Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2009-02-17COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 17, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. M. Hiscott, B. McColl and A. Head OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner, Ms. S. Rice, Development Technician, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic Technologist, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. D. Hartleib, Administrative Clerk. Mr. M. Hiscott, Vice Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:06 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of January 20, 2009, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission Nos.: A 2009-004 Applicant: 6054838 Ontario Inc Property Location: 25 Sportsworld Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 8, Beasley's Broken Front Consession, being Parts 1 & 2. Reference Plan RP58R-4472 Appearances: In Support: E. Simnos Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate a garbage enclosure in the southeast corner of the property, to have a side yard of 2.6m (8.53') rather than the required 3m (9.84') and a rear yard of 1.2m (3.93') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'); and, permission to construct an addition onto the rear of the existing building to have a rear yard of 4.9m (16') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated January 26, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 25 Sportsworld Drive and contains the restaurant `Pioneer BBO'. The subject property is designated as Planned Commercial Campus in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Commercial Campus Zone (C-8) in By-law 85-1. The applicant's intent is to replace a garbage enclosure at the south east corner of the property as well as construct an addition to the rear of the existing building. The applicant is requesting a variance for (1) a side yard setback for the garbage enclosure of 2.6 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres; (2) a variance for a rear yard setback for the garbage enclosure of 1.2 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres; and (3) a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 19 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 1. Submission No.: A 2009-004 tCont'd) variance for a rear yard setback for the proposed addition of 4.9 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres. Planning staff offer the flowing comments, regarding the requested variances for the garbage enclosure, 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. The intent of the Planned Commercial Campus designation is to accommodate large concentrations of commercial and entertainment uses that are planned to function as a unit. The proposed development is consistent in form and use with surrounding developments. The variances requested for the rear yard and side yard setbacks do not preclude the development from maintaining the intent of the Planned Commercial Campus designation; therefore, the proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The purpose of a 3.0 metre side yard setback and a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide adequate separation from neighbouring properties and sufficient space for access to all sides of the development. It is staff's opinion that the decreased setbacks would continue to allow sufficient access to the development as the setbacks requested apply only to the garbage enclosure and not the main building. It is also staff's opinion that adequate separation from neighbouring properties will be maintained as it will abut the existing rear brick wall of the neighbouring property; therefore, staff feels that the variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. Staff are of the opinion that the variances requested are minor in nature in their possible impacts to the surrounding properties. The existing garbage bin, without an enclosure, has been in place at the south east corner of the property for some time and, as a result, the impact of the existing setback is not anticipated to change; therefore, staff does not foresee any concerns with approving the requested variances. The variances can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land because they will add the functionality required by the restaurant. Also, the proposed garbage enclosure on the lot would be consistent with the established development pattern within the commercial campus. No adverse impacts as a result of these variances are anticipated. Planning staff offer the flowing comments, regarding the requested variance for the proposed addition, 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. The intent of the Planned Commercial Campus designation is to accommodate large concentrations of commercial and entertainment uses that are planned to function as a unit. The proposed development is consistent in form and use from surrounding developments. The variance requested for the rear yard setback does not preclude the development from maintaining the intent of the Planned Commercial Campus designation; therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan. The purpose of a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide adequate separation from neighbouring properties and sufficient space for access to all sides of the development. It is staff's opinion that the decreased setback would continue to allow sufficient access to the development and adequate separation from neighbouring properties; therefore, staff feels that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. Staff are of the opinion that the variance requested is minor in nature and in its possible impacts to the surrounding properties because allowing this setback would not have an adverse effect on the commercial campus; therefore, staff does not foresee any concerns with approving the requested variance. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land because it appears consistent with the established development pattern within COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 20 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 Submission No.: A 2009-004 tCont'd this commercial campus, 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 January 27, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of 6054838 Ontario Inc requesting permission to locate a garbage enclosure in the southeast corner of the property, to have a side yard of 2.6m (8.53') rather than the required 3m (9.84') and a rear yard of 1.2m (3.93') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'); and, permission to construct an addition onto the rear of the existing building to have a rear yard of 4.9m (16') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Part Lot 8, Beasley's Broken Front Consession, being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-4472, 25 Sportsworld 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 2. Submission Nos.: A 2009-005 Applicant: Robert Henderson and Wei Wang Property Location: 88 Wandsworth Place Legal Description: Lot 79, Plan 771 Appearances: In Support: R. Henderson W. Hagonhofer Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to add a screened porch to the existing family room addition to have a rear yard of 6.89m (22.6') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated January 21, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 88 Wandsworth Place and contains asingle-detached dwelling and detached garage. The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in By-law 85-1. The applicants are requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit a rear yard setback of 6.89 metres whereas a 7.5 metre setback is required. The applicants intend to build a screened porch extending from the existing `frame addition' built in 1976. A portion of the screened porch addition encroaches into the required rear yard setback. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 21 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 2. Submission No.: A 2009-005 tCont'd) With regard to the variance requesting permission for a rear yard setback of 6.89 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres, Planning staff offers 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. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The proposed development at 88 Wandsworth Place is consistent in form and use with other development in the area. The variance requested for the rear yard setback maintains the intent of the Low Rise Residential designation in the Official Plan. The purpose of a 7.5 metres rear yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. Staff's opinion is that a setback of 6.89 metres would continue to allow sufficient outdoor amenity space to be provided with an impact on neighbouring properties that is anticipated to be minimal due to the internal location of the porch on an irregular-shaped lot; therefore, staff feels that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. Staff is of the opinion that the variance requested is minor in nature and will not have adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. The proposed screened porch will not extend beyond the existing 1976 frame addition. The rear yard setback from the existing frame addition is deficient; however, that deficiency would be considered legal under the Vacuum Clause of the Zoning By-law. Also, the subject property is an irregular-shaped lot and thus only a small portion of the proposed screened porch addition does not comply with the required 7.5 metre rear yard setback. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land because the configuration of the house, including the proposed screened porch addition, appears consistent with the established development pattern 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 January 27, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Robert Henderson and Wei Wang requesting permission to add a screened porch to the existing family room addition to have a rear yard of 6.89m (22.6') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 79, Plan 771, 88 Wandsworth Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 3. Submission Nos.: A 2009-006 Applicant: Uta Prell Property Location: 49 Bingeman Street Legal Description: Part Lot 29 and Part Lot 30, Plan 414 Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 22 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 3. Submission No.: A 2009-006 tCont'd) In Support: H. Prell Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition onto the easterly side of the existing rear addition, to have a side yard of 1.1 m (3.6') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'); and, permission for the sunroom addition to have a height of 11.2m (36.74') rather than the permitted height of 10.5m (34.44'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 9, 2009, advising that the subject property is located on the south side of Bingeman Street, west of Samuel Street in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan Area. The surrounding area is comprised mainly of single detached dwellings constructed between the 1890s and early 1900s. The property contains a single detached dwelling that has undergone a number of renovations, including additions, since it was originally constructed in approximately 1910. The property is designated "Low Rise Conservation A" in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan and is zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) with Special Use Provision 1290 in the City's Zoning By-law. Provision 1290 prohibits multiple dwellings as a use within this zone. In addition, Staff notes that this property is of heritage significance as specified in the City's Inventory of Heritage Buildings. The subject application proposes to increase the maximum building height specified in the Zoning By-law from 10.5 metres to 11.2 metres to allow a sunroom addition to the existing dwelling. In addition, a reduction in the minimum side yard from 1.2 metres to 1.1 metres is proposed in order to accommodate the addition. The sunroom addition would be constructed upon an existing concrete slab which is located above a single car garage at the west side of the property. The addition would extend to a point 0.5 metres below the existing roofline. It should be noted that in 1998 the Committee of Adjustment approved a minor variance to allow an increase the maximum building height requirement from 10.5 metres to 11.8 metres for athree-storey addition to the side and rear of the dwelling (Application No. A98/98). The Planning Division's recommendation was for refusal of the application based on concerns with respect to building scale as set out in the "Low Rise Conservation A" designation of the Official Plan. In addition, Heritage Kitchener commented on the previous application and advised that the addition would have a negative impact on the streetscape due to the proposed height. The City's Heritage Planner commented on the subject application and advises that although the property is listed on the Inventory of Historic Buildings, staff notes that several alterations have been made to the house, which are inconsistent with the original Decorative Berlin Vernacular architectural style. As a result of these alterations, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed application. Building Division has raised concerns with the proposed addition which Planning staff feel should be resolved before a decision is made on the subject minor variance application. The Building Division's concern is founded in fire safety: being the sunroom addition, proposes significant glazed area and is within close proximity to the adjacent property. Since fires have a tendency to erupt from window openings /glazed surfaces, special precautions must be made to ensure that a fire cannot spread to adjacent buildings. Building Division staff has advised that the owner is proposing a new fire protection technology for the sunroom which may permit the addition under the Ontario Building Code (OBC) if it is certified by a qualified professional. It should be noted that under the OBC, if the addition was set back 1.2 metres from the side lot line (no variance would be required for minimum side yard), only seven percent of the wall COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 23 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 Submission No.: A 2009-006 tCont'd facing the side yard would be permitted to be glazed, whereas the subject application proposes that nearly the entire wall be glazed. The Building Division is presently investigating this new technology and other alternatives with the owner. Notwithstanding, Building Division has advised that in order for a building permit to be issued for the addition it would have to maintain a minimum 1.2 metre side yard setback. If the width of the addition could be reduced by 0.1 metres, a side yard setback variance would no longer be necessary. In this regard, Planning Division staff attempted to contact the owner to discuss changing the application; however, the owner was unavailable at the writing of this report. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated January 27, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee also noted the comments of the City's Building Division advising that the Building Code regulates the amount of glazing permitted and a building permit can not be issued until this has been resolved. Mr. Prell advised that he has agreed with the Building Division to move the wall by 4" to comply with the Building Code, which was confirmed by the Building Division via e-mail this date. Following discussion the Committee agreed that the side yard variance of 1.1 m rather then 1.2m is truly minor and that this Committee is not involved in Building Code compliance, which will be dealt with by the Building Division. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Uta Prell requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition onto the easterly side of the existing rear addition, to have a side yard of 1.1 m (3.6') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'); and, permission for the sunroom addition to have a height of 11.2m (36.74') rather than the permitted height of 10.5m (34.44'), on Part Lot 29 and Part Lot 30, Plan 414, 49 Bingeman Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 4. Submission Nos.: A 2009-007 Applicant: Vicki Gohl and Peter Hodson Property Location: 2 Westgate Walk Legal Description: Lot 1, Plan 977 Appearances: In Support: V. Gohl G. Ricci Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 24 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 4. Submission No.: A 2009-007 tCont'd) Written Submissions: M. Murkell L. Holden The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition to join the existing detached garage to the main dwelling, such that the newly attached garage will have a side yard of 0.74m (2.42') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93' ) The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated January 21, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 2 Westgate Walk and contains a single detached dwelling with a detached garage. The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Two Zone (R-2) in By-law 85-1. The applicants are requesting relief from Section 36.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to recognize a side yard setback of 0.74 metres for the existing garage once it is connected to the dwelling; whereas, a minimum setback of 1.2 metres would be required. The applicant is proposing to build an addition to the dwelling that would join it to the existing detached garage. The existing dwelling and existing detached garage both currently meet the respective applicable required setbacks. While the proposed addition would also meet the side yard setback requirement, it connects the existing detached garage to the dwelling. Once connected to the dwelling, the detached garage would be considered to be a part of that dwelling and subject to a required setback of 1.2 metres, rather than the 0.6 metre setback required for an accessory structure. With regard to the variance requesting a side yard setback of 0.74 metres for an attached garage rather than the required 1.2 metres, 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. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The proposed development at 2 Westgate Walk is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation; therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The purpose of requiring a 1.2 metre side yard setback is to provide sufficient space for access to all sides of a dwelling on the property as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties and to allow space for the construction of a foundation. The existing detached garage satisfies the side yard setback requirement for an accessory building, providing 0.74 metres whereas a 0.6 metre setback is required. Once attached to the dwelling, the garage would require a setback of 1.2 metres to comply with the Zoning By-law. Staff's opinion is that the existing setback of 0.74m would continue to allow adequate maintenance access and separation from neighbouring properties as there are no changes proposed to the garage itself. Staff is of the opinion that the variance requested is minor in nature because no changes are proposed to the garage footprint or location. The impact of the existing setback is not anticipated to change; therefore, staff does not foresee any concerns with the requested variance. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land because it recognizes a circumstance created when an existing building that complies with the Zoning By-law changes to anon-conforming feature due to its attachment to the dwelling on the property. In this situation, the existing accessory building is incorporated into the proposed dwelling and addition and is consistent with the character of development in the surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated January 27, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 25 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 4. Submission No.: A 2009-007 tCont'd) Mr. Ricci advised that the owners have discussed thie proposal with neighbours, and he submitted 2 written submissions from the neighbours in support of this application. The Committee considered these written submissions. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Vicki Gohl and Peter Hodson requesting permission to construct an addition to join the existing detached garage to the main dwelling, such that the newly attached garage will have a side yard of 0.74m (2.42') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Lot 1, Plan 977, 2 Westgate Walk, 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 5. Submission Nos.: A 2009-008 Applicant: Jeff and Debbie Seegmiller Property Location: 92 Church Street Legal Description: Part Lot 18. Plan 383 Appearances: In Support: C. Burns Contra: P. Gove Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate 2 required parking spaces for a triplex between the street line and the front fascade of the building, which is not permitted in the zoning by-law; and, permission for these 2 parking spaces to have a depth of 5.2m (17') rather than the required 5.5m (18'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 9, 2009, advising that the subject property is currently being used as a three-unit multiple dwelling (triplex) located in the Cedar Hill Planning Community. The property is designated as High Density Multiple Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Nine (R-9) with special provision 136R. It is also zoned Cedar Hill One (CH-1) which is currently under appeal. The use as a triplex is not permitted in the CH-1 zone but can be accepted as legal non-conforming status. The property was developed as a triplex use prior to October 1962 when there was no parking requirement for dwelling units. Since that time parking has been developed in the front yard for the triplex which does not comply with the current by-law or the previous by-law on the property and therefore cannot be considered legal non- conforming. The applicant is requesting permission to locate two parking spaces for a triplex use between the street line and the front fagade of the building, which is not permitted in the Zoning By-law; and, permission for these 2 parking spaces to have a depth of 5.2 m (17 ft) rather than the required 5.5 m (18 ft). In considering the four tests for minor variances COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 26 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 5. Submission No.: A 2009-008 tCont'd) 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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan as the property is designated High Density Multiple Residential and the current use is for a residential triplex dwelling. The proposed parking variance does not adversely affect the existing designation. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor in nature. The subject property does not have adequate vehicular access to the sideyard or backyard. Permitting two parking spaces in front of the building fagade and permitting a reduced parking space depth permits the property to have functional parking spaces for the use of the tenants. It is acknowledged that in today's society dwelling units generally require some parking to be provided if possible. Staff notes that parking in front of the fagade is permitted for a single family dwelling and a duplex dwelling uses, but for multiple dwellings where the parking is required to be to the side or rear of the building. As a maximum of two parking spaces is being requested, this is not different in appearance than other buildings on the street which may only contain single family dwellings or duplexes and have their parking located in front of the building. The lack of a third parking space for this triplex use can be considered legal non-conforming. In regards to the deficient size in the depth of the spaces, the difference between the requested depth and the permitted depth is 0.3 metres which still provides adequate room for a vehicle. Traffic has no concerns with the requested variances. The request for minor variances is appropriate development for the property and neighbourhood as it legalizes a situation which has existed for some time. With only two spaces in front of the building, it appears no different than a single family dwelling or duplex use, both of which uses are also located on the neighbouring properties on the street. It is noted that complaints have recently been received because of a third vehicle which has been parked in front of the two spaces, parallel to the street, and partially on the City sidewalk. The owners are aware that this is not permitted and they have instructed their tenants that three vehicles are not permitted to be parked in front of the building. In regards to the aesthetics of this request, staff recommends that additional landscaping may alleviate the impact of parking spaces in front of the fagade and recommend that a condition requiring landscaping, such as low level shrubs, be planted beside the parking spaces, as approved by the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated January 27, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Gove stated that he is an abutting neighbour to the subject property. He advised that he is not opposed to this application provided that his concerns are addressed. He stated that this is a dense, older neighbourhood, and this property has no legitimate parking. This property was previously used as a single family dwelling and approximately 18 months ago it was converted to a triplex. There have been parking issues since that time, with cars parking over the lot line onto his property and with snow being piled on to his property. Mr Gove stated his belief that these issues can be resolved with some form of barrier between the two properties, such as a landscape barrier. Following a discussion amongst the Committee members as to whether a site plan should be submitted prior to a decision being made on this application, the Committee generally agreed that the condition requested by staff for the site plan approval will look after Mr. Gove's concerns. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 27 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 5. Submission No.: A 2009-008 tCont'd) Mr. Gove stated that he is looking for a neighbourly and appropriate solution and he is asking for some protection of his property. Mr. Bateman assured the Committee that Mr. Gove's concerns will not be ignored, staff is prepared to work with Mr. Gove and the applicant's representative to address these issues, and the site plan will not be approved until these issues are resolved. Mr. McColl asked staff to provide him with an update on the appeal of the Cedar Hills zoning amendment. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Jeff and Debbie Seegmiller requesting permission to locate 2 required parking spaces for a triplex between the street line and the front fagade of the building, which is not permitted in the zoning by-law; and, permission for these 2 parking spaces to have a depth of 5.2m (17') rather than the required 5.5m (18'), on Part Lot 18, Plan 383, 92 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall submit a landscaping plan to be approved by the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development, and the plan shall be implemented by July 1, 2009. 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 6. Submission Nos.: A 2009-009 Applicant: 2158423 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 130-156 Birch Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 116. Registered Plan 666 Appearances: In Support: D. Stewart T. Straus Contra: V. & B. Waimel J. Gilicze Written Submissions: D. & P. Koppel T. & R. Harrington V. & B. Waimel J. Gilicze The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate parking 1.1 m (3.6') and 1.5m (4.92') from the lot line on Birch Avenue rather than the required 3m (9.84'); to locate the driveway aisle 1.5m (4.92') from Maple Avenue rather than the required 3m (9.84'); to locate outdoor storage 3m (9.84') from a the side lot line abutting a residential zone rather than the required 7m (22.96'); and, to located outdoor COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 28 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 6. Submission No.: A 2009-009 tCont'd) storage in the front yard abutting Birch Avenue which is not permitted in the zoning by- The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 10, 2009, advising that the subject property is located on Birch Avenue and continues through to Maple Avenue. It is zoned General Industrial (M-2) in the City's Zoning By-law and is designated General Industrial in the North Ward Neighbourhood Plan of the Official Plan. Abutting the subject property, there is residential zoning to north and east and industrial zoning directly to the south and west. The property was purchased last year and the new owner is operating an industrial business consisting of sale, service, storage and repair of motor vehicles and parts and accessories for motor vehicles; warehousing; and accessory office use. In 2008 Committee of Adjustment approval was obtained fora 2 m (6.56 ft) high solid wood fence located 1.54 m (5 ft) from the Birch Avenue lot line rather than the required 7.6 m (24.93 ft) setback. The applicant is currently requesting permission to locate parking spaces 1.1 m (3.6 ft) and 1.5 m (4.92 ft) from the lot line on Birch Avenue rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft); to locate the driveway aisle 1.5 m (4.92 ft) from Maple Avenue rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft); to locate outdoor storage 3 m (9.84 ft) from a side lot line abutting a residential zone rather than the required 7 m (22.96 ft); and, to locate outdoor storage in the front yard abutting Birch Avenue which is not permitted in the Zoning By-law. 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 variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan and can be considered minor in nature. The subject property is zoned General Industrial in the Zoning By-law and designated as General Industrial in the City's Official Plan. The parking space and driveway aisle reductions permit the property to be used in a more functional manner by the large trucks accessing the rear yard parking lot and by the smaller vehicles used by customers in the proposed front yard parking area. Though reduced from the 3 m setback, a landscape buffer will still be present along the both Birch Avenue and Maple Avenue lot lines. In regard to the reduced yard setback for outdoor storage abutting the residential properties to the north, there is currently a 2 m (6.56 ft) high solid wood fence located along this lot line. As a condition of this approval, staff is recommending Stamped Site Plan Approval for the property and included in this approval would be the requirement for a landscape plan. Staff has discussed with the owner this reduced variance request and the owner has agreed to implement the planting of additional landscape buffering along the existing fence adjacent to the north lot line. Outdoor storage is permitted on this industrial property and the impact of the reduction from 7 m to 3 m in the sideyard for the storage area can be alleviated by this increased landscape buffering. Staff notes that there is a City approved grading plan on file which notes a swale. This swale is also noted on the site plan submitted by the applicant. No storage would be permitted on the swale as this would not make it functional. Therefore the reduced 3 m setback for storage along the residential lot line is limited to the area closest to Birch Avenue. The request to permit outdoor storage in front of the building fagade along Birch Avenue could be considered to meet the intent of the by-law and to be minor in nature as an existing solid wood fence would reduce the impact of the storage on the streetscape. The reduced setback of 1.5 m for parking spaces behind the solid wood fence is minor as the parking spaces would not be visible from the neighbouring properties. In regard to the reduced setback of 1.1 m for parallel parking spaces in front of the building COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 29 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 6. Submission No.: A 2009-009 tCont'd) fagade and between the Birch Avenue lot line, it is noted that the spaces are required because they are to be used by customers and the proposed location is the best option for accessing the customer entrance. Currently there are non-complying parking spaces located on the City boulevard which the applicant is using for customer and employee parking. There will also be two loading doors installed near the customer entrance. The loading doors will be used by customers who have small trucks in which they drop off their equipment to be repaired or serviced. The owner has consulted with Traffic Division staff in a meeting prior to this application. Traffic staff has advised they could support these variances subject to review and acceptance of final plans to the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development. The variances could be considered appropriate development of the land. As noted above, the existing solid wood fence and the requirement of additional landscape buffering will lessen the impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. As well, outdoor storage would only be permitted up to 3 m from the residential lot closest to Birch Avenue, which is outside the swale area. The submission requirements for the Stamped Site Plan Approval will require a landscape plan and a lighting plan. This will ensure that City staff has resolved any neighbourhood concerns with lighting affecting abutting properties, and with streetscape landscaping. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated January 27, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submission from the neighbours in opposition of the application. Mr. D. Stewart advised that they have worked with City staff on this development and they are in agreement with the staff report and recommendation. Also, the applicant is in the process of obtaining site plan approval for this property. Ms. J. Gilicze addressed the Committee advising of all her concerns and the adverse impact this development has had on her and her property. The concerns include the removal of a previous fence, which has been replaced after the applicant had trees cut down that were located between these two properties. The tree stumps were not removed and they were left outside the new fence on her side of the property line. The property has recently been regraded such that water from the snow melt now runs onto her driveway. A retaining wall that was intended to keep water away from her property has been damaged. The property looks like a junkyard, and in spite of the fence, is visible from more of the windows in her home. She also advised that workers have been on her property to complete their work with no notice having been given, or request made for them to do so. Ms Gilicze stated that she is opposed to this minor variance application. Mr. & Ms. Waimel addressed the Committee advising of their concerns with this development and application. They advised that they contacted the Planning Department in the spring of 2008, to find out whether there was a site plan for this property and were advised that a site plan was not required, and yet one is being required at this time. They also questioned the requirement for a landscaping plan and a lighting plan, as the lights that have been erected are so high that they shine into their home and on to their deck. They are of the opinion that the property looks like a junkyard and the fence does not shield the view from most of the windows in their house. They were also concerned about the 15' of chain link fence that has been installed instead of the required visibility triangle as it provides a better view of this junkyard. They asked the Committee not to approve this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 30 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 6. Submission No.: A 2009-009 tCont'd) Both delegations brought a considerable number of photographs for the Committee's consideration. Upon questioning, Ms. S. Rice advised the Committee that staff have recommended site plan approval, subject to final approval of this application for minor variance. She also advised that a grading plan for this property was approved in 1997 and no new grading plan is required. The delegations noted that the grade of this property has been changed and the grass has been removed and replaced with gravel. Mr. McColl noted that the City has a policy to involve 2 neighbours in the site plan review process and asked that these neighbours be included in that process. He also advised that the City has lighting standards. Mr. McColl stated that having mixed uses in an area is good; however, it has to be good for all. He stated that this proposal substantially impacts the neighbours, and for that reason can not be considered minor in nature. Mr. Stewart advised that many of the neighbours' concerns are being addressed through the site plan review process and they have a lighting plan and a landscaping plan which they then provided to the Committee. The only things being requested of this Committee are reductions for setbacks and parking. Mr. McColl stated that it would be useful to show the required plans to the neighbours. The Chair stated that the consultation process has to start now. He advised that he is concerned about the water run-off on to the Birch Avenue neighbour's property and would like to defer consideration of this application until the water problem is resolved. Mr. Strauss advised that they are industrial contractors and they work early in the morning starting at 4:30 - 5:30 a.m. Mr. Head questioned whether the City's Noise By- Law would allow them to operate that early, and was advised by Mr. Bateman that that is a By-Law Enforcement issue. The Chair stated that the water run-off problem needs to be addressed prior to coming back to the Committee. Mr Bateman advised that staff have not requested a new grading and drainage plan because one was approved in 1997. Mr. Head recommended that an update grading and drainage control plan should be required. Mr. McColl put forward a motion to defer consideration of this application until the site plan review process is complete. The neighbours can then come back to this Committee of they still have concerns. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That consideration of submission No. A 2009-009 - 130-156 Birch Avenue BE DEFFERED to the Committee of Adjustment meeting of April 21, 2009, to allowed the owners to complete the site plan approval process including submission of a new grading plan, and including the involvement of 2 neighbours as per City Council's policy. Carried 7. Submission Nos.: A 2009-0010 Applicant: AET Consultants Inc. Property Location: 531 Wellington Street North Legal Description: Lot 1, Part Lots 7-8 and Part of Closed Lane, Plan 244 Appearances: In Support: F. Trautrim L. Freiburger COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 31 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 7. Submission No.: A 2009-010 tCont'd) Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition to the second floor, at the rear of the building to have an easterly side yard of 3.68m (12.07') rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated January 22, 2009, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 531 Wellington Street North. The subject parcel is a through lot, where the lot has frontage on Wellington Street North and Johnston Street. The front lot line has been deemed to be Wellington Street North and therefore the lot line abutting Johnston Street is the rear lot line. The north-east side yard is the right side yard and the south-west side yard is the left side yard. The property is approximately 11.15 metres wide by 68.56 metres deep, with an area of approximately 788.7 square metres. The existing building on the site is approximately 95 years old. The building was utilized as a used car sales office by the previous owner. The property is designated General Industrial in the Official Plan and zoned General Industrial (M-2) in the Zoning Bylaw. The proposed use of the site is for an environmental consulting and engineering firm. Surveying, Engineering, Planning and Design Businesses are permitted uses in the General Industrial Zone. The applicant is proposing to construct a second floor addition in order to create more office space. The Committee of Adjustment approved application A 2008-033 on June 6, 2008 to legalize the existing lot width of 11.5m (37.72') rather than the required 15m (49.21') and to legalize the existing side yard abutting a residential zone of 3.82m (12.53') rather than the required 14m (45.93'). At the time of the previous application, an accurate survey was not prepared and the variance that was granted is not sufficient to legalize the existing building. Although the intent of the previous side yard variance was to legalize the existing building, the applicant must seek permission for a variance for the proposed addition in the rear yard. The applicant has requested a variance to reduce the right side yard setback from 6.0 metres to 3.68 metres. The Zoning Bylaw requires that the side yard setbacks for an industrial building be 1.2 metres on one side and 3.0 metres on the opposite side, except where the side lot line forms part of a boundary between an M-2 Zone and a Residential Zone, in which case the minimum side yard along that portion of the lot line which abuts the Residential Zone shall be 6.0 metres from a building wall constructed without a door or window, or 14.0 metres from a wall constructed with a door or window. In this case, the required left side yard setback is 14.0 metres because the existing building has windows facing the right side yard adjacent to a Residential Zone. The advertisement for this application was incorrect, and should be re-posted with the correct wording indicating the required 14.0 metre setback. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated January 27, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. It was noted that the application submitted noted a requirement of a 6m, and the owner was requested to amend the application, which he did. The Secretary-Treasurer agreed to publish a new Notice of Hearing for this application so that it may be considered by this Committee at its March meeting. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 32 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 CONSENT 1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-004 Applicant: 1776544 Ontario Ltd Property Location: 21 Krug Street and 136 Weber Street East Legal Description: on Part Lot 27, subdivision of Lot 2, German Comganv Tract Mr. A. Head declared a pecuniary interest in this application because of his involvement with the Dryden, Smith and Head Planning Consultants and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. This application was considered by the remaining 2 members. Appearances: In Support: A. Galloway Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever the parcel of land at 21 Krug Street from the property at 136 Weber Street East. The severed land will have a frontage o Krug Street of 19.6m (56.32') by a depth of 68.6m (225.06') and an area of 1,351.5 sq. m. (14,547.9 sq. ft.). The use as a 6 unit multiple swelling will continue. The retained land will have a width on Weber street of 16.43m (53.9'), have an irregular shape and an area of 1,627.16 sq. m. (17,515.17 sq. ft.). This property contains a 1 1/2 storey house/3 storey building and underground parking. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated January 23, 2009, in which they advise that the subject properties are known municipally as 21 Krug Street and 136 Weber Street East and have merged in title. The owner is requesting consent to sever the two parcels, along the previously existing lot lines, as shown on the Severance Sketch attached to their application. A previous owner applied to sever the lands in a similar fashion in 2007. At that time, the Committee granted the consent application; however, the time period for fulfilling the conditions lapsed. The new owner now wishes to proceed with the consent application. The subject lands are designated in the King Street East Secondary Plan and zoned as follows: • 21 Krug Street -Low Rise Conservation A -Residential Five Zone (R-5) with Special Regulation Provision 362R (which permits a maximum of six dwelling units). • 136 Weber Street East -Low Rise Commercial Residential -Commercial Residential One Zone (CR-1) The land to be severed, 21 Krug Street, currently contains a converted brick house that contains six dwelling units. The land to be retained, 136 Weber Street East, currently contains a 10 unit multiple dwelling with a small underground parking garage to the rear. Once severed, the future parcels will comply with the respective designations and zoning regulations. 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 the proposed severed and retained lands comply with the regulations of the zoning by-law and are in conformity with the Official Plan. As this is a reinstatement of previously existing lot lines, staff feel that the dimensions and shape of the lands are appropriate. Both parcels will continue to front onto established public roadways, and both are currently on full municipal services. The proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and conforms to or does not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or plans. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 33 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 1. Submission No.: B 2009-004 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 the proposed severed and retained lands comply with the regulations of the zoning by-law and are in conformity with the Official Plan. As this is a reinstatement of previously existing lot lines, staff feels that the dimensions and shape of the lands are appropriate. Both parcels will continue to front onto established public roadways, and both are currently on full municipal services. The proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and conforms to or does not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or plans. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated February 5, 2009 in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. Mr. Galloway questioned the need for parkland dedication. The Committee refered to an e-mail received this date from the Community Services Department stating that payment of the parkland dedicated for this application is not required. We respect to correspondence received from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo concerning the potential need for a Record of Site Condition, the Committee stated that they do not have the technical expertise in this circumstance; and as no new development is taking place, the requirement will not be imposed. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of 1776544 Ontario Ltd requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on Krug Street of 19.6m (56.32') by a depth of 68.6m (225.06') and having an area of 1,351.5 sq.m. (14,547.9 sq.ft), on Part Lot 27, Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract, 21 Krug Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with 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 shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. The Owner/Applicant shall enter into a registered agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to implement the following noise warning clause to be required on all units and must be included in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds and tenancy agreements for both severed and retained properties: "Due to the proximity to Weber Street (Regional Road No.8) and Krug Street, projected noise levels on this property exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals." 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 34 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 1. Submission No.: B 2009-004 tCont'd) 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 February 17, 2011. Carried COMBINED APPLICATION 1. Submission Nos.: A 2009-011 and B 2009-005 Applicant: Westmount LTC Limited Partnership Property Location: 200 David Bergey Drive Legal Description: Part Blocks 27 & 28, Registered Plan 58M-132 Appearances: In Support: J. DeBrum 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 David Bergey Drive of 44.97m (147.36'), by a depth of 116m (380.57') and an area of 6,259.45 sq. m. (67,378.36 sq. ft.). The property will be developed with a residential care facility. The retained land will have a width on David Bergey Drive of 81.5m (267.38'), by a depth of 116m (380.57') and an area of 9,454.8 sq. m. (101,773.95 sq. ft.),and will contain the existing residential care facility. The retain and severed lands will benefit from easements over each other land for: a pedestrian underground walkway, vehicular access and municipal services. Through Submission No. A 2009-011, the applicant is requesting permission for a floor space ration of 1.46 for the proposed residential care facility to be constructed on the severed land, rather than the permitted floor space ration of 1.0; permission to provide a northerly side yard of 5.487m (18') rather than the required 7.25m (23.78'); and permission to provide 56 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 58. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated January 30, 2009, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the west side of David Bergey Drive near the intersection of Activa Avenue and David Bergey Drive. It has approximately 126 metres of frontage on David Bergey Drive and a lot area of approximately 15, 600 square metres. Along term residential care facility was constructed on the site in 2001 with the view to adding a separate building for a retirement home on the undeveloped portion of the site. In 2008, the owner applied for and received "approval in principal" for a site plan to construct a 105 unit retirement home. The subject property has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential, is designated Community Institutional in the Laurentian West Community Plan and is zoned Institutional Two (I-2) in Zoning By-law 85-1. Surrounding land use is open space (wetland and storm water detention pond) to the north, residential (townhomes) to the south, institutional (school) to the east and roadway (David Bergey Drive) followed by residential (single/semi-detached homes) to the west. The applicant is seeking three-fold approval from the Committee of Adjustment for: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 35 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 1. Submission No.: A 2009-011 & B 2009-005 tCont'd) • consent to sever a parcel of land with 44 metres of frontage onto David Bergey Drive with an area of 6,258 square metres while retaining a parcel of land that has 81.5 metres of frontage and area of 9,458 square metres; • consent to create easements for servicing and access; and, • minor variances for relief from: a) Section 32.3(5) of the Zoning By-law to permit a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.46 instead of the maximum permitted FSR of 1.0, to allow the development of a four storey, 105 unit retirement home building on the parcel of land proposed to be severed; b) Section 32.3(5) to allow for a left side yard setback of 5.48 metres instead of the required 7.25 metres (one half the building height) for the proposed building and c) Section 6.1.2 of the Zoning By law to permit a total of 56 parking spaces instead of the required 58 for the proposed building. No variances are required for the long term care facility situated on the proposed retained parcel of land. CONSENT CONSIDERATIONS The proposed development of the subject site is based upon the `continuum-of-care' approach. The first phase was constructed in 2001 and consists of an existing 160-bed licensed long-term care building (nursing home) with a 32-place children's daycare centre as a secondary use. The second phase is to consist of the proposed development of a 105 unit "assisted living" retirement home with an underground link to the existing long-term care building along with surface parking and landscaped areas. A site plan application for this development proposal (SP 08/26/D/BB) has been submitted and has received "approval in principle" from the Site Plan Review Committee. The purpose of the severance application is to divide the lands such that the long-term care building and the proposed retirement home are on separate parcels of land. The owner is requesting a severance for the following reasons: Firstly, in order for Chartwell Seniors Housing to obtain proper construction financing they must sever a parcel from the existing block of land. Without the severance, the new construction lender would sit second charge to the existing operating lender which they would not accept. Secondly, it provides flexibility for the Chartwell business model. The proposed severance will necessitate a number of easements to be put into place. The types of easements required are vehicular access between the severed and retained parcels, and servicing over just the severed lands in favour of the retained lands, and an easement between both parcels for the underground tunnel that will link the proposed retirement home to the existing long term care facility. Engineering and Planning staff have reviewed the request for easements and have expressed no concerns. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing use and any proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land can be serviced with independent and adequate service connections to services, and practical and servicing easements have been requested where independent servicing cannot occur. In this case, Engineering staff have reviewed their request for servicing easements and have no concerns with their location and size. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal represents "good planning" and recommends approval of the severance and easements subject to the conditions noted in the recommendation section of this report. MINOR VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 36 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 1. Submission No.: A 2009-011 & B 2009-005 tCont'd) In addition to the consent application, the owner is also seeking minor variance approval for a floor space ratio of 1.46 rather than 1.0 for the proposed development of a retirement home on the severed parcel; a left side yard setback of 5.48 metres instead of the required 7.25 metres; and to permit a total of 56 parking spaces instead of the required 58. 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 minor variances would permit the development of a proposed 105 unit 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 site is currently developed with a long term care facility and the proposed retirement care facility is complimentary to that use. As such, staff are of the opinion that the proposal is in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan policies and is in conformity with the Laurentian West Community Plan. The use of a retirement residence falls under category of a residential care facility use which is permitted in the I-2 zoning affecting the subject lands The purpose of the floor space ratio (FSR) is to limit the density on a property to a maximum of 1.0 whereas the owner is requesting a FSR of 1.46 on the lands to be severed. It is important to recognize the fact that the despite the severance the entire lands will function as one and if one considers the entire block of land without the severance the FSR is actually 1.0. Therefore, it is only the result of the severance that an increase in FSR occurs. Given this, staff are of the opinion that the development at 1.46 FSR on the severed lands is compatible with the low density character of the neighbourhood, and that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and is considered minor in nature as the FSR of 1.0 for the entire development is being maintained. The purpose of side yard regulations is to ensure there is adequate separation from neighbouring properties particularly where height and density can be factors. In this case, the owner is requesting a left side yard setback of 5.48 metres as opposed to the required 7.25 metres (one half the building height). This setback was requested in order to provide additional separation between the proposed parking area and the long term care facility. As such, staff suggested the building be shifted closer to the property line. The variance is justified on the fact that the impact onto abutting lands is minimal and minor in nature as it abuts open space. The purpose of parking requirements is to ensure adequate parking is provided on-site and to avoid parking spilling onto neighbouring streets. The owner has requested a total of 56 spaces whereas 58 spaces are required under the Zoning By-law for the retirement home proposal. Transportation staff is normally unsupportive of parking variances unless the owner can demonstrate there will be no impact and parking is adequate for the site. To address Transportation Planning's concern, the owner has submitted a parking demand analysis based on similar developments Chartwell has developed throughout the province. Given the findings of the analysis and their co- operation with staff in order to maximize on-site parking, Transportation Planning is satisfied that the variance for two spaces is justifiable and is therefore considered minor in nature. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the lands to be severed, as they do 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 retained lot and development proposed on the severed lot is consistent with the policies of the Official Plan and would be consistent with the established development within the surrounding neighbourhood and no adverse impacts as a result of these variances are anticipated. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 37 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 1. Submission No.: A 2009-011 & B 2009-005 tCont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated February 5, 2009 in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated January 27, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planner, dated February 2, 2009, advising that they have no objection to the minor variance or severance application. Mr. DeBrum advised that the owner agrees with the staff recommendation but questions the payment of parkland dedication. The Committee reviewed an e-mail received this date from the Community Services Department stating that parkland dedication is not required at this time. The Chair noted that comments of the Region of Waterloo concerning water services and Mr. DeBrum advised that the owner is working with the Region of this matter. Submission No. A 2009-011 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Westmount LTC LTD Partnership, Chartwell Seniors Reit requesting permission for a floor space ration of 1.46 for the proposed residential care facility to be constructed on the severed land, rather than the permitted floor space ration of 1.0; permission to provide a northerly side yard of 5.487m (18') rather than the required 7.25m (23.78'); and permission to provide 56 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 58, on Part Blocks 27 & 28, Registered Plan 58M-132, 200 David Bergey 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 Submission No. B 2009-005 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head The application of Westmount LTC LTD Partnership, Chartwell Seniors Reit requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on David Bergey Drive of 44.97m (147.36'), by a depth of 116m (380.57') and an area of 6,259.45 sq. m. (67,378.36 sq. ft.); subject to an together with easements for an underground walkway, access and services, on Part Blocks 27 & 28, Registered Plan 58M-132, 200 David Bergey Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 38 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 Submission No.: A 2009-011 & B 2009-005 tCont'd) 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 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 receive final approval of Minor Variance Application A2009- 011. 4. (a) That the Transfer Easement(s) creating the right-of-way for access and easement for servicing shall be approved by the City Solicitor; (b) That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the right-of-way for access/easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s); (c) That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, shall be provided to the City Solicitor; (d) The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately 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 February 17, 2011. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:57 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of February, 2009. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment