Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2009-09-15COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs D. Cybalski & A. Head OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic Technologist, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:06 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of August 18, 2009, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission Nos.: A 2009-049 Applicant: Tadeusz & Joyce Pecak Property Location: 11 Pepperwood Crescent Legal Description: Lot 31, Plan 1310 Appearances: In Support: T. Pecak Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached carport on the southerly side of the house, to have a side yard setback of 0.3m (.98') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), with eaves encroaching into the required 1.2m (3.93') side yard by 1 m (3.28') leaving a side yard setback on the eaves of 0.2m (0.65') rather than the required 0.6m (2'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 9, 2009, advising that the subject property is located on the east side of Pepperwood Crescent, north of Morgan Avenue in the Centreville Chicopee planning community of Kitchener. The property contains a single detached dwelling (bungalow) constructed in approximately 1972. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in the Zoning By-law. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on August 25, 2009. The applicant is proposing to construct a carport onto the south side of the existing dwelling. In order to facilitate the carport addition, the applicant is requesting approval of a minor variance to allow: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 182 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 1. Submission Nos.: A 2009-049. (Cont'dl • a minimum side yard of 0.3 metres, whereas a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres is required, and • eaves to project a maximum of 1.0 metre into the required 1.2 metre minimum side yard, whereas a maximum projection of 0.6 metres into the required side yard is permitted To clarify the eaves projection variance, the eaves would project 0.4 metres more than the maximum permitted projection and 0.1 metres beyond the building wall, resulting in an eaves setback from the property line of 0.2 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan and zoning. The intent of the side yard regulation is to ensure adequate space for parking, privacy of adjacent neighbours, and to allow adequate space for maintenance of the side of the building. The intent of the eaves projection regulation is to allow adequate space for maintenance of the eaves without encroaching on neighbouring lands. Staff is satisfied that adequate space for parking can provided within the carport despite the reduced setback. Notably, the width of the proposed interior parking space is 3.05 metres, which is approximately the minimum width permitted under the Zoning By-law and, therefore, the proposed setback represents the maximum possible setback while preserving a legally sized parking space. In addition, staff is satisfied that the proposed setback and eaves projection would allow adequate space for maintenance of the side of the carport and eaves should the carport be constructed as proposed. The design of the carport would allow much of its maintenance to be performed from the roof. Notwithstanding the above, staff is of the opinion that the privacy of the neighbouring property to the south (addressed as 226 Morgan Avenue) may be compromised. The variances would allow a carport roof to be constructed that would create a visual encroachment for the neighbouring property. The shape of the proposed roof would create a significantly steep and long run toward the neighbouring property's rear yard and may deposit snow or ice on the neighbouring lands in winter months. However, staff is of the opinion that the variances would meet the Official Plan and Zoning By-law intent tests if a flat-roof carport design, rather than an angled roof, is implemented. A flat-roofed carport with an approved elevation/design would significantly decrease the degree of encroachment and would prevent snow and ice from falling on neighbouring lands. Staff recommends that a condition be imposed to require a flat roof design with architectural embellishments in order to integrate the carport into the existing neighbourhood. In addition, staff suggests that a condition be imposed to ensure that all drainage from the proposed carport is directed onto the subject property and not onto neighbouring lands. Staff is of the opinion that the variances are minor since as long as a flat roof design is implemented they would not cause unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties. In addition, the variances are appropriate for the desirable development of the land since they would allow the construction of carport, resulting in an improvement to the single detached dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. In response to the staff recommendation that the carport be constructed with a flat roof, Mr. Pecak advised that in his neighbourhood he has seen cases that are worse than what he is proposing to build. He advised that his son-in-law previously erected a tent carport with a sloped roof and there was no problem with snow on the roof sliding or drainage onto the neighbour's property. The tent material was affected by ultra-violet light so it had to be removed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 183 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 1. Submission Nos.: A 2009-049. (Cont'dl The Chair remarked that the concern is drainage from the sloped roof onto the neighbour's property. Ms. von Westerholt questioned if there is an opportunity to construct a roof with less of a slope. Mr. Pecak advised that he has looked around his neighbourhood and there are carports of the same design as he is proposing. He states that he will accept whatever decision the Committee makes and try and make it work. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff will work with Mr. Pecak to discuss alteration designs. Mr. Head recommended that Mr. Pecak hire a builder to provide drawings to City staff. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Tadeusz & Joyce Pecak requesting permission to construct an attached carport on the southerly side of the house, to have a side yard setback of 0.3m (.98') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), with eaves encroaching into the required 1.2m (3.93') side yard by 1 m (3.28') leaving a side yard setback on the eaves of 0.2m (0.65') rather than the required 0.6m (2'), on Lot 31, Plan 1310, 11 Pepperwood Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to an unenclosed carport, with a flat roof or other roof design as approved by the Director of Planning. 2. That the owner shall submit and receive approval of elevation drawings for the carport from the Director of Planning, prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That all drainage from the proposed carport shall be directed onto the subject property. 4. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division prior to erecting the carport. 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 2009-050 Applicant: Patrick Cull & Barbara Hobot Property Location: 19 May Place Leaal Description: Part Lot 1. M W Ebv Survev. Plan 364 Appearances: In Support: B. Hobot Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was ad vised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming residence by constructing an attached garage and an attached COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 184 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 2. Submission Nos.: A 2009-050. (Cont'dl carport. This property is legal non-conforming because the property does not have frontage on a public street. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 4, 2009, advising that the subject property is addressed as 19 May Place and located in downtown Kitchener. The property does not have legal frontage onto a City street but has legal access to Cedar Street North over adjacent properties by an established right of way. The property has an area of approximately 492 square metres and is developed with a single detached dwelling. It is zoned Commercial Residential Zone (D-5) and has an Official Plan designation of Commercial Residential. Relief is being sought from Section 5.2 of the Zoning Bylaw where the applicant is requesting to construct a detached garage and carport on a property which does not abut a street. Section 5.2 of the Zoning Bylaw prohibits constructing any building for any purpose on a lot which does not abut a street. The applicant is proposing to rebuild the garage which was removed by the previous owners. 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 primary uses within the Commercial Residential District are residential, small office, and institutional. The proposed garage is an accessory use to an existing single detached residential use. Most of the other properties in the Commercial Residential district are developed with single detached dwellings with accessory garages. The regulations for side and rear yard setbacks in the Zoning Bylaw do not apply to this property because the subject property does not abut a City street. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the proposed garage will be located at the rear of the property and would meet the required side yard and rear yard setbacks as required in the Commercial Residential D-5 district. The variance is considered minor because the property has legal access to a City street through aright-of-way easement. Although the property is not abutting a street, the property functions as if it did because of the right of way easement acts as a public street in terms of access. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed configuration of the garage on the lot would be consistent with the established development within this neighbourhood. There are no adverse impacts anticipated as a result of this variance. The garage would provide privacy for the rear yard amenity space from the adjacent parking lot. There is adequate separation from the proposed garage to abutting residential properties. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Chair noted the comments of the City's Building Division respecting the necessity of a building permit and fire resistance rating for the garage wall. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Patrick Cull & Barbara Hobof requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming residence by constructing an attached garage and an attached carport, on Part Lot 1, M W Eby Survey, Plan 364, 19 May Pace, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 185 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 2. Submission Nos.: A 2009-050. (Cont'dl It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The impact of this garage and carport will not create an inacceptable adverse impact on the abutting properties. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The land that is the subject of this application was lawfully used for a single family dwelling on the day the by-law was passed to prohibit this use. Carried 3. Submission Nos.: A 2009-051 Applicant: Jeongho Wie & Kyung Lim Property Location: 427 Belmont Avenue West Legal Description: Part Lot 1, Plan 402 Appearances: In Support: J. Wie Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate a restaurant use in a building that is not a plaza and permission for a convenience retail use to occupy 337 sq. m. (3,627.5 sq. ft.) in the building rather than the permitted maximum floor area of 300 sq. m. (3,552.2 sq. ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 4, 2009, advising that the subject property is addressed as 427 Belmont Avenue West and has been developed as a convenience retail store. The property is 2,090.0 square metres and the building is 372.0 square metres. The property was subject to site plan approval in 1983. The site is zoned as Convenience Commercial Zone (C-1) with a special use provision (12R) which limits the maximum gross leasable commercial space for a single convenience retail use to 300.0 square metres. The Official Plan designation of the property is General Industrial. The applicant is proposing to sell prepared cooked pizza for immediate consumption from a separate counter within the existing store. The floor area that is proposed to be dedicated for the restaurant use is 35.0 square metres. The sale of pizza is considered to be a restaurant use, and as such relief is being sought from Section 7.2 of the Zoning Bylaw to allow a restaurant use that is not located in a plaza. Relief is also being sought to allow a convenience retail use that occupies 337.0 square metres where the maximum size allowed by the special use provision (12R) is 300.0 square metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. Service commercial uses are permitted in General Industrial districts where the site is located across the street from an Arterial Commercial Corridor and has direct access onto a Primary or Secondary Arterial Road. The site is across the street from the Belmont Village Mixed Use Corridor COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 186 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 3. Submission Nos.: A 2009-051. (Cont'dl which serves a similar function as an Arterial Commercial Corridor. The property is located on Belmont Avenue, which is classified as a secondary arterial road. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law because the proposed pizza counter will not be acting as a full restaurant as there is no seating provided. The pizza counter will compliment the convenience retail use by offering cooked food which will be in addition to the other food items currently offered. The pizza will be sold for immediate consumption off site and will function in part with the existing convenience retail use. The increased size of the commercial retail use recognizes the existing use of the property. The maximum limit on the total amount of floor space for convenience retail is intended to allow for small scale convenience retail uses. Planning staff are of the opinion that allowing a convenience retail use to a maximum size of 337.0 square metres is consistent the intent of the special use provision. The variance is minor because the building currently exists and only interior modifications are proposed. The pizza counter will not function as a full service restaurant use, and will act as an accessory use to the convenience retail. The proposed plan meets the required parking for the restaurant and convenience retail uses. The variance is appropriate for the neighbourhood because the proposed development plans will utilize all of the floor space in the building and will eliminate a vacancy in the building. Currently a small portion of the building is vacant and as a result the property is underutilized in its current configuration. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Wie advised that the pizza place will be located within the convenience store, and there will be no seating for the pizza place. He also advised that he will operate both uses. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Jeongho Wie & Kyung Lim requesting permission to locate a restaurant use in a building that is not a plaza and permission for a convenience retail use to occupy 337 sq. m. (3,627.5 sq. ft.) in the building rather than the permitted maximum floor area of 300 sq. m. (3,552.2 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 1, Plan 402, 427 Belmont Avenue West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain an Occupancy Permit for the convenience retail and restaurant uses. 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 187 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 4. Submission Nos.: A 2009-052 Applicant: Valleyview Heights (St Jacobs) Ltd. Property Location: Beaumont Crescent Legal Description: Part Block 74, Registered Plan 58M-479, being Parts 20, 43 & 44, Reference Plan 58R-16580 - and - Submission Nos.: A 2009-053 Applicant: Valleyview Heights (St Jacobs) Ltd. Property Location: Beaumont Crescent Legal Description: Part Block 74, Registered Plan 58M-479, being Parts 21, 52 & 53, Reference Plan 58R-16580 Appearances: In Support: J. Passy Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that in Submission No. A 2009-052 the applicant is requesting permission for a reduced interior side yard of 2.15m (7.05') rather than the required 2.5m (8.2') and a reduced lot width of 7.836 m (25.7') rather than the required 8m (26.24') for a street fronting townhouse dwelling. Through Submission No. A 2009-053, the applicant is requesting permission for a reduced interior side yard of 2.15m (7.05') rather than the required 2.5m (8.2') and a reduced lot width of 7.836 m (25.7') rather than the required 8m (26.24') for a street fronting townhouse dwelling The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 8, 2009, advising that the subject properties are located on the south side of Beaumont Crescent, and east of Sims Estate Drive, in the east end of Kitchener. They are zoned Residential Six (R-6) with special provision 399R and are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The proposed use of each property is to be the end unit in two blocks of street fronting townhouses. Both of the subject lots have a width of 6.9 metres and an area of approximately 196 square metres. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 40.2.5 of the Zoning By-law to construct a townhouse dwelling having: 1. A 2009-052 - a left side yard of 2.15 metres (7 feet) rather than the required 2.5 metres (8.2 feet); and, 2. A 2009-053 -aright side yard of 2.15 metres (7 feet) rather than the required 2.5 metres (8.2 feet). The applicant has requested a variance because the side lot lines on either side of Part Block 74 are not parallel, resulting in the need to locate the dwellings closer together. 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 Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The proposed development and requested variance for the side yard abutting maintains the intent of the Low Rise Residential designation in the Official Plan. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 188 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 4. Submission Nos.: A 2009-052 and A 2009-053. (Cont'dl The variance meets the intent of Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 2.5 m side yard setback is to encourage an aesthetically pleasing distance between a row of townhouse units and the abutting property, in addition to allowing sufficient space for rear yard access and maintenance of the building. The requested variance for a reduction of 0.35 metres does not compromise the intent of this regulation. The variance is considered minor as it proposes a deviation from the required setback distance of only 0.35 metres, or 35 centimetres. Visually the townhouse dwelling unit will not appear to be any closer to the side lot line than at the required setback distance. The variance is considered desirable and appropriate for the development and the use of the land. The configuration of the building on the lot would be consistent with the established development within this neighbourhood and no adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of this variance. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Submission No. A 2009-052 Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Valleyview Heights (St Jacobs) Ltd. requesting permission for a reduced interior side yard of 2.15m (7.05') rather than the required 2.5m (8.2') and a reduced lot width of 7.836 m (25.7') rather than the required 8m (26.24') for a street fronting townhouse dwelling, on Part Block 74, Registered Plan 58M-479, being Parts 20, 43 & 44, Reference Plan 58R-16580, Beaumont 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 Submission No. A 2009-053 Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Valleyview Heights (St Jacobs) Ltd. requesting permission for a reduced interior side yard of 2.15m (7.05') rather than the required 2.5m (8.2') and a reduced lot width of 7.836 m (25.7') rather than the required 8m (26.24') for a street fronting townhouse dwelling, on Part Block 74, Registered Plan 58M-479, being Parts 21, 52 & 53, Reference Plan 58R-16580, Beaumont 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 189 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 5. Submission Nos.: A 2009-054 Applicant: Robert Alders Property Location: 356 Guelph Street Legal Description: Part Lot 94 to Part Lot 96, Plan 146 Appearances: In Support: R. Alders Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a deck at the rear of the house to have a setback from Ellis Avenue (side yard abutting a street) of 3.6m (11.68') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), and legalization of an existing front deck having a setback from Ellis Avenue (side yard abutting a street) of 2.87 m (9.43') rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 8, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at the northeast corner of Guelph and Ellis Streets. It is developed with a single family dwelling and is zoned Residential Four (R-4) with an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. The applicant is requesting permission to construct a deck over 0.6 m (2 feet) above grade at the rear of the house to have a setback from Ellis Avenue of 3.6 metres (11.68 feet) rather than the required 4.5 metres (14.76 feet) and legalization of an existing front deck over 0.6 metres (2 feet) above grade having a setback from Ellis Avenue of 2.87 metres (9.43 feet) rather than the required 4.5 metres (14.76 feet). In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential which it to "achieve a low overall intensity of use". The use of the decks accessory to a single family dwelling can be considered a low intensity of use. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The setback requirements for decks from lot lines abutting a street are intended to provide a sufficient distance from the public area along the street from the outdoor amenity area on a private property. The setbacks for both the proposed and the existing deck are the same, or less than, what currently exists for the house which was built in the 1930's and complies with the Zoning By-law because of an "Existing Use" clause. There have been no concerns to date regarding the setback for the existing house and deck. The decks do not encroach further into the current setback requirement than what currently exists for the house and existing front yard deck. The intent of the Zoning by-law for a separation from public and private realm is being adequately met. The variances can be considered minor. The proposed setback of a deck of 3.6 m in the rear yard and the existing setback for a deck in the front yard of 2.87 m would maintain an adequate separation from the street and is no more onerous that the dwelling unit that has existed for some time. The variances can be considered desirable for the appropriate development of the property and surrounding streetscape. The use of a deck in either front or rear yard provides for an outdoor amenity space easily accessible from the main structure. It is noted that the existing deck in the front yard has existed since prior to the current ownership of the property and that there have been no complaints/concerns made by the public. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 190 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 5. Submission Nos.: A 2009-054, (Cont'dl The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Robert Alders requesting permission to construct a deck at the rear of the house to have a setback from Ellis Avenue (side yard abutting a street) of 3.6m (11.68') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), and legalization of an existing front deck having a setback from Ellis Avenue (side yard abutting a street) of 2.87 m (9.43') rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76'), on Part Lot 94 to Part Lot 96, Plan 146, 356 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the decks, generally as shown on the drawings submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 6. Submission Nos.: A 2009-055 Applicant: John Reibling Property Location: 125 Massey Avenue Legal Description: Lot 172, Plan 923 Appearances: In Support: J. Reilbling Contra: T. &. S. Dickson Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a garage addition, at the rear of the existing garage, to have a rear yard of 5.5m (18.04') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 4, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 125 Massey Avenue and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property has approximately 15.1 metres of frontage on Massey Avenue and an area of approximately 636.2 square metres. It is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By-law and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing garage extending approximately 3.6 metres into the rear yard. To facilitate the construction of the addition, the applicant is requesting a minor variance to have a 5.5 metres rear yard setback rather than the required 7.5 metres rear yard setback and is further requesting permission to legalize an existing side yard setback of 0.96 metres rather than 1.2 metres as is permitted by the Zoning By-law. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 191 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 6. Submission Nos.: A 2009-055. (Cont'd 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 requested variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. 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 125 Massey Avenue is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the 7.5 metres rear yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff's opinion that the requested setback of 5.5 metres would continue to provide sufficient outdoor amenity space with minimal impact on neighbouring properties. The purpose of the required 1.2 metres side yard setback is to provide for 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 request to legalize the existing 0.96 metres side yard setback would still allow for adequate separation from neighbouring properties as well as adequate maintenance access to the rear yard. The requested variances are minor in nature as there is adequate separation to the abutting residential properties in both rear yard and side yard and will likely have minimal impact to adjacent lands. The variances are considered desirable and appropriate for the development and the use of the land. The addition to the existing garage in the rear yard is consistent with the established development within the neighbourhood with no anticipated adverse impacts. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Dickson advised that he lives on Shelley Drive behind the subject property and he has lived there for 40 years. He stated that this summer they had a flood into their backyard and it filled their pool with muddy water. The flood came from the downspout on Mr. Reibling's house. Although Mr. Reibling rectified the situation, they are concerned with what will happen with the run-off from the proposed garage addition. Mr. Dickson advised that they would like to have this Committee impose a condition that all drainage must be directed away from their property. He also requested a condition for grading and sodding with the discharge from the downspout to go to the street. The Chair suggested that Mr. Reibling install sod on the rear portion of his yard and erect a temporary silt screen. Further he stated that Mr. Reibling must direct roof drainage onto his property and eliminate the drainage onto the neighbours' property. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr A. Head That the application of John Reibling requesting permission to construct a garage addition, at the rear of the existing garage, to have a rear yard of 5.5m (18.04') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6') and legalization of an existing 0.96m (3.14`) side yard rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Lot 172, Plan 923, 125 Massey Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the construction of the proposed garage addition. 2. That the owner shall plant sod on the rear 10' of the property and install a silt screen within 30 of the last day to appeal this decision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 192 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 6. Submission Nos.: A 2009-055. (Cont'dl 3. That the owner shall ensure that all drainage is directed onto his own property and shall eliminate drainage onto the neighbours' properties. 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 7. Submission Nos.: A 2009-056 Applicant: Harold & Ilga Gravelsi Property Location: 369 Keewatin Avenue Legal Description: Lot 34, Plan 1718 Appearances: In Support: S. Sawatzky Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a rear sunroom addition to have a rear yard of 5.98m (19.61') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 4, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 369 Keewatin Avenue, which is located east of Lackner Drive and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property has approximately 15.4 metres of frontage on Keewatin Avenue and an area of approximately 464.5 square metres. It is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By-law and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. Relief is being sought from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 where the applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.98 metres to allow for the construction of a sunroom in the rear yard. 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 5.98 metres would continue to allow outdoor amenity space to be provided and the impact on neighbouring properties is minimal. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 193 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 7. Submission Nos.: A 2009-056. (Cont'dl 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 sunroom 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 August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr A. Head That the application of Harold & Ilga Gravelsins requesting permission to construct a rear sunroom addition to have a rear yard of 5.98m (19.61') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 34, Plan 1718, 369 Keewatin Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Divison for the proposed sunroom addition. 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 8. Submission Nos.: A 2009-057 Applicant: Lalith & Dilanee Wirtunga Property Location: 174 Westhrights Drive Leaal Description: Lot 428. Plan 1353 Appearances: In Support: S. Sawatzky L.& D. Wirtunga Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a rear sunroom addition to have a rear yard of 7.013m (23') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 4, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 174 Westheights Drive, which is located south of Queens Boulevard in the west end of Kitchener. The property has approximately 7.6 metres of frontage, an area of approximately 400 square metres and is developed with a single detached dwelling. It is zoned Residential Three (R-3) and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 194 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 8. Submission Nos.: A 2009-057. (Cont'dl Relief is being sought from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning Bylaw where the applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 7.013 metres to allow for the construction of a sunroom in the required rear yard. 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 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 174 Westheights Drive is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. 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 as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff's opinion that a setback of 7.013 metres would continue to allow outdoor amenity space, and the impact on neighbouring properties is minimal as there are no residential dwellings adjacent to the rear year of the subject property because the land is City-owned (Sandrock Greenway Open Space). 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 variance is 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 August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated August 26, 2009, advising that a portion of the subject property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 due to the presence of a watercourse and its associated floodplain adjacent to the rear property line. Any development within the regulated areas requires the prior written permission form the GRCA in the form of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. The chair noted the requirement of the City's Building Division and the Grand River Conservation Authority. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Lalith & Dilanee Wirtunga requesting permission to construct a rear sunroom addition to have a rear yard of 7.013m (23') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lot 428, Plan 1353, 174 Westheights Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for the proposed sunroom addition. 2. That the owner shall obtain approval from the Grand River Conservation Authority for construction of the sunroom, if required. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 195 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 8. Submission Nos.: A 2009-057, (Cont'dl 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 9. Submission Nos.: A 2009-058 Applicant: Nick Michaelides Property Location: 54 Camrose Court Legal Description: Lot 14, Plan 1623 Appearances: In Support: N. Michaelides Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate stairs to the basement, in the right side yard, to have a side yard setback of 0.42 m (1.37`) rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46`). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 4, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 54 Camrose Court and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property has 9.5 metres of frontage on Camrose Court and an area of 235 square metres. It is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. Relief is being sought from Section 5.6.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 where the applicant is requesting a minor variance to construct new exterior stairs leading to a new basement door in the right sideyard with a setback from the side lot line of 0.42 metres(1.37') rather than the required 0.75 metres (2.46'). The new exterior stairwell and door will act as the only exterior access point to the basement as the existing basement stairwell in the garage will be removed as it does not comply with the Building Code. 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 stairs, while maintaining the low density character of the property. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of the 0.75 metres minimum side lot set back is to allow sufficient space to access the rear yard and provide adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff's opinion that the requested side lot setback of 0.42 metres would continue to allow access to the rear yard and the impact on neighbouring properties would be minimal. The variance is considered minor as there is adequate separation from the proposed stairs to abutting residential properties and as such will likely have minimal impact to adjacent lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 196 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 9. Submission Nos.: A 2009-058. (Cont'dl The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed construction of the new exterior stairs and door would be consistent with the established development within this neighbourhood and will act as the only exterior access to the basement. Therefore it is staff's opinion that no adverse impacts as a result of this variance are anticipated. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated August 26, 2009, noting that a portion of the subject property is regulated by them due to the presence of floodplain behind the rear property line. Any development within the regulated area requires a permit from the GRCA. Mr. Michaelides stated that he is not sure of the exact sideyard measurement; however, he has requested 0.42m and he will stick with the measurement. He advised that the stairwell will be open and there will be a drain in the landing. Moved by Ms. C. Balcercyzk Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Nick Michaelides requesting permission to locate unenclosed stairs to the basement, in the right side yard, to have a side yard setback of 0.42 m (1.37`) rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46`), on Lot 14, Plan 1623, 54 Camrose Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for both the removal of the existing interior stairs in the garage and for the construction of the new unenclosed exterior basement stairs and door. 2. That the owner shall obtain approval from the Grand River Conservation Authority for construction of the unenclosed stairs, if required. 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 10. Submission Nos.: A 2009-059 Applicant: Erik Kikuchi Property Location: 72 Breithaupt Street Legal Description: Part Lot 145, Plan 376, being Part 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-3018 Appearances: In Support: I. Brown Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 197 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 10. Submission Nos.: A 2009-059. (Cont'dl The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a duplex on a lot having a width of 9.7 m (31.82') rather than the required 12m (39.37') in a building having a westerly side yard setback of 0.5m (1.64') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93') and a front yard setback of 5.5m (18.08') rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated September 8, 2009, advising that the subject property is located on the north side of Breithaupt Street between Duke Street West and Waterloo Street. It has a lot width of 9.8 m and a lot area of approximately 460 square metres. The property is developed with an existing duplex dwelling and is zoned Industrial Residential (M-1) with an Official Plan designation of General Industrial. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 19.3 of the Zoning By-law to legalize existing conditions on the site. While a duplex dwelling is developed on the site, the property was never legally established as a duplex. No building permits were applied for changing from a single family dwelling to a duplex dwelling. The property does not comply with regulations for a duplex dwelling in that it is deficient in lot width, front yard setback and side yard setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing duplex use with a lot width of 9.7 metres rather than the required 12.0 metres; a westerly side yard setback of 0.5 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres; and a front yard setback of 5.5 rather than the required 6.0 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The property is designated General Industrial which permits duplex dwellings in mixed industrial-residential areas. The existing duplex use is consistent in form and use with other development in the area. The applicant is not changing the structure of the existing building and will not be increasing the density. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of establishing a minimum lot width in the zoning regulations is to ensure that the property is of an adequate size to accommodate the dwelling while meeting the required yard setbacks. In this instance, the width of the property is existing and the property currently accommodates the duplex dwelling with no issues. The purpose of the minimum side yard setback is to allow for maintenance of the side of the subject building from the subject property and to allow for privacy and separation of the subject and neighbouring property. The encroachment of the duplex dwelling into the required side yard setback is minimal and provides adequate separation between the buildings on abutting properties. There is also space to access the rear of the property along the other side yard if the 0.5 metres is not sufficient. The intent of the front yard setback is to ensure that sufficient amenity space is provided, as well as proper visibility from the road. Many other properties on the street have similar front yard setbacks as the subject property. Therefore, the variance does not create an irregularity on the street, nor does it create a disturbance or safety concern to any of the neighbouring properties. The variances can be considered minor. The building has existed since approximately 1920 and appears to have been constructed as a single family dwelling at the time. The applicant notes that the duplex use has existed since at least 2001. The variances recognize an existing building situation and the use as a duplex does not significantly impact the abutting properties or the streetscape. The variances can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land because it blends well with the balance of buildings along Breithaupt Street and maintains the character of the streetscape, being that it is an existing structure. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 198 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 10. Submission Nos.: A 2009-059. (Cont'dl The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Erik Kikuchi requesting legalization of a duplex on a lot having a width of 9.7 m (31.82') rather than the required 12m (39.37') in a building having a westerly side yard setback of 0.5m (1.64') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93') and a front yard setback of 5.5m (18.08') rather than the required 6m (19.68'), on Part Lot 145, Plan 376, being Part 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-3018, 72 Breithaupt 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 11. Submission Nos.: A 2009-060 Applicant: Mariana Ion Tutianu Property Location: 1167 King Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 6 & 7, Plan 251 Appearances: In Support: C. Ramkalawn D. Fortier Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide 8 off- street parking spaces rather than the required 10 for a building containing an office, florist and coffee shop. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 20, 2009, advising that the subject property is located at 1167 King Street East and contains atwo-storey commercial/office building, constructed in 2009. The subject property is designated as Mixed Use Node in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Commercial-Residential Four Zone (CR-4) in By-law 85-1. Staff notes that while the applicant indicated in Section 21 on the application form that no relief had previously been sought on the subject property, the owners applied for and obtained permission from the Committee for a parking reduction in December 2008 under application number A2008-091. For that application, the proposed office and florist shop required nine (9) parking spaces, and a variance was granted to allow eight (8) parking spaces to be provided. Permission was also given to allow a FSR of 0.36, whereas a minimum FSR of 0.4 was required. The applicant is now proposing to modify 17 square metres of the florist shop to include a coffee bar. The addition of this "restaurant" use changes the required parking to ten (10) spaces. The applicant is requesting relief from subsection 6.1.2(a) of the Zoning By-law to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces again to eight (8), as illustrated COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 199 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 11. Submission Nos.: A 2009-060. (Cont'dl in the previously approved site plan included in the circulation materials and shown in Figure 2. Staff visited the site on August 20, 2009 with regards to this application, and note that other site inspections are likely to occur as the Site Plan Approval process, particularly the confirmation of completeness of site works and certifications from development professionals, wraps-up. 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 Mixed Use Node designation is for areas intended to serve an inter-neighbourhood function and will allow for intensive, transit supportive development in a compact form. A reduction of required parking in such an area may be seen as a measure supporting the transit and pedestrian focus, and as such, staff considers this proposal to meet the intent of the Official Plan designation. The intent of the minimum parking regulation is to ensure that the quantity of parking spaces provided meets parking demand. Considering the context of the area, the shortage of two parking spaces could be justified; the proposed building fronts onto King Street which is serviced by Grand River Transit's mainline Route 7. This is a very frequent, high-use route, and there is a bus stop located less than 75m away travelling both east and west along King Street. As well, amore-frequent, limited-stop iXpress route is located at the intersection of Charles Street and Ottawa Street, which is less than 200 metres from the subject property. Furthermore, consideration must be given to the Region's future Rapid Transit System, with a proposed station location at the intersection of Charles Street and Ottawa Street. Lastly, staff notes that this particular area is likely to be subject to aCity-imitated zone change to a mixed-use (MU) category in the near future. This MU zoning reduces the required parking anywhere from 10- 30%, which on this particular site would equal a reduction of between one (1) and three (3) parking spaces from the required ten (10). Therefore, while the proposed site would be deficient two parking spaces under the current zoning, the intent of the Zoning By- law, being to provide sufficient accessibility to users of the site, would be maintained by means of the significant transit alternatives available. The proposed coffee bar occupying 17 square metres of space within the existing flower shop that is necessitating the additional one (1) parking space on this site is not anticipated to generate significant additional vehicular traffic that would cause adverse impact on the existing parking situation on the site. Staff would expect that, due to the location and size of the facility, the coffee bar would cater to those already utilizing the flower shop or those working in the immediate area that would travel to the site by non- vehicular means. Should the floor area dedicated to the coffee bar increase, the owner would be required to obtain a new occupancy certificate, and parking requirements would be re-evaluated to determine the impact of such a change. As mentioned above, staff anticipates changes in the zoning applicable to the subject property as a result of an ongoing city initiative to rezone mixed use nodes and corridors, and parking requirements for the subject property may be decreased as part of that rezoning. As currently proposed, staff do not anticipate the shortage of two (2) parking spaces to have an adverse impact on the users of the subject property or the surrounding properties, and consider the variance to be minor in nature. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the subject lands because it is allows for amixed-use commercial use within an existing building constructed to the full extent of what can be accommodated on the site. The reduction in the number of parking spaces made available could be seen as a proactive means of implementing potential future required parking reductions, and the nature and scale of the proposed use caters more to individuals already coming to the other commercial/office uses on site, or those travelling by non-vehicular means. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2009, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 200 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 11. Submission Nos.: A 2009-060. (Cont'dl The Chair advised that occupancy permits are required by the City and will be imposed as a condition in this Committee's decision. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Mariana Ion Tutianu requesting permission to provide 8off-street parking spaces rather than the required 10 for a building containing a99 sq. m. office, an 82 sq. m. florist and 17 sq. m. coffee bar, on Part Lot 6 & 7, Plan 251, 1167 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain the required occupancy permits from the City of Kitchener. 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 CONSENT 1. Submission Nos.: B 2009-031 Applicant: Nicholas & Patricia Boyko Property Location: 433 Stirling Avenue South Legal Description: Part Lot 15 & 16, Plan 25 - and - Submission Nos.: B 2009-032 Applicant: Nicholas & Patricia Boyko Property Location: 437 Stirling Avenue South Leaal Description: Part Lot 16. Plan 25 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: W. Schork A. Primoscia Written Submissions: None As no one appeared in support of these applications, the Committee generally agreed to defer its consideration of them to their meeting scheduled for Tuesday October 20, 2009. 2. Submission Nos.: B 2009-033 Applicant: 2120826 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 1525 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-16572 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 201 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 2. Submission Nos.: B 2009-033. (Cont'dl Appearances: In Support: D. Aston Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a servicing easement in favour of the neighbouring property at 1545 Victoria Street North, the City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo. The easement will be located at the Victoria Street frontage of the property, having a width of 58.035 m (190.4') and will have an area of 230.9 sq. m. (2,485.46 sq. ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 20, 2009, stating that the subject property is located at on Victoria Street North (Regional Road #55) just east of Lackner Boulevard (Regional Road #54) and Bingemans Centre Drive, with a full legal description reading Part Lot 123, GCT; Parts 14 and 15, 58R-3597; Parts 1 to 3, 58R-6507; Parts 1 and 2, 58R- 16572. The subject property was created through a severance from 1545 Victoria Street North (Application B2009-008), and is to be developed as a retail store. A Site Plan Pre-application meeting was held for the development proposal on Tuesday August 18, 2009, and a formal application is expected to be made within the next few weeks. This application has been submitted in conjunction with Application B2009-034 to create mutual servicing and access easements with the retained portion of 1545 Victoria Street North. The subject property is designated Arterial Commercial Corridor in the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and is zoned Arterial Commercial Zone (C6) in By-law 85-1. The easement proposed on the subject property will facilitate the installation of services across the frontage of 1525 Victoria Street North to allow the development of 1545 Victoria Street North. The City of Kitchener and Regional Municipality of Waterloo have been named as parties to the easement to allow for maintenance access to the service facilities. This proposed easement, noted as Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-16572, comes into the property of 4.5 metres from the street-line and runs along the entire frontage of the property. The exact location of any services, access features and buildings on the site will be determined during the formal Site Plan Review process. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated September 8, 2009, in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated September 1, 2009, in which they advise that a portion of the subject lands are regulated by them due to the presence of a drainage area associated with Kolb Creek and its floodplain. Any development within the regulated area of the site will require a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation permit from the GRCA. Mr. Aston advised that through this application and Submission No. B 2009-034, the applicants are seeking approval for easements and rights-of-way for sanitary service, stormwater management drainage to the Kolb Drain, and shared access. He advised tht he has no objection to the staff conditions, except for #3. Mr. Aston was advised that this is a standard condition which, if not required, can easily be cleared. Respecting the submission from the GRCA, the Chair advised that as they requested a condition, it will be imposed. Submission No. B 2009-033 Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 202 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 2. Submission Nos.: B 2009-033. (Cont'dl That the application of 2120826 Ontario Inc. requesting permission for a servicing easement in favour of the neighbouring property at 1545 Victoria Street North, the City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo, to be located at the Victoria Street frontage of the property, having a width of 58.035 m (190.4') and will have an area of 230.9 sq. m. (2,485.46 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-16572, 1525 Victoria Street North, 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 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 make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the removal of any redundant paved driveway ramps and the re-establishment, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees on the retained lands. 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and any required modification to service connections to the retained lands as a result of the severance. 5. That the Transfer Easement(s) creating the rights-of-way for access and easement for servicing, sanitary and other utilities shall be approved by the City Solicitor prior to registration. 6. 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 rights-of-way for access and easement are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 7. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with that a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement. 8. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 9. That the owner shall obtain a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority, if required. 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 203 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 2. Submission Nos.: B 2009-033. (Cont'dl 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 September 15, 2011. Carried 3. Submission Nos.: B 2009-034 Applicant: Mandec Corporation Property Location: 1545 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, being Parts 3, 4, 5 & 6, Reference Plan 58R-16572 Appearances: In Support: D. Aston J. Teperman Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for 3 easements for services and access in favour of the abutting property at 1525 Victoria Street North and the Region of Waterloo. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated August 20, 2009, stating that the subject property is located at on Victoria Street North (Regional Road #55) just east of Lackner Boulevard (Regional Road #54) and Bingemans Centre Drive, with a full legal description reading Part Lot 123, GCT; Parts 14 and 15, 58R-3597; Parts 1 to 3, 58R-6507; Parts 3 to 6, 58R- 16572. The subject property was the retained portion of the severance that created 1525 Victoria Street North (Application B2009-008), and is to be developed as a self- storage facility. A Site Plan application has received Approval in Principle (SP09/035/V/LT), and is progressing through to full approval The subject property is designated Arterial Commercial Corridor in the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and is zoned Arterial Commercial Zone (C6) in By-law 85-1. The applicant is proposing a number of easements for servicing and access, which include: • An access easement in favour of 2120826 Ontario Inc. to provide shared access to Victoria Street North with 1525 Victoria Street North (shown as Part 3 on 58R- 16572); • A stormwater servicing easement in favour of 2120826 Ontario Inc to allow access to the servicing corridor through 1545 Victoria Street North to 1525 Victoria Street North (Shown in part as Part 5 on 58R-16572); and, • An access easement in favour of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to allow access to the adjacent stormwater management system maintained by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Shown as Parts 3 and 4 on 58R-16572). The easements proposed on the subject property will facilitate the comprehensive development of 1525 and 1545 Victoria Street North. The proposed access easement in favour of 1525 Victoria Street North provides that site with a secondary access onto COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 204 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 3. Submission Nos.: B 2009-034. (Cont'd Victoria Street North, which is not necessary to allow the development of that site but is desired by the property owner. The servicing easement in favour of 1525 Victoria Street North over 1545 Victoria Street North allows for the disposal of stormwater from 1525 Victoria Street North via a servicing channel to the Kolb Greenway was determined in the review of Site Plan application SP09/035/V/LT. Final consent for servicing via the path proposed on the consent sketch submitted for the easement will be subject to GRCA and Engineering clearance by means of final approval of the Site Plan application. An Access Agreement with the City of Kitchener will be required for permission to enter upon City lands to carry out the work required on City lands pursuant to the approved grading/storm water management/landscaping plan. Staff notes that the proposed layout of the easement shown on the attached plan differs slightly in the size and shape of where it terminates at the property line adjacent to Kolb Drain from the alignment shown on the plan circulated with the application; the applicant has submitted this revised plan following further consultation with Engineering, Environmental Planning and Grand River Conservation Authority staff. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo has been named as party to the proposed access easements composed of Parts 3 and 4 of 58R-16572 to allow for maintenance access to the adjacent storm water management facility. This adjacent storm water management facility appears to be an old drain running parallel to the eastern property line of 1545 Victoria Street North to the Kolb Greenway to the south. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated September 8, 2009, in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated September 1, 2009, in which they advise that a portion of the subject lands are regulated by them due to the presence of a drainage area associated with Kolb Creek and its floodplain. Drainage areas associated with Kolb Creek are also located on the north and east sides of the property. Any development within the regulated area of the site will require a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation permit from the GRCA. Mr. Aston advised that through this application and Submission No. B 2009-034, the applicants are seeking approval for easements and rights-of-way for sanitary service, stormwater management drainage to the Kolb Drain, and shared access. He advised tht he has no objection to the staff conditions, except for #3. Mr. Aston was advised that this is a standard condition which, if not required, can easily be cleared. Respecting the submission from the GRCA, the Chair advised that as they requested a condition, it will be imposed. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Mandec Corporation requesting permission for 3 easements for services and access in favour of the abutting property at 1525 Victoria Street North and the Region of Waterloo, on Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, being Parts 3, 4, 5 & 6, Reference Plan 58R-16572, 1545 Victoria Street North, 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 205 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 3. Submission Nos.: B 2009-034. (Cont'dl 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 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 make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the removal of any redundant paved driveway ramps and the re-establishment, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees on the retained lands. 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and any required modification to service connections to the retained lands as a result of the severance. 5. That the Transfer Easement(s) creating the right-of-way for access and easement for servicing, sanitary and other utilities shall be approved by the City Solicitor prior to registration 6. 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 rights-of-way for access and easement are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 7. The owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement. 8. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 9. That the owner shall enter into an access Agreement with the City of Kitchener for permission to enter upon City lands to carry out the work required on City lands pursuant to the approved grading/storm water management/landscaping plan, whichever the case may be as being the source of the works to be done on City-owned lands. 10. That the owner shall obtain a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority, if required. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 206 SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 3. Submission Nos.: B 2009-034. (Cont'dl 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 September 15, 2011. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of September, 2009. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment