two parking spaces are required that to arrange them in tandem, as is permitted for a duplex dwelling, would be the best alternative for this small property. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The property has been used as a 3-unit multiple dwelling for many years without any parking problems or issues. The existing driveway can accommodate the two required parking spaces in tandem without impacting the streetscape or public sidewalk. Public transit is easily accessible and the property is in close proximity to the downtown. There will be no physical changes to the property, amenity spaces will be maintained for the tenants and on-street parking will not be impacted as a second driveway will not be installed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 150 JUNE 17, 200$ 7. Submission No.: A 2008-043 tCont'd) The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. Tandem parking is appropriate for the property considering the size of the lot and the limited amount of outdoor amenity space for the tenants. The location of the property provides for easy access to public transportation. By allowing the parking to be arranged in tandem on the existing driveway there will be no impact on any of the adjoining properties or the public street. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 9, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Patterson advised that the variance will legalize what exists today. He noted that the 1 unit because of its size, does not require parking. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Cronkite advised that there is a transit stop across the street and parking is close to King Street. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Christopher Valdez requesting permission to provide 2 parking spaces in tandem rather than 2 individually accessible parking spaces for an existing triplex, on Lot 10 & Part Lots 6,7 & 11, Registered Plan 389, 106 Water Street North, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 8. Submission Nos.: A 2008-044 Applicant: Gareth & Adele Evans Property Location: 247 Sims Estate Drive Legal Description: Lot 69. Registered Plan 58M-387 Appearances: In Support: G. Evans Contra: None Written Submissions: M. & M. Kshatri The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a deck in the rear yard having a height of up to 1.5m (4.92') above grade, to have a side yard of Om rather than the required 1.2m (3.93') and a rear yard of Om rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 8, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the north side of Sims Estate Drive between Sims Estate Place to the west and Waterbend Crescent to the east. The subject property is developed with a single detached dwelling and the surrounding land use is low rise residential to the north, south and west and a storm water retention pond immediately to the east. The subject COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 151 JUNE 17, 200$ 8. Submission No.: A 2008-044 tCont'd lands are zoned Residential Three (R-3) with special regulation 175R in By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to erect a rear yard deck, that given the grades, will vary in height above the finished grade from 0.6 metres (2 feet) to 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) in height and will extend to a 0 metre right or easterly side yard setback. According to the Zoning By-law, decks that are greater than 0.6 metres (2 feet) in height are required to conform with the required side yard setback of 1.2 metres (4 feet). The purpose of extending the deck to the side lot line is so that the applicant can achieve a more functional rear yard as the grades are significant and restrict the usability of the rear yard, as evidenced by the photos. 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 single detached dwelling is consistent with this designation. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of requiring decks that are greater than 0.6 metres in height to be setback 1.2 metres is to ensure there is no visual impact or loss of privacy onto an abutting neighbour and that adequate separation is provided. In this case, those concerns are not an issue as the abutting land use is a storm water retention pond. However, the owner will have to enter onto City lands in order to maintain the side of the deck. In this regard the applicant will have to enter into an access agreement with the City as a condition of approval. The variance is considered minor in nature and appropriate for the use of the land as there will no visual impact or loss of privacy for neighbouring lands. Staff acknowledges that the grades restrict the usability of the rear yard and by extending the deck in to the required side yard provides more functional and usable space for the owner. This will, however, limit access to the rear yard for lawn mowing or other maintenance purposes to the left side yard only. A site visit has confirmed the left side yard is wide enough to provide access for a lawn mower. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 9, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submission of the neighbour in opposition to thi application. Ms. von Westerholt noted that in addition to the side yard variance there is a rear yard variance of Om rather than the required 4.5m, and she asked that the recommendation in the report be amended to include approval of this variance as well as the side yard variance. The Committee noted the written submission from the rear yard neighbour in opposition to this application. Mr. Evans advised that his neighbour thought that he was going to cover the whole rear yard with a deck. The Committee expressed a concern about the Om rear yards and recommended that Mr. Evans provide a 2' rear yard, which could be covered with landscaping fabric and stone. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Gareth & Adele Evans requesting permission to construct a deck in the rear yard having a height of up to 1.5m (4.92') above grade, to have a side yard of Om rather than the required 1.2m (3.93') and a rear yard of 0.6m rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), on Lot 69, Registered Plan 58M-387, 247 Sims Estate Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 152 JUNE 17, 200$ 8. Submission No.: A 2008-044 tCont'd) 1. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener that allows the owner to enter onto the City owned lands, described as Block 72, 58M-387, in order to maintain the side deck. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 9. Submission Nos.: A 2008-045 Applicant: Ticket Defenders Professional Corporation Property Location: 1561 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Part Lot 123, German Comgany Tract Appearances: In Support: R. Hardie Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to use 35% of the floor area in this building for an office rather than the permitted 25% of the floor area. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 9, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the corner of Victoria Street North and Forwell Road and is zoned Service Industrial (M-3) with an Official Plan designation of Arterial Commercial Corridor. The property has been recently purchased and the building is being renovated into two units. The proposed office will be located on the upper floor of the building and there is currently no tenant for the second unit. The applicant is requesting permission to use 35% of the floor area in the building for an office rather than the permitted maximum of 25%. A site visit was conducted on Friday, June 6, 2008. With respect to 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 and Official Plan. The intent of the regulation is to limit office use in an industrial zone as a building used solely as an office would be more suitable in a commercial or business park zone. However it is recognized that some office use in an industrial zone is desirable and appropriate and therefore a maximum of 25% is permitted. The requested variance meets the intent of the by-law as the proposed increase to 35% would permit a second tenant to occupy the remainder of the building with a permitted industrial use. The variance is minor in nature. As noted above, the increase of 10% more office use will still permit the remainder of the building to be used for a second use that is permitted within the M-3 zone. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature. The variance is appropriate for the development of the land and surrounding area. The increase in office use is compatible with lands located south of the property on Victoria COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 153 JUNE 17, 200$ 9. Submission No.: A 2008-045 tCont'd) Street which permit free-standing office use in a commercial zone. Also, it is noted that the Arterial Commercial Corridor designation provides for a broad range of commercial and industrial uses, which includes offices that could comprise up to 100% of the building. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 8, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Ticket Defenders Professional Corporation requesting permission to use 35% of the floor area in this building for an office rather than the permitted 25% of the floor area, on Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, 1561 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 10. Submission Nos.: A 2008-046 Applicant: Ahmad Masri Property Location: 900 Fairway Crescent Legal Description: Block 48, Registered Plan 1798 Appearances: In Support: A. Masri Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requesting permission to locate mechanical units along the southerly side of the proposed building to have a side yard of 0.5m (1.64') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 9, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the corner of Fairway Crescent and Fairway Road North and contains aone- storey commercial plaza. It is zoned Convenience Commercial Zone (C-1) and designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The applicant is requesting permission to legalize existing mechanical units (air conditioners) along the southerly side yard of the existing building 0.5 m (1.64 ft) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft). A site visit was conducted on June 7, 2008. It is noted that the air conditioners project from the wall approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) and therefore are located approximately 0.2 m (0.6 ft) from the side lot line and not 0.5 m (1.64 ft) as noted by the applicant on his application. Staff recommend that this application be amended to request permission to legalize existing mechanical units (air conditioners) along the southerly side yard of the existing building located 0.2 m (0.6 ft) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 154 JUNE 17, 200$ 10. Submission No.: A 2008-046 tCont'd With respect to 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 and Official Plan. The intent of the regulation is to ensure that there is sufficient setback from the side lot line for the building to be maintained. The air conditioning units are actually located on the building approximately 2.44 m (8 ft) above grade and project over the sideyard. They are located high enough on the wall so that they do not obstruct access between the building and the lot line. The variance is minor in nature. As noted above, there is sufficient setback for the mechanical units so that access can be maintained to the side yard or the building. Also, the 0.2 metre setback of the units located high on the building will not affect the use of the abutting property which is used for a storm water pond. The variance is appropriate for the development of the land. As noted in the drawing below, there is a storm water management pond located behind the plaza building and staff is of the opinion that the adjacent land use to the rear, namely the storm water management pond, would not be impacted by the location of the HVAC units on the upper portion of the building wall. The view from the streetscape shows that the existing landscaping partially screens the air conditioners from view, and as the trees mature, there will be additional coverage. Residential land uses are located to the south of the plaza, and currently the air conditioners are partially visible from these residences. As with the streetscape view, there are trees along this entire wall of the plaza building and as they mature they would appear to be able to adequately block views of the mechanical units from the adjacent residences to the south. Some additional screening directly along the rear wall of the building may be required. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to update the approved landscape plan to the satisfaction by the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 8, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Masri argued against the condition of screening these air conditioning units from Fairway Road, as requested by staff. He advised that these units were already on the mechanical units and the site plan has already been approved. Further, this property has already been developed. Following discussion, the Committee determined that any approval of this application would be conditional on providing the requested screening from Fairway Road. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Ahmad Masri requesting permission for mechanical units along the southerly side of the building to have a side yard of 0.2m (0.6') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), Block 48, Registered Plan 1798, 900 Fairway Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the approved landscape plan shall be updated to provide additional screening of the mechanical units from the Fairway Road North to the satisfaction of the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 155 JUNE 17, 200$ 10. Submission No.: A 2008-046 tCont'd) 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of June, 2008. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment