Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2008-12-09COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 9, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. C. Balcerczyk, and Messrs. D. Cybalski, M. Hiscott, B. McColl and A. Head OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Bateman, Planning Technician, Mr. B. Cronkite, Traffic Technologist, Ms. J. Billett, Acting Secretary -Treasurer and Ms. L. Garovat, Administrative Clerk. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That Mr. D. Cybalski be appointed Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 2009, and Mr. M. Hiscott be appointed Vice -Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 2009. Carried Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of November 18, 2008, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2008-063 Applicant: The Eldorado Tool & Manufacturing Company Ltd. Property Location: 2053 Shirley Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-13567 Appearances: In Support: J. Heimpel P. Harry Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition onto the south side of the existing building to have a rear yard of 10m (32.8') rather than the required 15m (49.21'). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 219 DECEMBER 9, 2008 1. Submission No.: A 2008-063 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 3, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the corner of Shirley Drive and Bingemans Centre Drive and is developed with a manufacturing facility. A railway line abuts the side lot line of the property and runs parallel with Shirley Drive and Victoria Street. The land is designated as Business Park in the City's Official Plan and zoned Business Park Service Centre Zone (B-3) with Special Regulation Provision 416R and Special Use Provision 338U in By-law 85-1. Provision 416R, in part, requires a minimum rear yard setback shall be 15 metres, incorporating a 2.0 metre high berm. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 15m to 10m to allow the construction of an addition to an existing industrial building. It should be noted that the intent of provision 416R is to create a continuous rear yard setback and berm for all properties that back onto the railway line. However, because the subject property was created as a corner lot at the time of subdivision approval with a shorter frontage on Bingemans Centre Drive, the By-law's definitions indicate that the property line parallel to the railway line is considered the side yard, instead of the rear yard. Therefore, in order for provision 416R to be properly implemented, Shirley Drive should be considered as the front yard (instead of Bingemans Centre Drive) in order to make the property line parallel to the rail line the rear yard. Staff deems it appropriate in this case to interpret the technical side lot line (lot line abutting the railway line) to be the rear lot line for the purposes of reviewing this application. 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 Official Plan because the lands are designated as Business Park which supports the manufacturing use. Furthermore, the Official Plan notes that the City shall ensure that there is sufficient serviced or serviceable land available to accommodate new industrial operations as well as the expansion and relocation of existing industrial operations. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as manufacturing is a permitted use. The intent of the 15 metre rear yard setback is to provide a safety buffer between industrial uses and the railway line. It should be noted that B-3 zones (without provision 416R) only require a rear yard setback of 7.5m. The requested variance for a 10.Om setback would exceed the requirements in a regular B-3 zone. Furthermore, a 10.Om setback would not affect the existing berm in place (as required in provision 416R), which creates a safety barrier to the adjacent rail line. The variance is minor for the following reasons. Reducing the rear yard setback has very minimal impacts to neighbouring properties. Because the property is on a corner lot, there is only one neighbouring building, which has a large separation from the applicant's building due to the location of each building on their properties. Furthermore, there is an existing berm in place between the rear lot line and the railway line, which helps to create a visual barrier for properties on the other side of the railway line which front onto Victoria Street. The industrial nature of the area supports large manufacturing facilities and staff does not anticipate the requested variance to interfere with the daily business activities of others. Finally, CN Rail, which has a direct interest in this variance due to their railway line backing on to the property, has indicated that it has no concerns with this application, as outlined in an email from Geoff Woods of CN to Rebecca Kerr of MTE Consultants Limited, dated December 15, 2005. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land since it encourages industrial activity and economic development. The addition to this manufacturing facility both increases the tax -base for the City, and creates employment opportunities in the area. The lands seeking the variance currently serve as an open field, and can be better utilized as an expanded industrial facility. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 220 DECEMBER 9, 2008 1. Submission No.: A 2008-063 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Supervisor of Corridor Management, dated October 28, 2008, in which he advised that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Manager, Community Planning & Development for CN Rail, dated December 2, 2008, advising that they have no objections with this application. Mr. J. Heimpel advised that clarity was required for this application in respect to the lot line adjacent to a CN Rail line. The subject property was created as a corner lot at the time of subdivision approval with a shorter frontage on Bingemans Centre Drive and the lot line abutting a CN Rail line is technically considered a side yard. For purposes of this application and proposed future expansion on the site, Mr. Heimpel advised that the applicant has agreed to consider Shirley Drive as the front yard in order to make the property line parallel to the rail line the rear yard to recognize the requirement for a berm on all properties backing onto the rail line. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of The Eldorado Tool & Manufacturing Company Ltd. requesting permission to construct an addition onto the south side of the existing building to have a rear yard of 10m (32.8') rather than the required 15m (49.21'), on Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-13567, 2053 Shirley Drive, 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 This meeting recessed at 9:40 a.m. and reconvened at 10:10 a.m. with the following members present: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs. D. Cybalski, M. Hiscott, B. McColl and A. Head. NEW BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: A 2008-087 Applicant: 6799329 Canada Inc. Property Location: 76-78 Borden Parkway Legal Description: Part Lot 33, Plan 384 Appearances: In Support: F. Kloibhofer Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 221 DECEMBER 9, 2008 1. Submission No. A 2008-087 (Cont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for 4 off-street parking spaces to be located between the fagade of the building and the front lot line along Borden Parkway, whereas parking in this location is not permitted in the Zoning By-law. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 28, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on Borden Parkway, west of Meinzinger Avenue, and has approximately 65 metres of frontage and an area of approximately 7250 square metres. The property is developed with a multiple dwelling complex containing a total of 28 dwelling units. The townhouses were constructed in approximately 1965. The property is zoned Residential Six (R-6) with Special Regulation Provision 1 R and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. It should be noted that the property is the subject of a condominium conversion application (file no. 30CDM-08207). Approval of the subject variance would have the effect of facilitating the draft approval of this condominium. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1d) i) of the Zoning By-law which requires that off-street parking for multiple dwellings not be located between the fagade and the front lot line. In no case shall any parking be located within the minimum front yard or within 3.0 metres of the street line. Visitor parking is exempted from this regulation, subject to certain regulations. Currently, there is a row of 4 non -visitor parking spaces which is between 2.0 and 6.4 metres from the front lot line. These spaces are considered to be non -conforming since the closest dwelling unit fagade is set back 6.67 metres from the front lot line and the required minimum front yard in the R-6 Zone is 4.5 metres. In this regard, the owner is requesting a minor variance to allow non -visitor parking spaces to be located between the fagade and the front lot line, to allow these parking spaces to be located within the required 4.5 metre minimum front yard and within 3.0 metres of the street line. The intent of this variance is to bring these 4 parking spaces to a conforming status. It should be noted that these parking spaces are not necessary to meet the required parking for the multiple dwelling complex nor the proposed condominium conversion. 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 Official Plan for the following reasons. The intent of this designation is to accommodate a full range of housing to achieve an overall low density. The proposed variance will allow the four parking spaces be legalized, while maintaining the low density character of the property. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of not having parking spaces in this location is to ensure that they do not conflict with any required road widenings. In addition, the intent is to maintain a pleasing visual appearance from the road. In this case, Borden Parkway dead -ends immediately to the west of the subject property. In this regard, it is in staff's opinion that the 4 spaces would not negatively impact the visual appearance of the property from outsiders. In addition, the Official Plan does not propose a road widening in Schedule "D" and, therefore, there is no threat that parking would be removed by future road widening. The variance is considered minor in nature as there is adequate separation from the proposed parking to abutting residential properties and road and as such will likely have minimal impact to adjacent lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 222 DECEMBER 9, 2008 Submission No. A 2008-087 tCont'd The variance is appropriate for the desirable development and use of the land as it would allow parking to be located in close proximity to dwelling units, thereby allowing easier access. Also, these parking spaces would have no significant adverse impacts. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 20, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of 6799329 Canada Inc. requesting permission for 4 off-street parking spaces to be located between the fagade of the building and the front lot line along Borden Parkway, whereas parking in this location is not permitted in the Zoning By-law, on Part Lot 33, Plan 384, 76-78 Borden Parkway, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the subject non -visitor parking spaces to which this variance applies be maintained in general accordance with the "Condominium Conversion" plan submitted with Minor Variance Application A2008-087, dated April 10, 2008. 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 No.: A 2008-088 Applicant: Mancal Lifestyles Inc. Property Location: 868 Doon Village Road Legal Description: Block I, Registered Plan 1367 Appearances: In Support: P. Bunker A. Bousfield Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 22 unit addition to the existing retirement residence such that the floor space ratio for the entire building will be 0.9 rather than the permitted 0.6. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated December 1, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the corner of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive, has approximately 77 metres of frontage and a lot area of approximately 7290 square metres. A residential care facility was constructed on the site in 2004. The subject property has a Municipal Plan designation of Low Rise Residential and is zoned Residential Six (R-6) with special regulations 218R and 262U in By-law 85-1. Special regulation 218R is not applicable to this proposal, as the development is not a street townhouse dwelling. Special COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 223 DECEMBER 9, 2008 2. Submission No. A 2008-088 (Cont'd) regulation 262U states that a residential care facility having 9 or more residents shall be permitted in accordance with Section 40.2.6 of the By-law, and the parking for such use shall be in accordance to Section 6.1.2 of the By-law for a Residential Care Facility. The applicant is requesting a minor variance from Section 40.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to permit a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.9 instead of the maximum permitted FSR of 0.6, to allow a proposed addition to a retirement building to provide additional assisted living units and an addition to the dining room to accommodate these new residents. 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: 1. The minor variance would permit an expansion to the existing residential care facility on the site. Within the Low Rise Residential designation, large residential care facilities are permitted where they are considered to be compatible with low- rise residential development. The use of this site for a residential care facility is an existing condition, leading to the conclusion that the use has already been deemed compatible. The impact of the variance would be to the affect of the scale of the use. Considering the location of the site at an intersection, the mix of adjacent land uses and the relationship of the existing residential care facility to the surrounding single and multi -unit residential uses, the proposed increase in density is not anticipated to reduce the compatibility of the use with low-rise residential development. Therefore, staff feels that the proposed variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan. 2. The purpose of the floor space ratio (FSR) is to limit the density on a property. The maximum 0.6 FSR on the subject site would limit the density of the entire development to the equivalent of 60% of the lot area. This does not necessarily mean that the lot coverage of a building constructed at that density would equal 60%, as the FSR is calculated using the Gross Floor Area, including the basement space. The variance requested proposes an increase of 0.3 FSR, bringing the total site FSR to 0.9 on a lot with an area of 7290 square metres. This would equate to an addition of an approximately 2185 square metres, but that building space would be dispersed over all of the storeys of the proposed addition. Plans submitted by the applicant show that the total building coverage at 0.9 FSR, which would include the proposed additions, would be only approximately 25% of the entire parcel. Even with the increased density, the development would meet all of the required setbacks and building height restrictions required by the Residential Six zoning. Therefore, staff feels that the development at 0.9 FSR would continue to be compatible with the low density character of the neighbourhood, and that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. 3. The subject site is located at the intersection of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive, which are classified as a major collector and minor collector roads, respectively, in the Municipal Plan. Except for peak visiting times during certain holidays, the residential care facility use is not a significant traffic generator. Staff does not anticipate that traffic volumes for such a facility constructed with a 0.9 FSR would differ greatly than those for such a facility constructed with a 0.6 FSR. The location of the proposed building addition is immediately adjacent to green spaces and Bechtel Drive, providing what staff feels is an adequate visual separation from the abutting residential uses. The proposed addition would be constructed with the same building height as an extension to the north-east wing of the existing facility (Photo 2), and would therefore not have a significant visual impact on the existing development. As the overall impact of the proposed development at the increased FSR would be minor, staff feels that the variance is minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 224 DECEMBER 9, 2008 2. Submission No. A 2008-088 (Cont'd) 4. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land, as it does not affect the ability to utilize the property as a large residential care facility as it currently exists. The current configuration of the building on the lot and the area of the proposed addition would be consistent with the established development within this neighbourhood and no adverse impacts as a result of this variance are anticipated. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 20, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Mancal Lifestyles Inc. requesting permission to construct a 22 unit addition to the existing retirement residence such that the floor space ratio for the entire building will be 0.9 rather than the permitted 0.6, on Block I, Registered Plan 1367, 868 Doon Village Road, 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 3. Submission No.: A 2008-089 Applicant: Dwayne Mitchell Property Location: 311 Frederick Street Legal Description: Part Lot 1, Plan 197 Appearances: In Support: D. Mitchell Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a lot having a width of 12.7 m. (41.7') rather than the required 15 m. (49.2'), and legalization of a building having a right side yard of 1.1 m. (3.8') rather than the required 1.2 m. (3.93'), and a side yard setback from Merner Avenue for a covered landing of 1.8 m. (5.9') rather than the required 3 m. (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 27, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the corner of Frederick Street and Merner Avenue and contains a single detached dwelling. The subject property is designated as Low Density Commercial Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Commercial Residential One (CR -1) with Special Regulation Provision 114R and Special Use Provision 128U in By-law 85- 1. The applicant is requesting minor variances with respect to side yard setbacks and lot width, to recognize existing conditions on the site in order to obtain occupancy permits. Specifically, the applicant is requesting permission for: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 225 DECEMBER 9, 2008 3. Submission No. A 2008-089 (Cont'd) 1. a side yard setback of 1.1 m rather than the required 1.2m; 2. a setback from the side yard abutting a street of 1.8m rather than the required 3m; and, 3. a lot width of 12.7m rather than the required 15m. With regards to variance requesting permission to permit a side yard setback of 1.1 m rather than the required 1.2m, Planning staff offer the following comments 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. 1. The Low Density Commercial Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of mixed commercial residential development and allows for low density redevelopment to office, institutional, and multiple residential uses. The structure at 311 Frederick Street is consistent in form and use with other development along Frederick Street. Therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan as a Low Density Commercial Residential area. 2. From a Zoning By-law standpoint, the variance does not affect the use of the property. CR -1 zones allow for office use, the parking requirements have been met and no physical changes to the property are being proposed, therefore minimizing the overall impacts to the surrounding properties. However, staff did note that a downspout from the building has been installed in a manner that directs rain water towards the neighbouring property (Photo 3). Staff is proposing a condition in the Recommendations section of this report to address this concern. 3. Staff are of the option that the variances requested are minor in scale and their possible impacts to the surroundings. The deficient setback of 0.1m (4 inches) has been in existence since the addition was built, with no history of complaints. Therefore, staff does not foresee any concerns with approving this requested variance. 4. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land because it blends well with the balance of dwellings along Frederick Street. Both the buildings use and architectural design and features are very common along this street. With regards to variance requesting permission to permit a side yard abutting a street setback of 1.8m rather than the required 3.0m, Planning staff offer the following comments 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. 1. The Low Density Commercial Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of mixed commercial residential development and allows for low density redevelopment to office, institutional, and multiple residential uses. The structure at 311 Frederick Street is consistent in form and use with other development along Frederick Street. Therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan as a Low Density Commercial Residential area. 2. From a Zoning By-law standpoint, the variance does not affect the use of the property. The intent of the limitation on encroachments into the side yard adjacent to a street is to ensure that adequate sightlines remain for vehicles and pedestrians utilizing that street. In this situation, the shelter protects a means in access to the building, and has been constructed in a fashion sympathetic to the style of the building. 3. The setback requested can be considered minor because it is in keeping with the setbacks of neighbouring properties along Merner Avenue as illustrated in Photo 4. The encroaching feature of concern is the overhang sheltering the raised steps. If those steps were at grade, the encroachment of the overhang would COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 226 DECEMBER 9, 2008 3. Submission No. A 2008-089 (Cont'd) not have required the minor variance. Staff are of the opinion that the overhang is architecturally desirable and that the encroachment will not have a significant impact. 4. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land because it blends well with the balance of dwellings along Frederick Street. Both the building's use and architectural design and features are very common along this street. With regards to variance requesting permission for a lot width of 12.7m rather than the required 15m, Planning staff offer the following comments 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. 1. The Low Density Commercial Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of mixed commercial residential development and allows for low density redevelopment to office, institutional, and multiple residential uses. The structure at 311 Frederick Street is consistent in form and use with other development along Frederick Street. Therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan as a Low Density Commercial Residential area. 2. From a Zoning By-law standpoint, the variance does not affect the use of the property. The lot width of the property would be considered an existing condition in this instance, as the lotting fabric in this neighbourhood would have been established prior to the current regulations in the by-law being set. 3. Observing the properties along Frederick Street, lot widths appear fairly consistent. As mentioned above, the purpose of this variance is to recognize an existing condition. Therefore, staff feels that this variance is minor. 4. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land because it blends well with the balance of dwellings along Frederick Street. The parcel size, the building's use and its architectural design and features are very common along this street. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 20, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Dwayne Mitchell requesting legalization of a lot having a width of 12.7 m. (417) rather than the required 15 m. (49.2'), and legalization of a building having a right side yard of 1.1 m. (3.8') rather than the required 1.2 m. (3.93'), and a side yard setback from Merner Avenue for a covered landing of 1.8 m. (5.9') rather than the required 3 m. (9.84'), on Part Lot 1, Plan 197, 311 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner reposition splash -pads located along the interior side lot to ensure that they are located entirely on the subject property and discharge only onto the subject property by May 1, 2009; and, 2. That the owner repair and/or replace any damaged trees within the landscaping strip located in the parking lot adjacent to Merner Avenue no later than May 1, 2009. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 227 DECEMBER 9, 2008 3. Submission No. A 2008-089 (Cont'd) 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 No.: A 2008-090 Applicant: Eastforest Homes Ltd. Property Location: 10 Alpine Court Legal Description: Part Lot 6, Registered Plan 1022 & Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 1023, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-1380 Appearances: In Support: S. Head Contra: None Written Submissions: None Mr. A. Head declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his planning firm acts on behalf of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for an office to occupy 35% of the gross floor area of the building rather than the permitted 25%, permission to provide 22 off-street parking spaces for the uses in this building rather than the required 26 off-street parking spaces, and permission to provide 3m (9.84') driveway visibility triangles rather than the required 4.57m (14.83'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 23, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the corner of Alpine Road and Alpine Court and is developed with an industrial building. The subject property is designated as General Industrial in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Two (R-2) in By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting a variance from: 1) Section 6.1.2 of the Zoning By -Law to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 26 spaces to 22 spaces, and from section 20.3.2 of the Zoning By- law to increase the floor area of an office from the maximum of 25% to 35% of the gross floor area. 2) Section 680.2.23 of the Municipal Code for a reduction of the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) from 4.5m to 3.0m. 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: 1) With regards to the requested variances to the Zoning Bylaw for the reduction in required parking and for an increase of the office floor area: The proposed use of the building is a Health Clinic, and therefore staff is of the opinion that a reduction in the required number of parking stalls from 26 to 22 is minor. Due to the nature of the Health Clinic, increased floor area for the office is required. The applicant is requesting to have a maximum of 35% of floor area for office use. Increasing the maximum floor area for office space from 25% to 35% will not have any COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 228 DECEMBER 9, 2008 4. Submission No. A 2008-090 (Cont'd) impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood and will not increase the intensity of the proposed use on the site, and therefore Staff is of the opinion that the variance is minor. The proposed reuse for the building is a Health Clinic, which is an appropriate use of the existing building and property. The reduction in landscaping to accommodate the provided parking is acceptable as there is adequate landscaping on the opposite side yard, abutting the street. The proposed use of the building is a Health Clinic, which is a permitted use in the General Industrial (M-3 zone). The building in it's current location meets the yard requirements of the Zoning By -Law. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan as it is designated as a General Industrial area. Health Clinics, Health Offices, and Office Industrial businesses are characterized by those industrial operations with a commercial component which requires large areas for the storage of goods, such as building materials and decorating supply sales, industrial office supply, or industrial service. General Industrial uses may also function as mixed industrial residential areas which could provide locational opportunities for small "incubator" industries, such as a Health Clinic. As such, staff is of the opinion that the proposed use is consistent with the intents of the Official Plan. 2) With regards to the requested variances to the Municipal Code for the reduction of the Driveway Visibility Triangle: The proposed variance for a reduction in the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) from 4.5 metres to 3.0 metres is not minor in nature. The reduction in the size of the DVT would significantly reduce visibility for drivers as they exit the parking lot. The proposed variance for the reduction of the DVT is not necessary for the development of the site. The required parking can be accommodated onsite outside of the DVT. Section 6.1.1(a)(iv) of the Zoning By -Law requires that off-street parking is to not be located within 3.0 metres of a street line. The reduction of the DVT would not interfere with this requirement, and therefore the proposed reduction in the DVT is not in contravention of the Zoning By -Law. Section 8.5 of Part 2 of the Official Plan outlines general parking policies in the City. Policy 8.5.6 states that all parking areas or facilities shall be designed constructed and maintained (i) for the safe and efficient movement of motor vehicles and pedestrians, on the site, and at points of ingress and egress related to the site. Staff's opinion is that a reduction of the DVT would compromise the safety and efficiency of the point of entry of the parking lot, therefore the requested variance would not be in keeping with the general intent of the policies, as listed above, of the Official Plan. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 20, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. S. Head circulated this date an amended site plan, dated Revised: December 3, 2008, together with a photograph of the subject property. He advised that Eastforest Homes is selling the subject property to Pace Consulting Group who plan to use the building as a Health Clinic. He noted that the applicant supports the removal of the variance related to the daylight visibility triangle as recommended by City staff and advised that the revised site plan shows a portion of the landscaped area to be removed to accommodate the required daylight visibility triangle. He asked that the revised sited plan be added to the existing site plan agreement. Mr. Head then referred to the condition related to the minor variance application being subject to site plan approval. He stated that the only change is removal of landscaping for parking and has no impact to the rear drainage swale. He asked that the changes not be deemed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 229 DECEMBER 9, 2008 4. Submission No. A 2008-090 (Cont'd) development and suggested that it was too onerous to require site plan approval for only 4 parking spaces. Mr. B. Bateman advised that he had received an email transmission from Mr. B. Page, Supervisor of Site Development, in which Mr. Page concurs with Mr. Head's assessment that the changes on the subject site should not be deemed development and was in agreement that the condition of site plan approval be removed. At the request of the Committee, Mr. Head agreed to a condition of approval to require the registered site plan agreement on title of the subject property to be amended by adding the new site plan, dated Revised: December 3, 2008, as circulated this date, to the existing registered site plan agreement. Mr. Head added that the Planning staff report should be revised to clarify that the proposed use of the building as a Health Clinic is a permitted use in the General Industrial M-2 zone rather than M-3 as stated in the report. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Eastforest Homes Ltd. requesting permission for an office to occupy 35% of the gross floor area of the building rather than the permitted 25%, and permission to provide 22 off-street parking spaces for the uses in this building rather than the required 26 off-street parking spaces, on Part Lot 6, Registered Plan 1022 & Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 1023, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-1380, 10 Alpine Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall amend the existing site plan agreement registered on title by inserting a copy of the revised site plan drawing, dated Revised: December 3, 2008, as submitted to the City of Kitchener's Committee of Adjustment on December 9, 2008. 2) The applicant shall provide the required 4.57m (14.83) driveway visibility triangles. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried - and further - That the application of Eastforest Homes Ltd. requesting permission to provide 3m (9.84') driveway visibility triangles rather than the required 4.57m (14.83'), on Part Lot 6, Registered Plan 1022 & Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 58R-1380, 10 Alpine Court, 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 230 DECEMBER 9, 2008 4. Submission No. A 2008-090 (Cont'd) 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is not being maintained on the subject property. Carried 5. Submission No.: A 2008-091 Applicant: Maria & Ion Tutuianu Property Location: 1167 King Street East Legal Description: Part Lots 6 & 7, Plan 251 and Part of Closed Lane Appearances: In Support: V. Boeriu Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a new 2 storey commercial building to have a floor space ratio of 0.36 rather than the required 0.4, and to provide 6 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 8 off- street parking spaces for a florist and an office. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 28, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located near the intersection of King Street East and Sydney Street and contains a single -detached dwelling being used as a florist shop. The subject property is designated as a Mixed Use Node in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Commercial Residential Four (CR -4) in By-law 85-1. The property is currently the subject of a site plan application (application no. SP08/81/K/AP) which proposes the development of a new 2 -storey commercial building. The first storey would include 99 square metres of retail space (florist), while the second storey would include 99 square metres of office space. The existing one storey florist shop would be demolished in favour of the proposed development. The applicant originally requested a minor variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 8 spaces to 6 spaces to facilitate the new development. Through review of the application, Planning staff determined that 9 spaces, rather than 8 are required: 4 for office use, and 5 for retail use. Staff met internally to determine whether a change to the parking layout might yield additional parking spaces. Staff was able to reconfigure the parking layout so that 8 functional parking spaces could be provided. Staff met with the applicant to discuss the reconfigured parking layout option. In response to this option, the applicant submitted a revised site plan to accompany the minor variance application (see attached revised site plan, dated November 18, 2008). In addition, the applicant is now requesting a minor variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 9 spaces to 8 spaces, as per Section 6.1.2 of the Zoning By-law. In addition, relief is being sought from Section 47.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to reduce the minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.4 to 0.36 to facilitate the proposed development. 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 offers the following comments: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 231 DECEMBER 9, 2008 5. Submission No. A 2008-091 (Cont'd) The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan because the lands are designated as Mixed Use Corridor which is intended to provide residential redevelopment opportunities together with appropriate commercial and institutional uses that primarily serve adjacent residential neighbourhoods. The Official Plan indicates that a broad range of commercial uses shall be permitted, including freestanding office and small retail. The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. Retail and office are permitted uses in the CR -4 Zone. The intent of the minimum FSR regulation is to ensure a minimum massing along Kitchener's main street in order to create density, intensity of use, and an attractive urban streetscape. The requested 0.4 reduction is negligible and technically not required since the required 0.4 FSR has only one decimal place and the requested 0.36 FSR, when rounded to the nearest decimal place, is 0.4. The intent of the minimum parking regulations is to ensure that parking provided meets parking demand. From a parking perspective, the shortage of one parking space is not significant when considering the context of the area. The proposed building fronts onto King Street which is serviced by Grand River Transit's mainline Route 7. This is a very frequent, high -use route, and there is a bus stop located less than 75m away travelling both east and west along King Street. An even more frequent, limited stop iXpress route is located at the intersection of Charles Street and Ottawa Street which is less than 200m in walking distance away. Furthermore, consideration must be given to the Region's future Rapid Transit System, with a proposed station location at the intersection of Charles Street and Ottawa Street. Therefore, while the proposed site would be deficient one parking space, the intent of the Zoning By-law is to provide sufficient accessibility to the site. This site has significant transit alternatives to make the site highly accessible. The proposed variances can be considered minor in nature for the following reasons. The proposed parking spaces should easily accommodate demand due to the wide range of transportation choices available in this area, as aforementioned, and the possibility that customers and employees could walk to work from nearby residential areas. The reduced FSR should not be visually noticeable and should not have a negative impact on adjacent properties. The proposed variances are appropriate for the desirable development of the land for the following reasons. The variances will facilitate uses that are permitted by the Zoning By-law. In consideration of the existing lot area, the subject property, in and of itself, is being maximized through the proposed development in terms of building mass and parking. The proposed building will be a two storey building, which is a 1/2 storey taller than the existing building. This will provide a more prominent street presence and improve the streetscape along King Street. In addition, the variances encourage new commercial and residential uses. The proposed building will enhance the King Street streetscape as well as provide additional leasable space for small businesses. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 20, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. B. McColl questioned if this application was subject to site plan approval. Mr. Bateman advised that a site plan application has been submitted for the subject property and the variance approvals are needed to proceed. Mr. A. Head inquired if the applicant had received any indication from Planning staff as to what they would recommend in respect to the site plan application. Mr. V. Boeriu COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 232 DECEMBER 9, 2008 5. Submission No. A 2008-091 (Cont'd) responded that everything relative to the site plan is as recommended in the minor variance application. Mr. D. Cybalski noted that the original minor variance application requested a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 8 to 6 spaces; however, on review by Planning staff it was determined the number of spaces required was 9 and had met with the applicant to reconfigure the parking layout such that the variance is now a reduction of 1 space from the 9 required to 8 spaces. He asked if Mr. Boeriu was in agreement with revising his application accordingly, and Mr. Boeriu concurred. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Maria and Ion Tutuianu requesting permission to construct a new 2 storey commercial building to have a floor space ratio of 0.36 rather than the required 0.4, and to provide 8 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 9 off-street parking spaces for a florist and an office, on Part Lots 6 & 7, Plan 251 and Part of Closed Lane, 1167 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner obtain approval of Site Plan Application SP08/81/K/AP for the development of a building containing approximately 99 square metres of gross floor area devoted to office use and 99 square metres devoted to retail use. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 6. Submission No.: A 2008-092 Applicant: Dusan and Emilija Malenkovich Property Location: 72 Hoffman Street Leaal Description: Lot 26 & Part Lot 25, Plan 925 Appearances: In Support: A. Timafi Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a porch and second floor balcony having a side yard of 0.96m (3.14') rather than the required 2.5m (8.2'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 21, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the corner of Hoffman Street and Meinzinger Avenue, and has approximately 17.6 metres of frontage and an area of approximately 718 square metres. The property is developed with a two storey multiple dwelling. It is zoned Residential Six (R-6) and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 233 DECEMBER 9, 2008 6. Submission No. A 2008-092 (Cont'd) The applicant is requesting a minor variance to sought relief from Section 40.2.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 to reduce the required minimum side yard setback from 2.5 metres to 0.96 metres to legalize an existing porch and balcony. 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 Official Plan for the following reasons. The intent of this designation is to accommodate a full range of housing to achieve an overall low density. The proposed variance will allow the porch and balcony to comply, while maintaining the low density character of the property. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 2.5 metres side yard setback is to provide an access route to the back of the property as well adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff's opinion that a setback of 0.96 metres would continue to allow the access to the porch and balcony, while the other side yard leaves a large amount of space for access. The required variance is considered minor. However, the impact on neighbouring properties is not minimal since the balcony looks down onto the neighbouring properties rear yard. Since the porch and balcony access is required by law under the fire code, Staff feel that the variance could be supported and is therefore minor. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed configuration of the building on the lot would be consistent with the established development within this neighbourhood and no adverse impacts as a result of this variance are anticipated. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 20, 2008, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. D. Cybalski referred to the comments of the Building Division and inquired if a condition of approval should be included to provide that the applicant obtain a building permit. Mr. B. Bateman agreed that a building permit should be required. He added that Fire Services supports the application to address safety issues. In respect to comments of the Building Division related to the distance separation of the wood stairs from the property line, Mr. Cybalski clarified that this would be addressed through the condition of approval to obtain a building permit as the applicant would be required under the permit application to meet Ontario Building Code standards. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Dusan & Emilija Malenkovich requesting legalization of a porch and second floor balcony having a side yard of 0.96m (3.14') rather than the required 2.5m (8.2'), on Lot 26 & Part Lot 25, Plan 925, 72 Hoffman Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the existing wood stairs. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 234 DECEMBER 9, 2008 6. Submission No. A 2008-092 (Cont'd) 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 CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2008-036 Applicant: 2018826 Ontario Limited Property Location: 35 Sasaga Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 5, Registered Plan 1489, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-14019 Appearances: In Support: M. Beckerman Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Sasaga Drive of 52.346m (171.73'), by a depth of 63.296m (207.66') and having an area of 3250 sq. m. (34,983.85 sq. ft.). It is intended to be developed with a new building which will be occupied by any use permitted in the Zoning By-law. The retained land will have a width on Sasaga Drive of 67.128 m. (220.23'), by a depth of 63.296 m. (207.66') and having an area of 4382 sq. m. (47,169 sq. ft.). The existing retail use is intended to continue. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 14, 2008, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the southwest corner of Manitou Drive and Sasaga Drive and is developed with a cabinetry and custom design showroom. The surrounding area is developed with a number of industrial buildings. The land is designated as Heavy Industrial in the City's Official Plan and zoned Heavy Industrial Zone (M-4) with Special Regulation Provision 49R and Special Use Provision 35U in By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots in such a way as to allow separate ownership the existing building and a proposed building. The severed lot would have a frontage of 52.35 metres and an area of approximately 3250 square metres, while the retained lot would have a frontage of 67.13 metres and an area of approximately 4382 square metres. Transportation Planning and Regional Planning advises that there is an existing unpaved service lane that runs north to south along the westerly property boundary that services 353 Manitou Drive. This lane is to be closed as per an existing Site Plan Agreement registered as Instrument Number WR9718 and replaced with a permanent access to Sasaga Drive on lands owned by 353 Manitou Drive. Currently, the owners of 353 Manitou Drive (Great Canadian Holidays and Coaches) have submitted a site plan for approval which shows a permanent access to Sasaga Drive. 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, Planning staff offer the following comments: The consent, being the severed and retained parcels of land are in conformity and meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. In addition, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and the land is suitable for the use of the lots as heavy industrial buildings, and the lands front on an established public street. Also, the resultant lots would be compatible with those in the surrounding area, since many of the surrounding lots have a smaller lot size on average. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 235 DECEMBER 9, 2008 1. Submission No. B 2008-036 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated November 28, 2008 in which they advise that they have no objections to this application subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to final approval, the owner completes a Record of Site Condition for the proposed severed portion only in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04. In the event the Record of Site Condition is audited, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo must be advised by the Ministry of the Environment that the requirements of an audit, if any, are completed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment. Two (2) copies of the completed Record of Site Condition and Ministry acknowledgment must be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services, and, 2. That prior to final approval, if necessary, an agreement will be required between all affected property owners for mutual access to 353 Manitou Drive. The Committee considered correspondence from Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated November 19, 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. Mr. B. Bateman referred to the Region of Waterloo comments in respect to their requested condition of approval to require an agreement between all affected property owners for mutual access to 353 Manitou Drive. Mr. Bateman advised that Great Canadian Holidays and Coaches, owners of 353 Manitou Drive, have made site plan application which includes a permanent access to Sasaga Drive and the existing unpaved service lane to 353 Manitou Drive is to be closed. Mr. D. Cybalski pointed out that the Region's condition states that the agreement will be required "if necessary" and on that basis, was of the opinion the condition should remain. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of 2018826 Ontario Limited requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Sasaga Drive of 52.346m (171.73'), by a depth of 63.296m (207.66') and having an area of 3250 sq. m. (34,983.85 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 5, Registered Plan 1489, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-14019, 35 Sasaga 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 Agn (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 a cash -in -lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 2% (commercial/industrial) of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That the owner shall 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 236 DECEMBER 9, 2008 Submission No. B 2008-036 (Cont'd) 5. That prior to final approval, the owner shall complete a Record of Site Condition for the proposed severed portion only in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04. In the event the Record of Site Condition is audited, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo must be advised by the Ministry of the Environment that the requirements of an audit, if any, are completed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment. Two (2) copies of the completed Record of Site Condition and Ministry acknowledgment must be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services. 6. That prior to final approval, if necessary, an agreement will be required between all affected property owners for mutual access to 353 Manitou Drive. 7. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed. 8. That the applicant shall make arrangements for the relocation of the existing service to the retained lands/building before the severance is granted. 9. That the applicant shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severance is granted. 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 December 9, 2010. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 9th day of December, 2008. Janet Billett Acting Secretary -Treasurer Committee of Adjustment