Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2008-07-15COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 15, 200$ MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs. M. Hiscott and B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. B. Cronkite, Traffic Analyst, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, Ms. L. Garovat, Administrative Clerk, Ms. D. Hartleib, Administrative Clerk. Mr. M. Hiscott Vice Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:16 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of June 17, 2008, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission Nos.: A 2008-047 Applicant: Stephen and Denise Quigley Property Location: 433 Falconridge Drive Legal Description: Part Block 9, Registered Plan 58M-182, being Part 57, Reference Plan 58R-1296 Appearances: In Support: D. Quigley Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a swimming pool located 1.2m (3.93') from the lot line abutting Falconridge Crescent (side yard abutting a street) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76') and legalization of a second storey deck located 3.2m (10.49') from the lot line abutting Falconridge Crescent (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 19, 2008, advising that the subject property contains one single family dwelling located at the intersection of Falconridge Drive and Falconridge Crescent in the north end of Kitchener. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Three (R-3) with 307R and 315R Provisions. The applicant is requesting a variance from the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law to legalize: 1. an existing deck greater than 0.6 metres in height and setback 3.2 metres from a lot line abutting a street instead of the required setback of 4.5 metres and 2. an existing pool that is setback 1.2 metres from a lot line abutting a street instead of the required setback of 2.1 metres. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 157 JULY 15, 200$ 1. Submission No.: A 2008-047 tCont'd) The intent of the zoning setbacks with respect to the deck and pool is to ensure neighbourhood aesthetics are maintained, that abutting property owners privacy is maintained and there is sufficient space between the pool and property line to erect a fence and to provide landscaping. Planning Staff are concerned with the visual impact of the deck given the height of the existing deck as shown in the photos above. It is 7 metres in height that towers above not only the streetscape, but also dominates private amenity space for neighbouring properties both adjacent to or backing onto the subject property as well. Given the visual impact concern, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the variance for the deck does not meet the general intent of the By-law and is not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 27, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Ms. Quigley advised that the fence, pool and deck were constructed prior to them purchasing this property. When questioned by the Committee, Ms. Von Westerholt advised that to the best of her knowledge, second storey decks on single family dwellings are more common in older areas of the City, but not in new subdivisions such as this. It was her opinion that in this setting such a balcony is out of place. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that she recognizes that there must be a fence around the pool; however, this recommended refusal is the same position that staff has taken with wooden fences on corner lots in the past. She requested that if the Committee decides in favour of the fence, that landscaping be required. Mr. McColl questioned whether sidewalks will be installed on both sides of Falconridge Crescent and Mr. Cronkite responded that it is the City's current policy to have sidewalks on both sides of each street; however, this subdivision may have been built prior to the current policy. Ms. Quigley advised that they have no room to move the fence because of the location of the pool, and they have tried to improve the look of the fence by installing landscaping. She advised that the fence, pool and balcony were in existence when they purchased the property, and they were not advised of the non-compliance when they purchased the property. Once they found out that there was a variance, they tried to do the right thing, and their lawyer advised them to claim the costs of this process through their Title Insurance. Mr. McColl advised that he has no concerns with the pool, and not much of a concern with the fence because of the proposed landscaping. Regarding the balcony, Ms. Quigley advised that it is on the side away from the street and they have planted trees to try and camouflage it from the street. She advised that this deck is well used and the abutting neighbour has no concerns about it. The Chair stated that he sees no purpose in refusing this application; further, there is no one in attendance or in writing who is opposed to this application. Mr. McColl stated that he is supportive of the variance for the pool but has some concerns about the deck/balcony, which could be addressed if the owners install the landscaping as identified on their submitted plan. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 158 JULY 15, 200$ Submission No.: A 2008-047 tCont'd That the application of Stephen and Denise Quigley requesting legalization of a swimming pool located 1.2m (3.93') from the lot line abutting Falconridge Crescent (side yard abutting a street) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76') and legalization of an existing deck having a height greater than 0.6m (1.96'), located 3.2m (10.49') from the lot line abutting Falconridge Crescent (side yard abutting a street) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), on Part Block 9, Registered Plan 58M-182, being Part 57, Reference Plan 58R-12969 ,433 Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall apply for and receive approval for a building permit for the swimming pool and deck from the City's Building Division. 2. That the owners shall install all landscaping shown on the drawing prepared by Don Prosser, Landscape Designer as submitted with this application. 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 Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 2. Submission Nos.: A 2008-038 Applicant: L.LN Investments Ltd. Property Location: 808 Courtland Avenue East Legal Description: Part Lot 11, Plan 791 Appearances: In Support: R. Brunn Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate the parking aisle 3m (9.84') from the property line along Courtland Avenue rather than the required 4.57m (15'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 23, 2008, advising that the subject property is located on the southeast corner of Courtland Avenue and the Conestoga Parkway onramp. The property currently contains a low rise commercial/light industrial plaza with a number of tenants. The applicant is requesting a minor variance from Special Regulation Provision 73R to allow a parking aisle to be located 3.0 meters from a street line rather than 4.57 metres. As described in the email attached to the application, the owner has unknowingly paved the area between the building and Courtland Ave. The owner would like to rectify the situation; however, they feel that by increasing the landscaped area to 4.57 metres as required would no longer allow two way traffic to access the parking adjacent to the Conestoga Parkway onramp. Staff have deemed parking in this area legal non-conforming, as there is proof that it was in place prior to the parking setback requirements. A 3.0 metre landscape buffer would still allow adequate paved surface space for two-way traffic to the side yard parking, while providing a landscaped buffer between the driveway aisle and the streetline. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 159 JULY 15, 200$ 2. Submission No.: A 2008-038 tCont'd) The paved area adjacent to Courtland Avenue is currently leased to a tenant, who relies on passersby being able to see vehicles parked in this location. The tenant has signed a 5 year lease with the owner. The owner would like to honour this lease, and proposes that the 3.0 metres be reinstated to landscaping, within three months of this lease expiring on February 29, 2012. Planning staff support this proposal, and have included as a condition of the variance, that a 3.0 metre landscape strip must be installed and finished with a minimum of sod by May 31, 2012, or the variance will be void and the site would not be in compliance. 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 lands are designated Arterial Commercial Corridor which permits a broad range of commercial and industrial business uses. The proposed variance will allow an adequate setback from the driveway aisle to the street line while also allowing for appropriate site circulation necessary to support the uses permitted on the site. The lands are zoned Service Commercial Zone (C-6) with Special Regulations 1 R, 73R and Special Use Provision 76U. The zoning permits a broad range of commercial and industrial business uses. Special Regulation 73R specifically requires that parking spaces and aisles giving direct access to abutting parking spaces not be located within 4.57 metres of a street line. Typically, the zoning by-law only requires a 3.0 metre setback to parking spaces or aisles. The 4.57 metre regulation was introduced as part of a zone change application in the early 1990's to rezone and redesignate Arterial Commercial Corridor and Service Commercial Zone (C-6). The special regulation was part of an effort to avoid redevelopment of the site as a standard strip plaza, and at the time amixed-use/hotel was being considered. However, this project never materialized, and the existing building remained. As such, staff feels that a 3.0 metre setback to a parking aisle associated with the existing building is in keeping with the intent of the zoning by-law. This is the same regulation that would apply to most other developments within the City. However, staff suggest that should the site be comprehensively redeveloped in the future, the 4.57 metre setback would still apply. Staff feels that the variance is minor, as a setback of 3.0 metres will be provided, which is consistent with most other areas within the City. This will allow a standard landscaping buffer between the street line and the driveway aisle. In addition, the driveway and parking area is raised about 1 metre above street level. From the position of the passerby, and in the opinion of the writer, the change in elevation also helps to provide definition and separation between the parking/driveway area and the sidewalk/roadway. Furthermore, the owner is not proposing to redevelop the site at this time and the proposed variance will allow two-way traffic to access the legal non- conforming parking located in the side yard abutting the onramp to the Conestoga Expressway. Staff feels that the variance will allow the site to continue to function in a safe and practical way to meet the needs of the City, and the property owner and their tenants. Therefore, staff feels that the proposed variance is appropriate for the future use of the lands. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved to allow a parking aisle to be located 3.0 metres from a street line for aisles associated with the existing building, whereas Special Regulation 73R requires a 4.57 metre setback, and subject to the work begin completed by June 1, 2012. 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 report of The Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planner, dated July 7, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 160 JULY 15, 200$ 2. Submission No.: A 2008-038 tCont'd) Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of L.LN Investments Ltd. requesting permission to locate a parking aisle, associated with the existing building, 3m (9.84') from the property line along Courtland Avenue rather than the required 4.57m (15'), on Part Lot 11, Plan 791, 808 Courtland Avenue East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall install a 3m wide landscape strip between the lot line along Courtland Avenue and the parking aisle approved in this application, and at a minimum the landscaping shall consist of sod, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, no later than May 31, 2012. Should this landscaping not be completed as required above, this approval becomes null and void. 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 Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 3. Submission Nos.: A 2008-048 Applicant: Pat and Penny O'Neil Property Location: 924 Armenian Court Legal Description: Lot 7, Registered Plan 58M-402 Appearances: In Support: P. O'Neil Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to add a roof over an existing deck such that the covered deck will have a rear yard of 3.66m (12') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated July 3, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on Armenian Court in the Doon South area of Kitchener. The property is zoned Residential Six (R-6) and designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The property is presently developed with a single detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow a rear yard setback of 3.66 metres whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The variance is requested as the property owner wishes to construct a roof over an existing deck. The property is located on a cul-de-sac backing onto open space land. The property has been developed with a large attached deck in the rear yard. The existing deck is less than 0.6 metres from finished grade which complies with the zoning requirements COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 161 JULY 15, 200$ 3. Submission No.: A 2008-048 tCont'd) for setback. However, the proposed addition of a roof over the deck necessitates the request for a variance to the rear yard 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 proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan as the property is designated Low Rise Residential and the addition of a roof over the existing deck will not change the designation of the property. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the property is zoned Residential Six which permits single detached dwellings. The rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is required to ensure adequate outdoor amenity space is provided for residential properties as well as ensuring adequate separation from dwellings on lots abutting the rear yard. Privacy for the enjoyment of the outdoor amenity area is also a consideration. In this case, the rear yard existing with an attached deck less than 0.6 metres from grade with a setback of 3.66 metres at the closest point to the rear lot line. This situation complies with the zoning by-law as a 0 metre setback is permitted for an attached deck less than 0.6 metres from grade provided it is not covered or enclosed. The subject property backs onto open space, therefore, maintaining the intent of the zoning by-law by not affecting the outdoor amenity space on an abutting residential property. By adding a roof over the existing deck, the applicant will not be eliminating their amenity area but rather, providing an alternate type of amenity space. The roof addition over the existing deck will have a setback of 3.66 metres from the rear lot line which staff believe is adequate considering the rear yard abuts open space. The location of the existing deck and proposed roof addition will not interfere with the amenity area of the properties on either side of the subject lot due to the "pie" shape of the lot and the fact it is on the "bulb" of the cul-de-sac. The configuration of the existing deck and proposed roof structure will be at the reduced setback of 3.66 metres from the rear lot line for only a small portion of the structure. Staff are of the opinion that the impact of the variance is minor mainly due to the fact the property abuts an open space area. As well, the configuration of the lot and location of the existing deck will not create any negative impact for the neighbouring properties, as it is located to the rear of the lot. The request for minor variance is both appropriate and desirable as the outdoor amenity space will be maintained, neighbouring properties will not be negatively impacted and the subject property backs onto open space land. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 27, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. O'Neil advised that the height of the roof will be approximately 8' above the deck. Ms. von Westerholt confirmed that the property to the rear of the subject property is open space and will not be developed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 162 JULY 15, 200$ 3. Submission No.: A 2008-048 tCont'd) Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk. Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Pat and Penny O'Neil requesting permission to add a roof over an existing deck such that the covered deck will have a rear yard of 3.66m (12') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 7, Registered Plan 58M-402, 924 Armenian Court, 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 Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 4. Submission Nos.: A 2008-049 Applicant: D. H. O. H Properties of Canada Inc. Property Location: 257 Frederick Street Legal Description: Lot 4, Part Lot 5 and Part Lot 27, Registered Plan 424 Appearances: In Support: L. Dowell Contra: P. Bufe C. Bisca Written Submissions: T. van Vliet The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a mixed use commercial/residential building with the following variances: provide 22 off- street parking spaces rather than the required 27 off-street parking spaces; permission to reduce the required side yard abutting Samuel Street from 3m (9.84') to 2.09m (6.85'); permission to locate dwelling units on the ground floor and to exempt these ground floor residential units from having the required patios; and permission for a building height of 15.25m (50') rather than the permitted height of 12.2m (40'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated July 3, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the corner of Frederick and Samuel Streets in the Central Frederick neighbourhood. The property is zoned Commercial-Residential One Zone with Special Regulation Provision 114R and Special Use Provision 1280. The property is designated as Low Density Commercial Residential. The subject property is presently vacant of buildings and is being used as a parking lot. The previously existing building was demolished in the mid 1990's due to a structural failure. The applicant is requesting the following minor variances to facilitate development of a new mixed use building containing office space and dwelling units. 1. To allow 22 parking spaces rather than the required 27 spaces; 2. To allow a side yard abutting the street of 2.09 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres; COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 163 JULY 15, 200$ 4. Submission No.: A 2008-049 tCont'd) 3. To allow dwelling units on the ground floor of a building containing commercia uses; 4. To allow ground floor dwelling units to not provide exclusive use patios; 5. To allow a maximum building height of 15.25 metres rather than the permitted 12.2 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. Variance 1. To provide 22 parking spaces rather than the required 27 parking spaces. The variance can be considered minor in nature for the following reasons. The proposed development is located along a public transit route and within walking distance of the city core and many amenities. The residential units, which are proposed to be condominium units, will each have one dedicated parking space and the office space will have 9 parking spaces available. The office use will have a different peak demand period than the residential units and will allow fora "shared" parking arrangement on site. Several of the office spaces may be designated for visitor parking after normal business hours through the week and all day on weekends. Visitors may also utilize year round on-street parking on all surrounding side streets, except between the hours of 2:30 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. from December 1st through to March 31st the same as any other residential property in Kitchener. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The purpose of the parking requirement in By-law 85-1 is to ensure adequate parking is provided for the proposed land uses. In this case, the applicant has advised that the residential units are intended for singles or couples that own one vehicle only. Accordingly, one space will be provided for each dwelling unit. Parking for the office space will be provided at the required rate of 1 space per 28 square metres of floor space. Based on the expected automobile ownership and parking demand of the site, a reduced parking requirement is appropriate for this development. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Low Density Commercial Residential designation of the property encourages a mix of commercial and residential uses. The proposed development is an ideal combination of these types of uses at an appropriate location. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land for the following reasons. This section of Frederick Street is a Primary Arterial Road under the jurisdiction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Frederick Street is a public transit route and is in close proximity to the Grand River Transit Terminal. The site is within a 5 minute walk to the downtown core and several major amenities (Frederick Street Mall/Banks/Parks). These factors all have the potential to reduce the overall parking demand, without negatively impacting the experience of future users and residents of this building. Variance 2. To allow a side yard abutting the street of 2.09 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres; The variance can be considered minor in nature for the following reasons.The encroachment of the building by 0.91 metres into the required side yard will not be visibly discernable as Samuel Street has a City right-of-way of approximately 4 metres. The reduced setback of the building will not create any visibility obstructions from the either Samuel Street or Frederick Street. The reduced setback will not interfere with the use of the surrounding properties, will still provide ample area for high quality landscaping and will provide a building mass that frames both street frontages. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 164 JULY 15, 200$ 4. Submission No.: A 2008-049 tCont'd) The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The purpose of building setback requirements is to ensure adequate separation between buildings and property boundaries to control density, protect privacy and mitigate traffic noise. The reduced setback of 2.09 metres will not interfere with the existing public sidewalk on Samuel Street. High quality landscaping will ensure the pedestrian environment is not compromised. Adequate building separation will be maintained as the City right-of-way is approximately 4 metres along Samuel Street and the property on the opposite side of Samuel Street would be separated by approximately 28 metres from the fagade of the proposed building. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo will require a noise study for the proposed condominium units to determine whether special building materials are required to mitigate any traffic noise impacts. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Low Density Commercial Residential designation encourages development that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood. The proposed development fits into the existing neighbourhood not only in terms of use, office and residential, but also in keeping with other corner property building setbacks. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development of the land for the following reasons. The relationship between the proposed building and the public realm are of high importance. The minor reduction in side yard setback will strengthen the interface between the public realm and the building fagade. The applicant has proposed enhanced building elevations, along both street frontages, including articulation of the corner and side building entrances, several large scale windows, decorative lighting and stone materials, all contributing to the desirability of the proposed development. The architectural fagade of the proposed building will be reminiscent of the office building located one block west at 209 Frederick Street, which is a past winner of a City of Kitchener Urban Design Award. Variance 3. To allow dwelling units on the ground floor of a building containing commercial uses. The variance can be considered minor for the following reasons. The commercial use proposed for this development is an office which, by nature of the business, will be compatible with ground floor residential. Having residential units on the ground floor will not affect or change the character of the existing neighbourhood nor does it conflict with the use of the adjacent lands. The applicant has advised that the building would contain commercial office uses on the ground floor fronting Frederick Street, and two dwelling units on the ground floor facing Samuel Street and the interior of the site. Dwelling units facing Samuel Street are of greater compatibility with the existing residential uses on Samuel Street. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the by-law is to provide for separation between land uses. The commercial uses in the proposed building would typically operate during the standard business hours of nine to five. These hours of operation will have minimal to no impact on the residents of the ground floor dwelling units. The building would be designed so that the residential and commercial uses would be physically separated by a central corridor. Separate entrances would be provided to the business units on the ground floor and the dwelling units on the ground and upper floors. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The proposed mixed use building will uphold the intensions of the Low Density Commercial Residential designation to provide a range of residential and office uses and to encourage the integration of these uses within mixed use buildings. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 165 JULY 15, 200$ 4. Submission No.: A 2008-049 tCont'd The variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land for the following reasons. Providing dwelling units on the ground floor facing Samuel Street is in keeping with the residential neighbourhood along Samuel Street. Allowing ground floor dwelling units will be more compatible with the existing residential properties on Samuel Street. Residential units on the ground floor creates more opportunity for "eyes on the street", which enhances pedestrian safety. Ground floor units would be designed to be barrier free accessible. Variance 4. To allow ground floor dwelling units to not provide exclusive use patios. The variance can be considered minor for the following reasons. The applicant is proposing only two ground floor dwelling units that would require an exclusive use patio area. The design concept for the building includes a central amenity and patio area for use by all residents of the building. The proposed amenity space will function in place of the two exclusive use ground floor patios. The area proposed to be designated as communal amenity is approximately 209 square metres, significantly greater than that required for two individual patio areas of 11 square metres each. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The exclusive use patio regulation for ground floor dwelling units is to ensure residents are provided with on-site amenity space outside of their individual dwelling units. In lieu of private patios for ground floor dwellings (and balconies for second and third floor units), a landscaped amenity area with a patio section is proposed at the rear of the building for the exclusive use of condominium residents. This also creates a landscaped area significantly greater than the minimum requirement of 10% of the lot area. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Low Density Commercial Residential designation encourages a range of residential and office uses and the integration of these uses within mixed use buildings. The proposed development supports this objective. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land for the following reasons. By providing a central amenity space on the site, all residents of the building will benefit and the ground floor units will have direct access to the amenity space. High quality landscaping will be installed creating a comfortable outdoor micro-climate. Variance 5. To allow a maximum building height of 15.25 metres rather than the permitted 12.2 metres. The variance can be considered minor for the following reasons. The minor increase in building height will not change or affect the character of the existing neighbourhood. The increase in building height will not conflict with the use of adjacent lands and buildings. Visually, the minor increase in building height will not be discernable to the naked eye, nor will it create an adverse impact on the public realm. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The purpose of the height restriction in the Zoning By-law is to preserve the current building scale and streetscape along Frederick Street and to control the intensity of the development. In this particular development proposal, the minor building height increase is not meant to accommodate additional dwelling units; rather it will provide the upper level units with a loft space. The increase in building height will also provide the opportunity for larger window openings increasing natural light into both the commercial and residential units. The building is proposed to be designed with a mansard roof which will draw the eye downward, visually minimizing the height of the building. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Low Density Commercial Residential designation encourages COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 166 JULY 15, 200$ 4. Submission No.: A 2008-049 tCont'd) development that is in keeping with the community's present scale of development and architectural style. The proposed building fagade and overall design of the building is appropriate and fits into the character of the existing neighbourhood. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land for the following reasons. A three storey building that is 15.25 metres in height will create the appropriate transition between the 17 storey apartment building on the north side of Frederick Street (opposite the subject property), and the 2 and 3 storey buildings on the south side of Frederick Street. Additional building height will allow the architect to provide a more sophisticated mansard roof line and turret feature on the corner of the building, which will enhance the streetscape and public realm, creating a focal point along Frederick Street. Planning staff fully support the proposed redevelopment of this property and have worked at length with the applicant to design the site to provide the communal amenity area and parking lot. The proposed mixed use building is of a size and design appropriate for the existing neighbourhood. Planning staff acknowledges the comments of Transportation Planning, requesting that the applicant submit a parking study of a similar type of development with shared parking. However, Planning staff is of the opinion that the reduction in parking from the required 27 space to 22 spaces being provided does not warrant a parking study and that the shared parking arrangement will adequately meet the parking demand. Further, in response to Transportation Planning's comments, the applicant has submitted a letter, dated July 4, 2008, explaining in detail the function of the site and the parking. Planning Staff is in agreement with their findings and support the parking reduction. The Committee considered the comments of the City of Kitchener Transportation Planning staff in which they recognize that there may be some shared parking use between the residential and commercial components of the site; however, they can not support a parking variance as there is insufficient information provided to substantiate the correlation between the commercial and residential components of the development. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 27, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered correspondence from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated June 27, 2008, advising that any approval of this application should include conditions that require the applicants to make satisfactory arrangements with Hydro for the provision of electrical servicing to this land, including granting any easements that they may require. The Committee and staff considered the written submission of T. van Vliet, received this date, in opposition to this application. Mr. Cronkite, in response to the written submission, advised that the intersection of Samuel and Bingeman Streets does not meet the City's warrant for a stop sign. Respecting the issue of on-street parking, there is a restriction on both sides of Frederick Street and on one side of Samuel Street, so on-street parking is not readily available and he does not support the requested reduction in parking. Ms. von Westerholt advised that Planning staff supports the requested parking reduction as office hours are at opposite times from when the residents will have visitors, and public transit is available. Mr. Cronkite responded that there is transit available; however Transportation Planning want to have concrete numbers respecting how the commercial and residential uses will actually interact. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 167 JULY 15, 200$ 4. Submission No.: A 2008-049 tCont'd) Ms. L. Dowell, agent for the applicant and the future developer, addressed the Committee advising that these residential units will be sold as condominiums with only 1 parking space each, and people will not buy them if they have more than 1 car. She also advised the Committee that she submitted a supplementary letter, dated July 4th 2008, stating that they have refined their plans for the ground floor, and the floor area for the commercial office space has been reduced from 308 sq. m to 281 sq. m; consequently they are only required to provide 26 off-street parking spaces. Ms. Dowell advised that there will be 9 spaces available to the office use and at least '/2 of these spaces will be available to the residents' guests outside office hours. She also stated that on-street parking is there for a reason. Further, when people buy a residential unit they will be advised through their offer to purchase and sale that each unit only comes with one parking space. Ms. Bisca advised that she owns the abutting property at 18 Samuel Street, and she is opposed to this application. She stated that there is already a problem with on-street parking on Samuel Street and there is a greater problem in the winter, as Samuel Street is narrow. Also, it was her opinion that this building is too big for the property. Ms. Dowell responded that the ploughing done by the City in the winter is insufficient as this street is ploughed as though there is only 1 lane, and her client shouldn't be penalized because of that. Further, the size of the building will be less than the by-law allows. Ms. Bisca concluded that even in summer there is as problem with parking on Samuel Street to the point that people come and park on her driveway. Mr. P. Bufe, a neighbourhood resident, advised that he agrees with the previous speaker that there is a problem with on-street parking not only on Samuel Street, but in this area generally. He stated that his main concern is with the height of this building, and the proponents haven't given any reason as to why they can't comply with the by- law. This is a corner property and a building of this height will be noticeable. Mr. Bufe advised that if the City thinks that higher buildings in this area are a good idea, they should go through the by-law amendment process, which requires public input. Mr. McColl referred to the current use of this property as a parking lot, and Ms. Dowell responded that it is currently rented to Revenue Canada but it is not used on week- ends. Mr. McColl noted that the aerial photograph shows approximately 15 cars parked on this site, and these cars will have to be parked elsewhere. He stated that there is a problem with parking on Samuel Street and it is unfair to blame the City for the problem. He stated that there are inherent problems with parking in this area of the downtown. Mr. McColl then questioned whether the proposed height of the building is actually a minor variance. He stated that there is no definition of minor variance in the Planning Act; however, Justice Matlow went to great lengths to define what a minor variance is. If we are looking at 25% difference in height, is it truly a minor variance. The Chair stated that height restrictions were not determined in a vacuum, and they have been established for a reason. Messrs Hiscott and McColl stated that the variance for the height of the building is not a minor variance. Ms. Dowell stated that whether the building is 15m high or 12m high won't affect the parking. She advised that the top of the building contains loft bedrooms for the 3rd storey apartments. Mr. McColl stated that when you combine all the variances requested, they are substantial. He stated that there has been and is a parking problem in this area and these variances will create more of a problem, and the height and parking variances are of particular concern to him. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 168 JULY 15, 200$ 4. Submission No.: A 2008-049 tCont'd) Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of D.H.O.H Properties of Canada Inc, requesting permission to construct a mixed use commercial/residential building with the following variances: provide 22 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 26 off-street parking spaces; permission to reduce the required side yard abutting Samuel Street from 3m (9.84') to 2.09m (6.85'); permission to locate dwelling units on the ground floor and to exempt these ground floor residential units from having the required patios; and permission for a building height of 15.25m (50') rather than the permitted height of 12.2m (40'), on Lot 4, Part Lot 5 and Part Lot 27, Registered Plan 424, 257 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is not minor in nature. 2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property. Carried CONSENT 1. Submission Nos.: B 2008-017 & B 2008-019 Applicant: Werner Altvater Holdings Ltd. Property Location: 84 and 90 Country Hill Drive Legal Description: Whole of Block 167 and 168, Registered Plan 1329 Appearances: In Support: C. Drewitz Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for each of these properties to give an easement/right-of-way to the other property. Each easement/right-of-way will have a width on Country Hill Drive of 3.051 m (10') and a depth of approximately 56.12m (184.12') and each easement/right-of-way will abut the common lot line between the two properties. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated July 3, 2008, in which they advise that the subject properties are located beside each other on the east side of Country Hill Drive, south of Block Line Road. Each property contains two 3-storey multiple dwellings (apartment buildings) which were constructed in the mid-1970s. Both properties are under the same ownership. Vehicular access to the properties is achieved via a paved mutual driveway between the two buildings closest the street. The surrounding area is composed of a mix of low, medium and high density residential development. The properties are designated Medium Rise Residential in the Official Plan and are zoned R-8 in the Zoning By-law. The owner is requesting consent to re-establish mutual rights-of-way and easements "for the purpose of shared passage and re-passage and shared ingress and egress of persons and vehicles and animals, and for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, repairing, replacing and operating any public or private utilities or services including, but not limited to, hydro, gas, water, storm and sanitary sewers, telephone transmission lines, cable television lines and computer data transmission lines." COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 169 JULY 15, 200$ 1. Submission No.: B 2008-017 & B 2008-019 tCont'd) According to the applicant, rights-of-way were previously created in 1974 through consent under the Planning Act. The applicant has further stated that changes to the Planning Act effective March 31, 1979 added a new provision [i.e., the predecessor of Section 50(12)], which because the two properties had come under the same ownership, had the effect of extinguishing the right-of-way. Application B2008-017 (subject property 84 Country Hill Drive) proposes aright-of-way and easement with a width of 3.051 metres, a depth of 56.226 metres, and an area of 171.22 square metres, in favour of 90 Country Hill Drive (with a reciprocal easement being reserved). This right-of-way would have the effect of legally allowing, for instance, tenants of 90 Country Hill Drive to exit the property from the driveway on 84 Country Hill Drive and enter from the driveway on their own property. Application B2008-019 (subject property 90 Country Hill Drive) proposes aright-of-way and easement with a width of 3.051 metres, a depth of 56.013 metres, and an area of 170.85 square metres, over 84 Country Hill Drive in favour of 90 Country Hill Drive (with a reciprocal easement being reserved). This right-of-way would have the effect of legally allowing, for instance, tenants of 84 Country Hill Drive to enter the property from the driveway on 90 Country Hill Drive and exit from the driveway on their own property Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed consent applications make good planning sense as they have the effect of re-establishing an access to/from the properties that previously existed and would allow legal access to be provided in the way that it was intended. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated July 9, 2008 in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. Mr. Drewitz advised that the owners received Consent approval for these rights-of-way in 1974. In 1979 the Planning Act was amended to say once a severance always a severance; however, this provision was not retroactive. It is now necessary to obtain Consent approval for these rights-of-way as the ownership for these properties has joined. Submission Nos.: B 2008-017 Moved by Ms.C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Werner Altvater Holdings Ltd. requesting permission to give an easement/right-of-way over a parcel of land having a width on Contry Hill Drive of 3.051 m (10') and a depth of approximately 56.12m (184.12'and having an area of 171.22 sq.m. (1,843.05 sq.ft.), to the abutting property at 90 Country Hills Drive, on Part Block 168, Registered Plan 1329, 84 Country Hill 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 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. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 170 JULY 15, 200$ 1. Submission No.: B 2008-017 & B 2008-019 tCont'd) 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 July 15, 2010. Carried Submission Nos.: B 2008-019 Moved by Ms.C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Werner Altvater Holdings Ltd. requesting permission to give an easement/right-of-way over a parcel of land having a width on Contry Hill Drive of 3.051 m (10') and a depth of approximately 56.12m (184.12') and having an area of 171.22 sq.m. (1,843.05 sq.ft.), to the abutting property at 84 Country Hills Drive, on Part Block 167, Registered Plan 1329, 90 Country Hill 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 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. 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 July 15, 2010. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 171 JULY 15, 200$ 2. Submission Nos.: B 2008-018 & B 2008-024 Applicant: 2067298 Ontario Ltd. Property Location: 55 Woolwich Street Legal Description: Part Lot 59, German Comgany Tract Appearances: In Support: H. Madan B. Nimer Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land, through Submission No. B 2008-018, having a width on Woolwich Street of 54m (177.16') by a depth of 26.6m (87.27') and an area of 1,204.1 sq. m. (12,961.24 sq. ft.), to be developed with 6 street fronting townhouses. The applicant is also requesting permission to sever a parcel of land, through Submission No. B 2008-024, having a frontage on Woolwich Street of 29.4m (96.4') by a depth of 26.6m (87.27') and an area of 782.2 sq. m. (8,419.8 sq. ft.). The proposed use is 4 street fronting townhouses. The retained land will have a width on Woolwich Street of 24.4m (80'), have an irregular shape and have an area of 3,495.5 sq. m. (37,626.48 sq. ft.). This property contains the existing single family dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated July 3, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the west side of Woolwich Street between Bridge Street and Hillcrest Lane in Bridgeport North. It encompasses an area of 5481 square metres and has 107.8 metres of frontage onto Woolwich Street. The subject property is currently developed with a single detached home that is listed on the City's Heritage Inventory. The applicant is proposing to sever two lots with 54 and 29.4 metres of frontage, respectively, onto Woolwich Street while retaining a lot with 24.4 metres of frontage that will contain the existing home. The applicant is proposing to develop ten (10) street- fronting townhomes on the severed portions of land. A site visit by staff was made on June 26, 2008. The Official Plan designation of the subject property is Low Rise Residential. This designation accommodates a full range of low rise housing types with a maximum net density of twenty-five (25) units per hectare. The zoning, under By-law 85-1, is Residential Six (R-6) which permits singles, semis and multiples. Bridgeport North and Bridgeport East are currently affected by the "development cap" imposed by the Region of Waterloo. However, Regional staff advises that this property is not affected by the "cap" because the R-6 zoning would already permit the development of street-fronting townhomes with or without a severance. Although staff see merit in the consent applications, staff are recommending deferral for the following reasons. Firstly, development of the townhomes will require site plan approval. As such, staff are of the opinion that approving these consents in advance of site plan approval would be premature. There are constraints on the property that through the site plan process will enable staff to make a more informed decision on the appropriate size and configuration of the proposed severed and retained parcels of land. In light of the following questions regarding grading, servicing, re-location of the driveway for the existing house, tree management, heritage issues, hydro service re- location, staff feels that site plan approval should be obtained prior to the approval of the consents. Secondly, Heritage Staff are requesting that a Conservation Plan be prepared that will demonstrate measures to protect and enhance the existing house on this property. Heritage Staff are recommending that the plan be done as part of the site plan approval process. Planning Staff concur with Heritage Staff in this regard, as the Conservation COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 172 JULY 15, 200$ 2. Submission No.: B 2008-018 & B 2008-024 tCont'd) Plan may also have implications on the size and configuration of the proposed severed and retained parcels of land. Lastly, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed retained lot is an awkward configuration that is not the most efficient use of land zoned for multiples. As such, Planning and Heritage Staff would like the opportunity to explore with the applicant an appropriate size of lot for the heritage house such that any residual land can be added as a lot addition to either of the adjacent neighbouring properties zoned R-6 and R-8, respectively. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated July 9, 2008 in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. The Chair noted that staff are recommending deferral of these applications until the necessary site plan(s) for the property has been submitted and reviewed. Mr. Madan advised that before these applications were submitted, he had extensive discussions with City and Regional staff. He was aware of the requirements for a Conservation Plan, and they are almost ready to submit that plan. They were asked to submit a concept plan; however, this land will be sold before it is developed so they have difficulty going through the site plan process. These townhouses may not be built as there are other permitted uses in this zone. Mr. Madan advised that all of the staff concerns can be addressed through conditions imposed by this Committee through the site plan process, and all 3 parcels comply with the zoning requirements: • relocation of the driveway can be a condition of the Consent; • tree management on Part 1 can be dealt with at the site plan stage; • heritage conservation can be dealt with through the Consent; • Hydro connections through the site plan. With respect to the configuration of the retained land, Mr. Madan advised that the limits of the lands are already existing. Mr. Madan requested that the Committee approve these applications with his recommended conditions. He noted that the road widening recommended by staff is already shown on the plan. Mr. Nimer stated that there is no guarantee of the exact use of these lands other than the permitted uses, and it is premature to go through site plan control at this time. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff has a concern from a heritage conservation perspective, because if the property changes hands, heritage conservation may not come to fruition. The size of the severed lands relates to the heritage conservation in terms of the configuration of the site. Further the necessary tree preservation is directly related to heritage conservation, and without knowing about the trees there may be a problem with the road widening. The Chair stated that he is in support of the deferral, as it is necessary from the City to retain control in order to ensure heritage conservation. Ms. von Westerholt confirmed that the City's main concern is heritage conservation, as it may require a change in the shape of the severed lands. Mr. Madan confirmed that the heritage conservation plan should be complete within the next 2-3 weeks. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That consideration of submission No.s B 2008-018 and B 2008-024 - 55 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, BE DEFERRED, until such time as the owner receives approval of a heritage conservation plan for this property from the City of Kitchener. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTI 3. Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: ~IENT 173 JULY 15, 200$ B 2008-020 Sunvest Development Corp. 202 & 204 Huck Crescent Lot 22, Registered Plan 58M-435, being Parts 1 and 2, Reference Plan 58R-16092 J. Oliver None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever 2 semi-detached dwelling units from each other so each may be dealt with separately. The land to be severed, 202 Huck Crescent, will have a width on Huck Crescent of 9m (29.52') by a depth of 30.324m (99.48') and an area of 273.2 sq. m. (2,940.79 sq. ft.). The retained land, 204 Huck Crescent, will have a width on Huck Crescent of 14.682m (48.16'), a depth of 30.324m (99.48') and an area of 417.2 sq. m. (4,490.85 sq. ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated July 4, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on a corner lot of Huck Crescent in the west end of Kitchener. The surrounding area is presently being developed with single and semi-detached dwellings. The subject property contains a recently constructed semi-detached dwelling (i.e., two semi- detached houses) on one lot. The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Four (R-4). The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots in such a way as to allow separate ownership of each semi-detached house. The purpose and effect of this application is to create a new lot. The severed lot would have a frontage of 9.0 metres and an area of 273 square metres, while the retained lot (corner lot) would have a frontage of 41.9 metres and an area of 417 square metres. 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 and Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning staff notes that the Zoning By-law defines asemi-detached dwelling as "a building divided vertically into two semi-detached houses by a common wall which prevents internal access between semi-detached houses and extends from the base of the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal distance of not less than 35 percent of the horizontal depth of the building. Each semi-detached house shall be designed to be located on a separate lot having access to and frontage on a street." Both lots comply with the regulations of the R-4 Zone. In addition, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the use of the properties as semi-detached houses, the land fronts on an established public street, and both parcels of land are currently serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible with the lot sizes in the surrounding area, of which there is a mix of single and semi-detached dwellings. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated July 9, 2008 in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 174 JULY 15, 200$ 3. Submission No.: B 2008-020 tCont'd) That the application of Sunvest Development Corp. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Huck Crescent of 9m (29.52') by a depth of 30.324m (99.48') and having an area of 273.2 sq. m. (2,940.79 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 22, Registered Plan 58M-435, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-16092, 202 Huck Crescent, 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. 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 July 15, 2010. Carried 4. Submission Nos.: B 2008-021 Applicant: The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Hamilton in Ontario Property Location: 35 Weber Street West, 56 Duke Street West & 73 Young Street Legal Description: Part Lot 7 and Part Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, Registered Plan 401, Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-8060, except Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-8060, Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-9858 and Parts 2-5, 7 & 8, Reference Plan 58R-14836, subject to and together with rights and subject to easements Appearances: In Support: D. Kocher Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to lease, in excess of 21 years, property having a width on Weber Street of 72.157m (236.73') by a depth on Ontario Street of 77.307m (253.63'), having an irregular shape and having an COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 175 JULY 15, 200$ 4. Submission No.: B 2008-021 tCont'd) area of 5,593.3 sq. m. (18,350.72 sq. ft.). This property contains the Downtown Community Centre and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board office. The retained land contains St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church and rectory. The applicant is also requesting aright-of-way over a portion of the retained land in favour of the lease land, and there is an existing right-of-way over a portion of the lease land. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated July 8, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is on the south side of Weber Street West, between Ontario and Young Streets. The property is zoned Office District (D-4) and is designated as a Office District in the City's Official Plan. On November 21, 2006, a similar application for a lease in excess of 21 years was approved by the Committee of Adjustment. However, the decision was voided as the condition requiring a deposited plan and digital file to be submitted was not met. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Sections 50(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed parcel is both desirable and appropriate. As per the policies of the Zoning By-law, the configuration of the severed parcel can be considered appropriate for the use of the offices and community centre. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated July 9, 2008 in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Hamilton in Ontario requesting permission to lease the following land in excess of 21 years: land having a width of 72.157m (236.73') on Weber Street by a depth of 77.307m (253.63') on Ontario Street, having an irregular shape and having an area of 5,593.3 sq. m. (18,350.72 sq. ft.) (shown as parts 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 on the draft reference plan); subject to an existing easement in favour of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. over Parts 1 & 2 on the draft reference plan; subject to an existing easement/right-of-way over Part 6 on the draft reference plan, and together with an easement/right-of-way over a portion of the retained land shown as Part 4, on the draft reference plan, on Part Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 7, Registered Plan 401, shown as Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, draft reference plan, 35A & 35B Weber Street West & 56 Duke Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following condition: 1. 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. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 176 JULY 15, 200$ 4. Submission No.: B 2008-021 tCont'd) 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 July 15, 2010. Carried 5. Submission Nos.: B 2008-022 & B 2008-023 Applicant: 1581662 Ontario Inc and 1597486 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 50 & 60 Washburn Drive Legal Description: Parts of Lot 12, Registered Plan 1471, being Parts 1 and 2, Reference Plan 58R-14392 Appearances: In Support: L. Richardson Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that in Submission No. B 2008-022 the owner of 50 Washburn Drive is requesting permission to give an easement to 60 Washburn Drive over a parcel of land having a width on Washburn Drive of 12.297m (40.34'), having a depth on the easterly side of 4.274m (14') and on the westerly side of 7.99m (26.21'). In Submission No. B 2008-023 the owner of 60 Washburn Drive is requesting permission to give an easement over land having a width of 22m (72.17') on Washburn Drive by a depth of approximately 101.748m (333.81') in favour of 50 Washburn Drive. The applicant is also requesting permission to sever a small piece of land on the east side of the proposed easement to be conveyed to 50 Washburn Drive as a lot addition. Both properties contain light industrial uses. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 27, 2008, in which the subject parcels of land are located at 50 and 60 Washburn Drive, generally located south of Bleams Rd, north of Washburn Drive and east of Trillium Drive. Site plan approval for 50 Washburn was granted in 2004 and the existing building was subsequently developed. The site plan registered on title shows that the storm water management (SWM) facility for 50 Washburn Drive is largely located within the boundaries of 60 Washburn Drive. This SWM facility serves the needs of both properties. The purpose of the applications is to obtain consent for two easements and a lot addition, as detailed below. B2008-023 (60 Washburn Drive): The owner of 60 Washburn Drive is requesting an easement over Part 1, as shown on the draft Reference Plan, in favour of 50 Washburn Drive for the purpose of servicing the pipes running from 50 Washburn Drive to the retention pond located on 60 Washburn Drive. Furthermore, the secondary purpose of the application is to server Part 2, as shown on the draft Reference Plan, from 60 Washburn and covey it as a lot addition to 50 Washburn Drive. The lot addition is being requested as the owner of 50 Washburn has inadvertently installed light standards upon the lands to be conveyed. B2008-022 (50 Washburn Drive): The owner of 50 Washburn Drive is requesting an easement over Part 3, as shown on the draft Reference Plan, in favour of 60 Washburn Drive to allow for the existence and maintenance of the storm water drainage pipes. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 177 JULY 15, 200$ 5. Submission No.: B 2008-022 & B 2008-023 tCont'd) 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 parcels land are in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the lots, should the lot addition be approved, are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands. Both parcels currently front onto established public streets and have adequate means of access. Both parcels of land are currently serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services and the proposed easements will ensure appropriate maintenance of the shared SWM facility. Staff feel that the proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and conforms to the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law regulations. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated July 9, 2008 in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. Mr. Richardson advised that he is in agreement with the staff recommendation including the conditions. Submission Nos.: B 2008-022 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk The application of 1581662 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to give an easement to 60 Washburn Drive over a parcel of land having a width on Washburn Drive of 12.297m (40.34'), having a depth on the easterly side of 4.274m (14') and on the westerly side of 7.99m (26.21'), on Part Lot 12, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1471, being part of Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-14392, (shown as Part 3, draft reference plan) 50 Washburn 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 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 owners of 50 Washburn Drive and 60 Washburn Drive shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that easements for storm water management and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained in perpetuity, and provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered against the title of both properties. 4. That the lands to be severed from 60 Washburn Drive (Part 2 on the draft Reference Plan) shall be added to the abutting lands (50 Washburn Drive) and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Acf, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 178 JULY 15, 200$ 5. Submission No.: B 2008-022 & B 2008-023 tCont'd) Submission Nos.: B 2008-022 tCont'd) 5. That the Solicitor for the owner of 60 Washburn shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application to Consolidate Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. 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 July 15, 2010. Carried Submission Nos.: B 2008-023 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk The application of 1597486 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to give an easement over land having a width of 22m (72.17') on Washburn Drive by a depth of approximately 101.748m (333.81') in favour of 50 Washburn Drive, and also requesting permission to sever a small piece of land on the east side of the proposed easement to be conveyed to 50 Washburn Drive (shown as Part 2 on the draft reference plan) as a lot addition, on Part Lot 12, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1471, being Parts of Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-14392, (shown as Parts 1 & 2, draft reference plan) 50 Washburn 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 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 owners of 50 Washburn Drive and 60 Washburn Drive shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that easements for storm water management and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained in perpetuity, and provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered against the title of both properties. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 179 JULY 15, 200$ 5. Submission No.: B 2008-022 & B 2008-023 tCont'd) Submission Nos.: B 2008-023 tCont'd) 4. That the lands to be severed from 60 Washburn Drive (Part 2 on the draft Reference Plan) shall be added to the abutting lands (50 Washburn Drive) and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Acf, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 5. That the Solicitor for the owner of 60 Washburn shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application to Consolidate Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. 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 July 15, 2010. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of July, 2008. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment