The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDTS-09-102 - DC - 510 Krug St Development& Technical Services REPORT L Report To: Council Date of Meeting: June 29, 2009 Submitted By: Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning (519-741-2319) Prepared By: Andrew Pinnell, Planner (519-741-2668) Ward(s) Involved: Bridgeport - Centre (Ward 1) Date of Report: June 24, 2009 Report No.: DTS-09-102 Subject: DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC09/07/K/AP 510 KRUG STREET PAUL AND PENNY GROMINSKY 0 00 I?Ax S JECT AREA IX, ?eG Z RECOMMENDATION: That Demolition Control Application DC09/07/K/AP requesting permission to demolish a multiple dwelling located at 510 Krug Street, owned by Paul and Penny Grominsky, legally described as Lot 170, Plan 841 be approved, without conditions. 11 -1 -pip, View of subject property from Krug Street BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the north side of Krug Street, between Eton Drive and Sherwood Avenue. The surrounding area is composed of a mix of low rise residential land uses with a commercial plaza located directly across the street from the subject property. The property contains a building used as a three-unit multiple dwelling (triplex). The building was constructed in approximately 1955. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Six (R-6) in the Zoning By-law. The applicant is proposing to demolish the dwelling in order to access soil that was contaminated due to an underground oil storage tank leak. The non-hazardous soil is proposed to be remediated. According to an Engineer's report the contamination is below the dwelling and appears to be migrating. The applicant has stated that the timeframe for and type of redevelopment is unknown. REPORT: Planning Comments Under the Planning Act, the purpose of demolition control is to maintain residential properties within the municipality and to prevent their premature or unjustified removal. In this case, the owner has stated that there are no immediate plans for redevelopment. Following the remediation of the soil, the excavation would be backfilled and graded and the land seeded or sodded. 11-2 Seven criteria, as outlined in Council Policy 1-1010, are used to evaluate the appropriateness of an application to demolish a residential property in circumstances where no building permit will be issued for a new building on the site: 1. Property Subject to the Ontario Heritage Act The City's Heritage Planner advises that there are no heritage concerns with the subject application. 2. Architectural and Historical Value The City's Heritage Planner advises that there are no heritage concerns with the subject application. 3. Condition of the Dwelling A City Building Inspector examined the dwelling on June 23, 2009 and advises that the exterior brick, soffit, and fascia are in good condition. The roof is in good condition and appears to be adequately insulated. The rear deck is in poor condition. The dwelling has forced air heating throughout and a newer oil furnace and tank in basement. Electric water heaters have been removed from the property. There is no evidence of major settling or foundation movement. Windows and some finishes have been upgraded within the last 10-15 years. Other finishes in the kitchens and bedrooms appear to be original. The triplex appears to be generally in fair to good condition. 4. Impact of Demolition on Abutting Properties, Streetscape, and Neighbourhood Stability Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed demolition would have a negative impact on the streetscape as it would create a gap in the currently continuous streetscape. Staff is of the opinion that, ideally, redevelopment should occur immediately following demolition. Since the timeframe for redevelopment is unknown it is possible that the lands may remain vacant in the long-term. This situation is not desirable within this stable, low rise residential area. The fact that the subject building is in overall good condition further intensifies staff's concern. 5. Timeframe of Redevelopment The applicant has stated that the timeframe for and type of redevelopment is unknown. 6. Proposed Use In Terms of Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties As stated above, a vacant lot is not a desirable or ideal land use within this stable, low rise residential area, however, it should be emphasized that the reason for the proposed demolition is to access soil that was contaminated due to an underground oil storage tank leak so that the site may be remediated. The applicant has provided a Groundwater Sampling Report prepared by MTE Consultants Inc., which states that "MTE recommends that remedial action be implemented immediately. If free product migrates into the municipal roadway, it has the potential to quickly migrate large distances via underground utilities, and gravel betting for utilities. If free product migrates into the municipal roadway, the volume of contaminated soil and the associate remedial costs could increase exponentially." 11-3 Separate correspondence with the Engineer at MTE reveals that "Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the furnace oil that has been released are potentially harmful to both humans and the natural environment. If the furnace oil is not remediated, it could potentially migrate downwards to deeper aquifers that are used by the Region of Waterloo for drinking water supply. If the furnace oil migrated off site beneath another building, the oil could generate vapours that could penetrate into a basement and cause harm to the building's inhabitants. There are cleanup standards set for petroleum hydrocarbons by the Ministry of the Environment, and meeting these standards will be the goal of the remediation." 7. Neighbourhood Consultation In order to ensure that Planning Act timelines for demolition control applications are met during the summer months and given the time-sensitivity of the oil spill issue, this application was not circulated to the neighbourhood for comment, however, all property owners within 60 metres of the subject property were circulated an information letter giving a summary of the proposal and information regarding the date and time of the Council meeting dealing with this application. Conclusion Given the severity of the contamination and the engineering consultant's recommendation to remediate immediately, staff is of the opinion that the benefits of the proposed demolition far outweigh the consequences of retaining the dwelling. Although the proposed demolition of a building in good condition represents a loss in terms of housing stock, streetscape appeal, and compatibility with the neighbourhood, staff is of the opinion that demolition is justified considering the need for soil remediation and potential for further damage if no action is taken. Heritage Comments The City's Heritage Planner has indicated that there are no concerns with the subject application. Building Inspector Comments A City Building Inspector examined the dwelling on June 23, 2009. The building is a 1960's style 2 plus storey walk-up triplex. The property contains a 4 metre by 14 metre storage garage and 2.5 metre by 4 metre utility shed in rear yard. The property is serviced with water, hydro, and sanitary facilities. There is an abandoned underground fuel tank on the left side of the property. There are 8 monitoring wells placed around the existing triplex. The building is constructed with a poured concrete foundation and is of wood frame construction and face brick exterior. The exterior brick, soffit, and fascia are in good condition. The roof is in good condition and appears to be adequately insulated. The rear deck is in poor condition. The dwelling has forced air heating throughout and a newer oil furnace and tank in basement. Electric water heaters have been removed from the property. There is no evidence of major settling or foundation movement. Windows, and some finishes have been upgraded within the last 10-15 years. Other finishes in kitchens and bedrooms appear to be original. The triplex appears to be generally in fair to good condition. The abandoned fuel tank outside the building is being investigated and it is understood that it will be removed and the ground tested during demolition. The Building Division has no objections to the demolition of the building. Note that a demolition permit will be required. 11-4 Engineering Comments Engineering Services requires that all existing services must be capped prior to the Demolition Permit being issued. The capping must be completed by the City at the expense of the owner. Fire Department Comments The Fire Department has commented that it has no concerns with the subject application. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No new or additional capital budget requests are expected with this recommendation. COMMUNICATIONS: Preliminary circulation of the demolition control application was undertaken on June 16, 2009 to internal agencies. Comments were received from four internal agencies (see Appendix "A"). This application was not circulated to the neighbourhood for comments, however, all property owners within 60 metres of the subject property were circulated an information letter giving a summary of the proposal and information regarding the date and time of the Council meeting dealing with this application. CONCLUSION: Planning staff have considered this situation and are of the opinion that the proposed demolition is justified. As such, Planning staff recommends that demolition control application DC09/07/K/AP, requesting permission to demolish a multiple dwelling located at 510 Krug Street, legally described as Lot 170, Plan 841, be approved without conditions. REVIEWED BY: 0 Della Ross, Manager of Development Review (519-741-2327) ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager I Development and Technical Services Department Attachments: • Appendix "A" - Plan submitted with application • Appendix "B" - Internal agency comments 11-5 APPCND?y, lill" ASSOCIATI HOF ONTARIOI URVEYOW S, REAL PROPERTY REPORT, PART I LAND SURVEYORS LAN OF SURVEY OF LOT 170, REGISTERED PLAN 841 PLAN SUBMISSION FORM ITY OF KITCHENER' 1094225 EGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO 'ALE 0 10 20 30 40 50 f-, I-INCH =--30 FEET APER i ALI DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN FEET AND CAN BE CONVERTED TO METRE S 6 Y MULTIPLYING BY 0 3048 THIS PLAN 13 NOT VALID UENTHER RUEB SURVEYING LIMITED I 99-t UNLESS IT 18 AN EMBOSSED ' ? : ORIGINAL COPY )TE, BEARING AR ASTRON OMIC AND ARE REFERRED TO THE W'ly BOUNDARY iiiu BY THE SURVEYOR 0 5 F 0 or L T 170? AS SHOWN ON REGISTERED PLAN 841, HAVING A EARING 2,43) OF N 3 9.OA 04' W LOT 157 I NST. 152030 T N 46-47'36" E / I " N 18 39' 2oll E m (0,26,S) RJF?617) 50, 67' o Pie 0 0 ON LINE C 0 z I NST, 716502 ?n Is 2' 0 0, 2' 0, 71 0 LID c) 0 0, 2' 0 GARAGE IZ U) 0 LOT 17 0" IT P? _r DEE T 6) ROOFED PORCH H 0 I I 4 6 8' f6.31, Z 0 " . ,l 11 . --;, g, ? E)o, lb lAk, z TR:CLEX MVN,NO?510 6? 0' 16. 49' z 'E_ 0: G 9 N z Z r- c! 9, 3A T ?ISREPORT IWAS PREPARF0 FOR ,; R 0, FH P, & P, G ROM I NSKY SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE C ERTIFY THAT, PART 2 THISESURVEYWAND PLANSARECOIRRECT AND IN r CT ACCO DANCE ITH !HE UAV YS ACT rHE TH 5 PLAN MUST BE READ IN SURVRYORS A AND TLIC RECISTRY ?CT AND I THE EGULATIONS MADE UNDER THEM 1^01JUNCTION VVITH SURVEY REPORT METZ, O.L.S. R 2. T14E SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ON THE Ilth DAY C B 10. L.S. DA CIEF C HOEL CE TED MA H 10, 1997? HAIN NK FEN OF FEB., 1997. JOB NO. 0 ? PLANTED C.C. = CUT CROSS MARC 10 19 7? 0 , FOUND PROP.- PROPORTIONED J. D s I B = STANDARD IRON BAR -X- FENCE ONTARIO LAND SVRVEYOR 7) -48(22) IB = RONBAR M? MEASURED rIIPNTHFR PtJFR SURVEY I NG L 1 M I I FD 11-6 lu 1?11 -.-l -Ell CL z 3 > 13 ?2 R A -0 ?, C) 0 M > 0 .,z T -0 (A M -4 (h & El a 3 S L, 0:1 ?T o n C) 94 R 01 3 LD. -u > Z. a 3 zo om Ei G) ry SP EF 5; o 3 11-7 6 u' , 7 o ) m cn C3 rg cR A Z > a g: 0 rn 0 w F6 ID LA 09 , 0 ? 0 -0 -A 1 -0 z m 0 0 a - t T ?u m 0 . ; -a , -,) , , ?F. Fn Im 0 ? Qo - -M Fi o o 4 0 0'. x 6i F 0 0 77, WS zo 10 ID m 10 0 0 -01 m 0 0 a 0 > < C, 0 cn 0= 1 -8