Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2009-07-21COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 21, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs. M. Hiscott, B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic Technologist, Ms. K. Pietrzak, Engineering Technologist, Ms. E. Brown, Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary -Treasurer, Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk and Ms. L. Garovat, Administrative Clerk Mr. M. Hiscott, Vice Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of June 16, 2009, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS COMBINED APPLICATION 1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-007 & A 2009-014 Applicant: Douglas Cornwell Property Location: 418 Glasgow Street Legal Description: Lot 6, Plan 855 Appearances: In Support: D. & D. Cornwell S. Kay Contra: C. Balsillie & D. Tam M. & J. Somer S. Bordman U. Hummel J. King R. Voisin K. & R. Hergott M. & D. Brattman P. Dollar A. Hinchberger J. Czuj Written Submissions: M. & J. Somer U. Hummel R. & H. Voisin K. & R. Hergott D. & M. Brattman C. Balsillie & D. Tam A. Hinchberger COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 138 JULY 21, 2009 1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-007 & A 2009-014. (Cont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Glasgow Street of 7.1 m (23.29'), a width at the rear lot line of 48.14m (157.93'), a depth of 57.245m (187.81') (measured from the rear lot line forward); with a driveway having a depth of 47.873m (157.06') (measured from Glasgow Street) and the entire parcel will have an area of 3,094.2 sq. m. (33,306.78 sq. ft.). The proposed use of the severed property is a single family dwelling. The applicant is also requesting permission for an easement over the driveway portion of the severed land, having a width of 7.1 m (23.39') and a depth of 47.873 m(157.06') in favour of the retained land. The retained land will have a width of 41.07 m (135.74') on Glasgow Street, by a depth of 47.87 m (157.06') and an area of 1,965.2 sq. m. (21,153.92 sq. ft.), and it contains an existing duplex. The applicant is also requesting a minor variance for a lot width at Glasgow Street, for the severed land, of 7.1 m (23.39') rather than the required 24m (78.74'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated July 13, 2009, in which they advise that the subject property is located at 418 Glasgow Street and is legally described as Part 6, Registered Plan 855. The land is occupied by a single -detached dwelling that was converted to a duplex and is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Two Zone (R-2) in By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the property into two lots, creating a "P" shaped parcel of land with a shared right-of-way over the severed parcel. A minor variance has also been requested to permit the proposed 7.1 metre frontage for the severed parcel, whereas the zoning requires a minimum frontage of 24 metres. The severed parcel, including the right-of-way, has a total depth of 105.118 metres, 47.873 of which will be subject to the right-of-way in favour of the retained parcel of land. The developable portion of the severed parcel has a minimum lot width of 48.102 metres and a minimum depth of 57.230 metres. The severed parcel has a total lot area of 3094.2 square metres. The retained parcel would have a frontage of 41.068 metres on Glasgow Street, with a lot depth of 47.87 metres and a lot area of 1965.2 square metres. Planning comments: The subject property is part of a plan of subdivision dating from 1955, with thirteen lots being created fronting Westmount Road, Glasgow Street and Orchard Park Crescent. Lot 6, which is the subject property, is the biggest lot of the plan and includes the brick single -detached dwelling that was constructed in approximately 1895. 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: a) Staff does not foresee the proposed conveyance of land having a negative impact on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended. b) The applicant has produced, at staff's request, a Heritage Impact Assessment evaluating the potential impacts of the proposed severance and development on the existing single -detached dwelling occupying the site, which has been listed as a property of heritage interest. That assessment reviewed the significant features of the dwelling, including its context and design, and made recommendations with regards to the proposed situation of the proposed dwelling to be constructed on the severed parcel to minimize the visual impact on the existing dwelling. Staff has incorporated these recommendations into the conditions of their recommendation of approval, found at the end of this report. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 139 JULY 21, 2009 Submission Nos.: B 2009-007 & A 2009-014. (Cont'd) C) The lands to be retained and conveyed are zoned Residential -Two Zone and designated as Low -Rise Residential, which supports the use of both resultant parcels for residential purposes. d) The dimensions and shapes of the resultant lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing and proposed residential uses on both properties. e) No new roads are proposed at this time as a result of the proposed conveyance. f) The resultant occupied lot will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. g) A restrictive covenant dating back to the 1955 plan of subdivision places a number of restrictions on the lands to be severed as well as the adjacent lots. Staff note, however, that none of these restrictions appear to pertain to the subdivision of land; only to the type of structures and property standards. h) The land to be conveyed does not appear to contain any significant natural resources. The subject lands are outside of the GRCA Regulatory Limits. i) While a preliminary servicing plan was not produced as requested in the previous staff recommendation for deferral for this application, the applicant has contacted the Engineering Department, and Engineering staff has confirmed that the required municipal services (water and sanitary) can be accommodated within the proposed right-of-way. As well, the applicant has indicated to staff that his builder has informed him that there will also be sufficient space within the proposed right-of-way for gas, cable and telecommunication connections. Hydro services will be provided by means of an overhead connection. I. As only one new dwelling will result from this conveyance, no additional demand on local schools is anticipated. k) No land is proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes as a result of this application. Parks Planning staff has indicated that a payment in lieu of parkland dedication will be required. 1) The conveyance will create an infill development opportunity that could be considered optimal for the efficient use and conservation of energy. The retained parcel will be of a similar size, if not larger, than other parcels adjacent to it on Glasgow Street. The orientation of the severed parcel, with its developable portion located behind another parcel, staff notes that the orientation of the parcel mimics setback and Ianeway arrangement of several parcels further down Glasgow Street towards Fischer Hallman Road. m) The subject land does fall within a Site Plan Control Area in the City of Kitchener. However, single -detached dwellings are typically not considered under the Site Plan Review process. Given the infill nature of the proposal and concerns raised by adjacent property owners with regards to compatibility in design, massing and situation of any proposed structures, as well as grading, storm water drainage and servicing concerns raised by staff, Planning staff are requesting a basic Site Plan to be submitted and approved along with a modified subdivision agreement as part of their recommendation. With regards to the variance requested, 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 Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The proposed reduction in lot width requested for the severance of a P -shaped lot COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 140 JULY 21, 2009 1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-007 & A 2009-014. (Cont'd) would permit development of a dwelling consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. Therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. 2. The purpose of requiring a 24.0 metre lot width is to ensure that a parcel of a particular size is developed within the R-2 zone. In this instance, the proposed orientation of the developable portion of the parcel is such that the laneway section immediately adjacent to the street does not comply with the required frontage, but where the proposed development would be situated on the severed parcel, the lot width opens up to just over 48 metres. As discussed in Section 51(24) evaluating the severance, challenges can be posed by having such a small frontage, including adequacy of the frontage for accommodating access and any underground servicing. While a preliminary servicing plan was not produced as requested in the previous staff recommendation for deferral of this application, the applicant has contacted the Engineering Department, and Engineering staff has confirmed that the required municipal services can be accommodated within the proposed right-of-way. As well, the applicant has indicated to staff that his builder has informed him that there will also be sufficient space within the proposed right-of-way for gas, cable and telecommunication connections. As the severed parcel is able to satisfy lot area and setback requirements and the applicant has indicated that servicing needs can be met, staff feel that the proposed variance still satisfies the intent of the Zoning By-law. 3. Staff does not foresee the permission of a 7.1 metre frontage to have a significant impact on the existing streetscape along this particular stretch of Glasgow Street. However, the severance that is facilitated by granting permission to this particular variance is anticipated to have a direct impact to eleven properties whose rear yards abut the subject property. Staff notes that any development of a single -detached dwelling within the R-2 zone is subject to a rear yard setback of no less than 7.5 metres, a side yard setback of no less than 1.2 metres, a maximum building height of 10.5 metres, and maximum lot coverage of 55 percent. Due to the size and orientation of the subject property in relation to the parcels that have been subdivided and developed adjacent to it, any redevelopment of the parcel within the parameters allowed as -of -right by the applicable zoning could have the effect of creating a home in the rear yards of the surrounding properties. The applicant has chosen to retain the farmhouse on the property, necessitating the requirement for a severance with a reduced frontage to create a redevelopment opportunity to make that possible. In order to address neighbour concerns about development behind their properties, staff is proposing a condition of the severance that the proposed development on the severed parcel be set back no less than 7.5 metres from the side yards in addition to the existing 7.5 metre rear yard setback requirement. Having such a restriction would ensure that any new development is, at minimum, no closer to the existing rear yards than any other rear -yard -to -rear -yard setback requirement for an R-2 zone elsewhere in the city. Such a requirement would also support the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment, which suggested that any new development on the severed parcel be set as far back as possible from the dwelling on the retained parcel. Staff notes that on the revised development concept plan accompanying the Heritage Impact Assessment, the proposed rear and all side yard setbacks exceeded 7.5 metres. Such as requirement would strictly be a paper exercise to put at ease the concerns of the adjacent neighbours. 4. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the subject land because it is allows for residential intensification while preserving the existing dwelling on the property. The subject property is located within the Westmount planning community, which includes a diverse mix of housing types including estate lots, singles, infill townhomes and walkup apartments. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 141 JULY 21, 2009 1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-007 & A 2009-014. (Cont'd) While a single -detached dwelling on a parcel as large as the subject property may not be in keeping with current conceptions on "intensification", such a development is, in staff's opinion, an option that is most in keeping with the immediately adjacent properties. Based on the foregoing, planning staff recommends that the application for a variance to permit a proposed 7.1 metre frontage for the severed parcel, whereas the zoning requires a minimum frontage of 24 metres, be approved without conditions beyond those imposed by the consent. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed conveyance and minor variance. Traffic Comments: The Traffic Division has no objections to the proposed conveyance and minor variance. Engineering Comments: The owners for the above property will only require a sanitary and water service where a 7.1 m easement/driveway entrance would be adequate. Storm is not required at this point. The easement is only for the sanitary and water services to the rear property. The gas and other utilities that may require being within that easement should be sought out and location should be confirmed by Kitchener Utilities and other companies involved. As noted before the owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then they would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the street. Before a building permit is issued Engineering will require the below comments to be addressed: • Grading: A Grading and Drainage control plan is required. Where site soils are conducive to infiltration, groundwater infiltration measures (soak -away pits) should be provided. Infiltration measures should be designed for year-round operation (ie. below 1.2m depth). Fire Comments: Fire would have no problem supporting this application as long as the following criteria are met: 1. A hydrant is located within 90m (measured along path of travel) of the principal entrance to the proposed residence. 2. The driveway is of sufficient width and construction to allow access for our vehicles to the proposed residence. 3. A suitable address marker is placed at the road to ensure crews can find the residence for an emergency response. Parks Comments: Park dedication [5%] is required for the new lot. Heritage Comments: Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the proposed consent application B2009-007 and minor variance application A2009-014 for the property municipally addressed 418 Glasgow Street. This property is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. As a result, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was required in order to determine the impact of the proposed development on the heritage resource(s) as well as the specific conservation measures. Heritage Planning staff have had the opportunity to review and comment on the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Robinson Heritage Consulting dated May 4, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 142 JULY 21, 2009 1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-007 & A 2009-014. (Cont'd) 2009; the revised Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Robinson Heritage Consulting dated June 7, 2009; and, the letter from Robinson Heritage Consulting dated June 25, 2009. In general, these documents have confirmed that the house at 418 Glasgow Street has cultural heritage value and interest. As a result, the house is worthy of conservation in accordance with regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act and the definition of a significant built heritage resource in the Provincial Policy Statement issued under the Ontario Planning Act. Consent application B2009-007 proposes to create a new lot at the rear of the property behind the existing building in order to construct a new house. Minor variance application A2009-014 proposes relief from the minimum lot width requirement of 24 metres in order to create the new lot for the construction of a new house. The HIA, revised HIA, and letter prepared by Robinson Heritage Consulting have confirmed that the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the retained land may experience a minimal acceptable impact from the creation of a new lot and construction of a new house. The proposed retained lands will support the built heritage resource and provide a comfortable lot with a shape and setback that provides an ample and appropriate context when viewed from the public realm. In addition, it has been confirmed that the heritage attributes of the house are in a sound and acceptable state of repair. As a result, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed consent application B2009-007 and the proposed minor variance application A2009-014. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated March 9, 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 March 2, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Kitchener Wilmot Hydro Senior Design Technician dated March 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application, subject to the following condition: that the applicant shall make arrangements satisfactory to Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of separate electrical servicing to the lands to be severed and retained; including any easements that they may require and that the applicant make arrangements for granting of an easement around the entire property. Mr. Kay advised the Committee that much has happened since the application was initially submitted for consideration. There have been numerous meetings with city staff from a number of different departments and both staff and the applicant are in agreement with the report and the conditions proposed. The subject property is currently zoned R-2 and is large enough to sustain greater development. The zoning does permit several options, townhomes being one of them; the applicant in this case is proposing a single family dwelling which is compatible with the area. Mr. Kay continued by providing an example of a similar situation further down Glasgow Street near Fischer -Hallman Road where a flag lot was created and a severance was granted in that case as well. Regarding the subject property, even though a minor variance application is required for the actual frontage on the street, the subject property can easily accommodate a second dwelling. He then reiterated that the applicant and staff are in agreement with the severance and the conditions outlined in the staff report; adding that the Application for Minor Variance conforms to the criteria of the four tests. The Committee questioned staff as to how many similar there are lots were like this in this area. Ms. von Westerholt indicated that she was not familiar with exactly how many there were on the street but listening to Mr. Kay, his information seemed accurate. Ms. Brown advised the Committee that the information in her report regarding the frontage on the street outlined the fact that the severed property would mimic several COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 143 JULY 21, 2009 1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-007 & A 2009-014. (Cont'd) other properties on Glasgow Street. There is only one other flag lot in the area; however, there are several other houses where the laneway is the only thing visible from the street, which would be similar in nature. Ms. Hummel advised the Committee that the subject property was not similar in nature to the other flag lot on Glasgow Street, she is aware of that property and noted that in that case each home has their own access to the street; they do not share a driveway. The shape of that flag lot allows for both homes to have their own access and visibility from the street. In the case of the subject property, the home is proposed to be located in the rear and would not have any visibility to the street, which will create privacy issues as well as possible unacceptable behaviours for their neighbourhood. Ms. Hinchberger advised the Committee that for her the biggest concern is drainage and grading. There is nothing in the staff report that addresses a storm water management plan; with the creation of a new lot, there would be increased need for infiltration and less land to soak up the water. Currently there are some drainage concerns at the rear of the neighbouring properties. Originally the staff report indicated that Engineering would require a 9.Om laneway for municipal services, the most current staff report dated July 13, 2009 indicates that storm water management is not required at this point and that 7.1m access for services would be adequate. There is no assurance from staff that a proper drainage plan has been considered. There was further discussion regarding grading and drainage and the possibility of adding another condition to ensure any future drainage concerns would be dealt with appropriately. Ms. von Westerholt indicated that Engineering staff have done a thorough assessment and before any other conditions were added more discussion should be had with a member of Engineering staff present. Mr. Voisin questioned the Committee as to whether they had considered the flag lot flyer created by the City. He did note that flag lots, in the staff report referred to as "P Lots", are created on a case by case basis; however, one of the points in the flyer indicated that flag lots should only be created for remedial action and in this case there is nothing to remedy. The Chair noted that the problem to be remedied with this property is under development. Mr. Voisin made acknowledgment that underdevelopment maybe considered a problem, but if there was a home built in the rear of the existing house he has concerns that it too could become a rental situation and more problems could occur. Ms. Balsillie addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application; she expressed further concerns regarding the vehicles on 418 Glasgow Street encroaching on her backyard. She also noted that she has concerns with snow removal and the expansion of the driveway, if the driveway was widened the snow would be plowed into her backyard. She requested that in the event this severance is granted a permeable piece of land be left between the two properties to help with the placement of cars and snow removal. Ms. K. Pietrzak, Engineering Technologist, attended this meeting in support of the staff recommendation regarding storm water management. She advised the Committee that at the present time there is no storm sewer on Glasgow Street in front of this property; although, there is one closer to Westmount Road. Regarding the subject property it is not normal practice to request a residential property to go through a grading and drainage plan, as drainage is not something that would be altered; however, it is a condition that they are requesting. If drainage becomes a larger concern an infiltration trench may be installed to remedy the problem. Mr. Somers advised the Committee that the neighbours were feeling very discouraged, it seemed as if the Committee had already made their decision. He wanted it noted that he does not believe the creation of this lot is good planning or desirable. There are 11 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 144 JULY 21, 2009 1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-007 & A 2009-014. (Cont'd) properties affected and none of the neighbours are happy with a house being built in their backyards. Nothing has been put in writing by staff regarding sewage or drainage, in fact from February when the application was first brought forward, Engineering staff indicated that they would require a 9.Om access for the required services and now they indicated that if the soil was free draining 7.1 m would be sufficient. Drainage is a huge concern and the water will be a misery for us. Mr. McColl assured the neighbours that the Committee has not yet made a decision. They do not make any pre -decisions, they consider all the information put forward. He then questioned staff again regarding to storm water management as it is a large neighbourhood concern, and was advised that Engineering staff has confidence in the fact that there are many different ways of addressing drainage. Mr. Tam and Ms. Boardman each addressed the Committee questioning their future property values and advising them that they do not agree with the severance, they do not want a house built in their backyards. Mr. Hergott explained to the Committee that granting this severance is only one of three options: leaving the property as it currently is, severing the property for a single family home, or severing the property for something much larger like townhomes. He noted that it is the lesser of the two worst options but it still is not favourable for the neighbourhood. Ms. Balsillie wanted it noted that after reading the staff report the neighbours assumed that the recommendation for approval was a decision. The neighbours spent more time trying to determine what they would need if the application was approved. Knowing now that no decision has been made she wanted to reiterated her opinion that a development like this would be inappropriate. Mr. McColl commented on the concern raised by Ms. Balsillie regarding the cars parked in her backyard and wanted to clarify, based on the photographs submitted, that the cars were only visible from her yard they weren't actually in her backyard. Mr. Kay addressed the concerns brought up by the neighbours and assured the neighbours and the Committee that although the deferrals were frustrating, many of questions and concerns have already been dealt with. The applicant has cooperated with City staff regarding a geo-technical study regarding drainage and a Heritage Impact Assessment. The report is very thorough and the neighbours need to remember that the home proposed is a bungalow not something much larger. He also commented on the concerns regarding tenants of the property and stressed the fact that things should only improve if the owner is living behind the house; bad tenants would affect him as well. He also noted that the staff report requires the applicant to have a 7.5m distance between his proposed home and the property line by-law allowance for the rear yard and would reflect typical rear yards, and not the 1.2m side yard normally required by the zoning by-law. Mr. Kay noted that if the severance is granted engineers will have to address the drainage for the property, so problems that currently exist may improve. Adding more conditions than what is recommended in the staff report would only tie the hands of the professionals. Mr. Kay also wanted it noted that the concern regarding the cars and the neighbour's sightlines, will be improved with the trees that are also a condition recommended by staff. The zoning on this property allows for this kind of development, it may not be ideal to the neighbours but it could be worse. There is no good planning reason why the severance should not be granted. Mr. McColl summarized his comments regarding the application by indicating that the minor variance request in this case did seem quite significant, but as in every case, each situation needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Consideration for approval also needs to consider impact on neighbours and in this case impact is significant; however, as noted it could be much worse. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 145 JULY 21, 2009 1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-007 & A 2009-014. (Cont'd) Ms. Balcerczyk commented that the subject property is twice the size of all the other neighbours. She does understand the City's infill program and this development would fit that criteria. Regarding people's property values, constructing in a $500,000 home is not going to decrease the value of the neighbourhood, it would only increase it. The Chair stated that in this case he did not believe development was appropriate. Not every piece of land should be infilled. Mr. McColl reiterated that storm water management is something that can be handled by the engineers, but a larger concern of his would be snow removal. Further, Mr. McColl stated that he does not think the variance is minor. Ms. von Westerholt reminded the Committee that due to the nature of the development staff is requesting it to go through a form of site plan review which is not normally requested for residential properties. All of these issues will be taken care of through that process. Submission No. A 2009-014 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Douglas Cornwell requesting a reduction in lot width at Glasgow Street, for the severed land, of 7.1 m (23.39') rather than the required 24m (78.74'), on Lot 6, Plan 855, 418 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that the variance in this application is not minor in nature and is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property. Carried Ms. C Balcerczyk voted against this motion. Submission No. B 2009-007 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Douglas Cornwell requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Glasgow Street of 7.1 m (23.29'), a width at the rear lot line of 48.14m (157.93'), a depth of 57.245m (187.81') (measured from the rear lot line forward); with a driveway having a depth of 47.873m (157.06') (measured from Glasgow Street) with the entire parcel will have an area of 3,094.2 sq. m. (33,306.78 sq. ft.); and, requesting permission for an easement over the driveway portion of the severed land, having a width of 7.1m (23.39') and a depth of 47.873 m(157.06') in favour of the retained land, on, Lot 6, Plan 855, 418 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that the requirements of the Zoning By-law are not being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. Carried Ms. C Balcerczyk voted against this motion. This meeting recessed at 10:50 a.m. and reconvened at 11:05 a.m. with the following members present: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs. M. Hiscott and B. McColl. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 146 JULY 21, 2009 2. Submission Nos.: B 2009-024 Applicant: MLV Holdings GP Inc. Property Location: 2082 Old Mill Road Legal Description: Part of Lot 11, Beasley's Old Survey Appearances: In Support: J. Leonard F. & L. Gentner 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 Old Mill Road of 36.141 m. (118.57), a depth on the easterly side of 43.91 m. (144.06'), a depth on the westerly side of approximately 41.736 m. (136.92'), and an area of 1317.95 sq. m. (14,186.75 sq. ft.). The severed land will contain the existing house. The retained land will have a width on Old Mill Road of 31.77 m. (104.23'), a depth of 52.894 m. (173.53') on the easterly side and 74.898 m. (245.72') on the westerly side, and an area of 4505.06 sq. m. (48,493.64 sq. ft.). The proposed use of the property is residential. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated June 2, 2009, stating that the subject property is located at 2082 Old Mill Road and is legally described as Beasley's Survey Old Pt Lot 11. There is currently one (1) single detached bungalow dwelling unit on the subject property. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential 3 (R-3, 319U) in By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the property into two lots, each of which will have frontage on Old Mill Road. The severed parcel has a varied lot depth of 41.74 - 43.91 metres with frontage of 36.14 metres on Old Mill Road. The area of the severed parcel is 0.012 hectares. The retained parcel would have frontage of 22.52 metres on Old Mill Road, with a varied lot depth of 52.89 - 74.89 —metres. The area of the retained parcel is 0.041 hectares. 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, staff are satisfied that the creation of the severed lot is desirable and appropriate. The configuration of the severed lands can be considered appropriate and suitable for the development of the uses permitted in Zoning By-law 85- 1. Therefore the consent is not considered to be premature or pre -determining the outcome of future planning processes. Both parcels will continue to front onto an established public roadway and full municipal services are available to both the severed and retained parcels. 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 policy. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 6, 2009, advising that at the June 16, 2009 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, application B2009-024 was deferred to allow staff and the applicant time to further discuss the conditions of the proposed variance. After meeting with the applicant, and after considering the conditions, staff has prepared a revised recommendation. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated June 8, 2009, in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. Ms. von Westerholt advised of a necessary change to the recommended condition, advising that the "Notes" portion of the conditions must be changed to a modified COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 147 JULY 21, 2009 2. Submission Nos.: B 2009-024. (Cont'd) subdivision agreement which will contain conditions "A" and "B". She then advised the Committee that since the last meeting staff has agreed to remove any conditions requiring completion of a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment on lands to be dedicated to the City. Ms. Leonard advised that she had no forewarning about the modified subdivision agreement; however, following further discussion on this matter, she agreed to this condition. Ms. Leonard then questioned the City policy respecting parkland dedication. Mr. McColl stated that the City can request parkland dedication in the case of development or redevelopment as per the Planning Act. Ms. Leonard noted that the severed land has already been developed and will not be redeveloped. Mr. McColl suggested adding the words "if not previously paid" to the end of condition no. 3 in the staff report. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of MLV Holdings GP Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Old Mill Road of 36.141 m. (118.57'), a depth on the easterly side of 43.91 m. (144.06'), a depth on the westerly side of approximately 41.736 m. (136.92'), and an area of 1317.95 sq. m. (14,186.75 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 11, Beasley's Old Survey, 2082 Old Mill Road, 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 Agn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 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. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the land to be severed, if not previously paid. 4. That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a road widening along the entire frontage of the lands to be severed and retained. 5. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu of contribution for sidewalk installation along the entire frontage of the lands to be severed and retained. 6. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed and retained lands, which shall include the following conditions: (a) That the owner shall make financial arrangements satisfactory to the City's Engineering Services, for installation of all new service connections to the retained land, prior to the issuance of a building permit. (b) That the owner shall make financial arrangements satisfactory to the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed land, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the retained land. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 148 JULY 21, 2009 2. Submission Nos.: B 2009-024, (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above -noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being July 21, 2011. Carried This meeting recessed at 11:10 a.m. and reconvened at 12:20 p.m. with the following members present: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs. M. Hiscott and B. McColl. NEW APPLICATIONS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission Nos.: A 2009-038 Applicant: Predrag (Peter) Vojinovic Property Location: 26 Lynn Court Legal Description: Lot 33, Registered Plan 58M-275 Appearances: In Support: P. Vojinovic Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to increase the width of an attached garage from 70% of the width of front fagade of the building to 75% of the width of the front fagade. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 15, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 26 Lynn Court and is currently a vacant lot. The owner is proposing to build a single detached dwelling with an attached double garage. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four (R-4). The applicant is requesting a minor variance to permit a garage width of 75% of the building width rather than the permitted maximum of 70%. With respect to the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments. City staff is of the opinion that the proposal maintains the general intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan. The intent of the maximum garage width is to ensure a pleasing residential streetscape that is not dominated by garages. In this case, one third of the dwelling at the main floor would be habitable space. Staff is of the opinion that this is sufficient to meet the intent. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 149 JULY 21, 2009 1. Submission Nos.: A 2009-038, (Cont'd) City staff is of the opinion that the proposed five percent increase in the permitted garage width can be considered minor as it would not cause unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The variance is considered to be appropriate development of the land as it will allow the development of a single detached dwelling with an attached double garage without negatively impacting the adjacent properties. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Predrag (Peter) Vojinovic requesting permission to increase the width of an attached garage from 70% of the width of the front fagade of the building to 75% width of the front fagade, on Lot 33, Registered Plan 58M-275, 26 Lynn Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 2. Submission Nos.: A 2009-039 Applicant: Lei Zhao & Yi Sheng Property Location: 705 Windflower Crescent Legal Description: Lot 86, Registered Plan 58M-273 Appearances: In Support: L. Zhao Contra: T. Ly Written Submissions: W. Wei H. Ly Neighbourhood Petition The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition on the rear of the house to have a rear yard of 4.4m (14.43') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 3, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 705 Windflower Crescent, which is located west of the Sunrise Shopping Plaza and near the intersection of Ottawa Street South and Fischer Hallman Road. The property has approximately 9.5 metres of frontage, an area of approximately 300 square metres, and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property is zoned Residential Six (R- 6) and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. Relief is being sought from Section 40.2.2 of the Zoning Bylaw where the applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 150 JULY 21, 2009 2. Submission Nos.: A 2009-039. (Cont'd) metres to 4.4 metres to allow for the construction of a sun room on top of the existing deck. The applicant has made application for a building permit for an unheated sunroom addition to sit on top of an existing rear yard deck. Section 5.6.A.4 of the Zoning bylaw requires that decks, whether or not covered, which exceed 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level, and are enclosed, must be in compliance with the setback provisions required for the dwelling for front, side and rear yards in all other cases. The existing deck has not previously been legalized through the Committee of Adjustment. A Building Permit was issued prior to the construction of the deck. 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. 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 construction of the sunroom, while maintaining the low density character of the property. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 7.5 metres rear yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff's opinion that a setback of 4.4 metres would continue to allow outdoor amenity space to be provided on a structure, rather than on the ground, and the impact on neighbouring properties is minimal as there is already an existing deck. The Applicant is only proposing to construct walls and a roof on top of the existing deck. The variance is considered minor as there is adequate separation from the proposed addition to abutting residential properties and as such will likely have minimal impact to adjacent lands. 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 July 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submissions of neighbouring residents in opposition to this application. Mr. Ly was in attendance on behalf of his parents, in opposition to this application. There are several points of objection: privacy is an issue and there are concerns about building safety. Mr. Ly stated that the owner built a deck that is not stable and several neighbours think that it is not safe. Mr. Ly provided a petition in objection to this application signed by 6 neighbourhood residents. Mr. Ly added that the deck is aesthetically very unpleasing and it will reduce property values in the neighbourhood. Mr. Zhao noted that the staff report reveals that City Engineering staff have no concerns with his application. Further he had a building permit for the deck which was approved by the City's Building Department. The Chair stated that despite the objections from the neighbours, he has no concerns with this application. The applicant has a building permit, and if the deck is built to Code, it is very unlikely that it will fall down. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 151 JULY 21, 2009 2. Submission Nos.: A 2009-039, (Cont'd) That the application of Lei Zhao & Yi Sheng requesting permission to enclose part of an existing raised deck having a rear yard of 4.4m (14.43') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 86, Registered Plan 58M-273, 705 Windflower Crescent, 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 2009-040 Applicant: Jeff Cowell & Joanna Pauls Property Location: 95 Locust Street Legal Description: Lot 20, Plan 144 Appearances: In Support: J. Cowell J. Pauls Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an accessory building to have a height of 4.267m (14') to the under side of the fascia rather than the permitted 3m (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 7, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 95 Locust Street and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The land is designated as Low Rise Conservation `A' in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) with special use provision 129U. The property is located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood. Surrounding land use is low rise residential. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing accessory building and is requesting a variance to erect a new detached accessory building having a height of 4.267m to the underside of facia whereas Section 5.5.2(b) of the City's By-law 85-1 permits a maximum height of 3.Om to the underside of facia. The owner advises the additional height is required in order to have a higher ceiling height to carry out a music teaching home based business. The owner is also proposing to construct a green roof. The proposed accessory building does not exceed the overall maximum height of 5.5m and the15 percent maximum lot coverage also stipulated in Section 5.5.2(b) In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The proposal meets the intent of the Official Plan as the subject property is designated Low Rise Conservation `A' as the use of the property as a single detached dwelling and accessory building is consistent with this designation, which is to preserve the scale, use and intensity of existing development. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a height restriction for accessory buildings is to ensure the accessory building, in terms of height, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 152 JULY 21, 2009 3. Submission Nos.: A 2009-040, (Cont'd) is subordinate to the height of the single detached dwelling. The owner is proposing a rather unique design for an accessory building with a sloped design that at its maximum height on one end is 4.26m and 3.65m on the other. A green roof is being proposed, making it an environmentally -friendly design. The primary reason for the extra height is so that he can carry out a home based music studio business and have higher ceilings, bearing in mind that he will essentially be building a "room within a room" for sound insulation purposes. In the opinion of staff, the accessory building will be subordinate to the dwelling and therefore maintains the intent of the by-law. The impact of the proposed height will be negligible for the dwellings of surrounding properties given the location of the proposed accessory building. Therefore, staff are of the opinion that the requested height variance is minor and appropriate for the development and use of the land. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Jeff Cowell & Joanna Pauls requesting permission to construct an accessory building to have a height of 4.267m (14') to the under side of the fascia rather than the permitted 3m (9.84'), on Lot 20, Plan 144, 95 Locust Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 4. Submission Nos.: A 2009-041 Applicant: Asim & Yamna Bhatti Property Location: 140 Windale Cres Legal Description: Lot 35, Registered Plan 58M-442 Appearances: In Support: A. Bhatti Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 2.7m (9') high deck to have a rear yard of 2.3m (7.46') rather than the required rear yard of 4m (13.1'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 3, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 140 Windale Crescent and contains a semi-detached dwelling. The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4), with special regulation 441, in By-law 85-1. The special regulation notes that for properties subject to this provision, the minimum lot area shall be 19.0 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 153 JULY 21, 2009 4. Submission Nos.: A 2009-041. (Cont'd) square metres for each semi-detached house and the minimum rear yard shall be 6.5 metres. The applicant is requesting relief from subsection 5.6.A.4(c) the Zoning By-law to reduce the minimum setback for an elevated deck from the required 4.0 metres to 2.7 metres. The applicant is proposing to build a 6.Om by 4.2m (approx 10' x 20') at the rear of the property, illustrated in the conceptual drawings included with the application. The applicant has noted that the variance has been requested in order to facilitate construction of a deck large enough to meet the family's needs. With regards to the variance requested, 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 deck construction at 140 Windale Crescent is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. Therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The purpose of requiring a 4.0 metre setback is to provide a reasonable distance between a patio or deck more than 0.6m (2') high and the rear property line is to provide adequate access for maintenance and to give some landscaped separation between the structure and the adjacent property. The applicant has requested to reduce this setback by 1.7 metres, or approximately 5.5 feet, in order to accommodate a patio that is a size that the applicant feels will best suit his family's needs. Due to the already reduced rear yard setback (6.5 metres), the space available for the construction of a deck with stairs does not provide for a very functional deck space. With the building being of a walk -out design (main floor is one storey up at rear of house), one would expect a deck of some design to be constructed to connect to where the sliding door is installed. The two properties most likely to be impacted by this variance are 138 Windale Crescent and 58 Howe Drive. 138 Windale Crescent is the adjacent and attached semi-detached dwelling, and privacy and shadow impacts on the rear property would be increased with permitting the deck to extend further into the rear yard unless that owner chose to build a similar patio. Considering this unit has a second floor patio door identical to that at 140 Windale, staff anticipate that this property owner will likely wish to construct a similar deck on their property at some point in the future. The rear yard of 58 Howe Drive abuts the subject property, however staff see a variance permitting the proposed deck 1.7 metres (55) closer to this property line to likely have no significant impact on the reasonable use and enjoyment of that property, as the two properties are separated by a mature vegetation buffer. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the subject lands because it is allows for a deck/patio space of a reasonable size for walkout units that were designed to have a patio space off of the main floor at the rear of the dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Asim & Yamna Bhatti requesting permission to construct a 2.7m (9') high deck to have a rear yard of 2.3m (7.46') rather than the required rear yard of 4m (13.1'), on Lot 35, Registered Plan 58M-442, 140 Windale Cres, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 154 JULY 21, 2009 4. Submission Nos.: A 2009-041, (Cont'd) 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 2009-042 Applicant: Ray of Hope & Cango (Kitchener) Property Location: 432 Charles Street East & 851 King Street East Legal Description: Part Lots 1-4, Plan 404, and Part Lot 206, Streets and Lanes, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-2149, subject to easements over Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-7026,and, Part Lots 2 & 3, Plan 404 and Part Lot 206, Streets & Lanes, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-4622 Appearances: In Support: R. Steckley H. Whyte Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide 96 parking spaces for an office building having a gross floor area of 3,836 sq.m. (41,292 sq. ft.) rather than the required 137 parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated July 15, 2009, advising that the subject lands are composed of two abutting parcels bounded by both King Street East and Charles Street East and located between Stirling Avenue and Borden Street. The lands are 1.3 hectares in area and contain a former gas station close to King Street; however, the majority of the lands are vacant. The property is designated Mixed Use Corridor in the King Street East Secondary Plan of the Official Plan and is split zoned Commercial Residential Four Zone (CR -4) toward the King Street frontage while the balance and majority of the property is zoned Commercial Residential Four Zone (CR -4) with Special Regulation Provision 1 R. Special Regulation Provision 1 R stipulates that prior to the erection of any permitted building or any placement of fill, a permit shall be obtained from the Grand River Conservation Authority. Ray of Hope has submitted a site plan application for an office building and a residential care facility building (Site Plan Application SP07/34/C/KA). In order to facilitate the site plan application, the owner is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required parking for the proposed 3,836 square metre office building by 30 percent. Parking for the residential care facility can be accommodated on site without a variance. Under the parking regulations of the Zoning By-law, an office accommodating 3,836 square metres of gross floor area requires 137 parking spaces (1 space per 28.0 square metres). If the proposed variance is approved to reduce the required parking by 30 percent, the office would require 96 parking spaces. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 155 JULY 21, 2009 5. Submission Nos.: A 2009-042. (Cont'd The City's Transportation Planning Division has commented that it is willing to give consideration to the proposed parking reduction. However, in order to fully understand the implications of and to determine whether the proposed parking reduction is warranted and desirable, Transportation Planning is of the opinion that additional information is required. In this regard, Transportation Planning is requesting that an informal comparative parking demand analysis be conducted for a similar use along the King Street mainline transit corridor. In addition, Transportation Planning requests that the applicant submit further information regarding the types of Transportation Demand Management measures being implemented to justify the parking reduction (e.g., bike racks). The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated July 10, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Steckley asked that the Committee consider this application at this time, noting that that they have been working with the City staff on this proposal for 2 1/2 years; completed a Record of Site Condition and completed the required soil remediation. Further, City staff have encouraged him to maximize the density on this property, which they have done. He advised that they have a tenant for the building and the only problem is the parking. Mr. Steckley stated that they only recently were advised about the request for the deferral, and that he thought the City would have considered this request before now. Mr. Whyte stated that they were only made aware of this request for deferral this morning. He advised that the proposed new MI -13 zoning will require this lesser amount of parking. Ms. von Westerholt advised that the deferral request came from Transportation Planning staff and it came as a surprise. Further, Planning staff have always been supportive of the 30% reduction in parking; however, Transportation Planning staff are not certain that a 30% reduction is appropriate. They request a one month deferral. Mr. Lewis advised that the new mixed use zoning is not finalized yet and a requirement for 30% less parking is not assured. He requested that consideration of this application be deferred for 1 month to allow the applicant to undertake a traffic study. He stated that there is no more available space for surface parking and there will be more development on site. In response to the Chair, Mr. Whyte stated that there is going to be a new rapid transit system and the property is close to the Iron Horse Trail. Further, Mr. Whyte questioned what a parking study based on the current situation will tell us. The Chair asked Mr. Whyte to communicate with Transportation Planning staff to determine exactly what they are looking for. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That consideration of Submission No. A 2009-042 - 432 Charles Street East and 851 King Street East, BE DEFERED to the Committee of Adjustment meeting of Tuesday August 18, 2009, to allow the applicant an opportunity to undertake and submit to Transportation Planning an informal comparative parking demand analysis, and to submit further information regarding the types of Transportation Demand Management measures being proposed for the subject development. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 156 JULY 21, 2009 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21 st day of July, 2009. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary -Treasurer Committee of Adjustment