Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2010-02-16COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 16, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs A. Head, B. McColl and M. Hiscott OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Elizabeth Brown, Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic Technologist, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary- Treasurerand Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. A. Head, Vice Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:40 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr B. McColl That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of January 19 2010, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission Nos.: A 2010-004 Applicant: Patricia Reeve Property Location: 34 Ellen Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 9, Plan 417, being Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-4827 - and - Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2010-005 Patricia and Andrew Reeve 36 Ellen Street East Lot 8, Plan 417 P. & A. Reeve None Written Submissions: None The Committee considered 2 reports from the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 1, 2010, on these applications. In the reports staff advises that it is not possible to accurately determine the extent of the variances without a proper land survey. Further there may be encroachments from each property onto the other. The Chair advised Mr. & Mrs. Reeve that the Committee is not prepared to consider these applications without a legal survey, as the extent of the variances and any encroachments can not be determined. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 16 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-004 and A 2010-005 (Cont'd The Committee generally agreed to defer its consideration of these applications to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday April 20, 2010 to allow Mr. & Mrs. Reeve time to have a legal survey of these properties prepared and submitted to Planning staff. The Chair also recommended to Mr. & Mrs. Reeve that they review the other staff concerns as outlined in the development and Technical Services Department reports, and address those concerns prior to the April 20, 2010 meeting. Submission Nos.: A 2010-006 Applicant: Muriel and Doug Coleman Property Location: 28 Maynard Avenue Leaal Description: Part Lot 374. Plan 374 Appearances: In Support: S. Sawatzky Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second storey sunroom addition at the front of the house; whereas, the by-law permits only rear additions. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 1, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at 28 Maynard Avenue and contains a two-storey residential building, constructed in approximately 1880. Building permit records indicate that an attached garage was added to the structure in 1942, and atwo-storey addition was made to the house in 1968, which later served as a doctor's office. The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential Preservation in the Civic Centre Secondary Plan in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Five Zone (R5) with Special Use Provision 127U in By-law 85-1. The special use provision notes that an addition to an existing single detached dwelling must be attached to the rear of the structure and shall not extend into any side yard further than the extent of the existing structure, and such addition must not exceed 25 percent of the existing building's gross floor area and be in accordance with the regulations in Section 39.2.1. A site visit was conducted on February 1, 2010. The applicant is proposing to construct an enclosed un-heated sunroom over the attached garage where an open-air patio space currently exists. A portion of that existing deck will remain uncovered, with what appears to be access from the proposed sunroom addition. The proposed sunroom is not attached to the rear of the house, and therefore requires a minor variance addressing the requirement of special use provision 127U. 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 Preservation designation has been applied to areas where it is the aim of this Plan to retain the existing single detached residential character of the neighbourhood. Existing houses and streetscapes are to be preserved wherever possible. Minor exterior alterations and additions to single detached dwellings shall be permitted provided such alterations are not within any front or side yard. The proposed sunroom addition would be within the existing footprint of the building and not encroach further into the front or side yard, and as such, staff considers this proposal to meet the intent of the Official Plan designation. The intent of the special use provision is to avoid having additions constructed on buildings that may impact the character of the building and/or streetscape. In this case, the existing building is already a blend of three different exterior finishes (yellow brick, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 17 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 2. Submission No. A 2010-006 (Cont'dl red brick and grey aluminum siding), each from a different phase of construction as described above. The area on which the sunroom is proposed is already occupied by an outdoor patio living space, and is connected to a previous addition that wraps around and is attached to both the rear and side of the original dwelling. Given the nature of the addition (an un-heated sunroom) and the orientation of the building (south fronting), constructing the addition to the rear of the existing dwelling and previous addition is not desired. The proposed addition will affect the street presence of the building, but staff recognizes that this is a building that has already been impacted by previous additions, and that the nature of the materials of the proposed addition may result in a lesser visual impact that an addition using other materials. As such, staff feel that the proposal meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The proposed sunroom is within the existing footprint of development on the site, and does not extend further into either the front or side yard than the existing dwelling and garage. The sunroom addition could be considered to be an extension to the 1967 addition, which does attach to the rear of the original house. The glass-walled nature of the addition should allow sunlight to pass through, minimizing morning shadow impacts on the adjacent property. Visual impact may also be minimized due to the fact that the addition is constructed of glass, having a translucent presence and possibly allowing views through the addition to the existing dwelling. Therefore staff considers 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 the sunroom desired by the property owners to be constructed over an existing outdoor amenity area allowing year-round use. Constructing a sunroom addition to the rear of the house, as required by the by-law, would result in a sunroom receiving limited direct sun as it would be located on the north side of the building. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 4, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Muriel and Doug Coleman requesting permission to construct a second storey sunroom addition at the front of the house; whereas, the by-law permits only rear additions, on Part Lot 169, Plan 374, 28 Maynard Avenue, 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 Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: A 2010-007 Daniel Adam and Denise Leschak 77 Marlborough Avenue Part Lots 631 & 632, Plan 230 D. Adam D. Leschak COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 18 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 3. Submission No. A 2010-007 (Cont'd) Contra: P. Roberts Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached garage to have a side yard abutting Roxborough Avenue of 3m (9.8') rather than the required 6m (19.68') and a rear yard of 6m (19.68') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated January 22, 2010, advising that the subject property is located on the southeast corner of Marlborough Avenue and Roxborough Avenue. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling and is designated Low Rise Residential and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4). The applicant is proposing to add a mudroom and an attached garage to the existing house. To facilitate the addition the applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow a rear yard setback of 6.0 metres and setback for a side yard abutting a street of 3.0 metres whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires 7.5 metres and 6.0 metres respectively. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, Planning staff offer the following comments. Staff is of the opinion that the variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential. The proposed variance to facilitate the addition of a garage is consistent with this residential designation. Staff is of the opinion that the variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The lands are zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4). With respect to the requested variance to the side yard setback, staff notes that the regulations state that no part of any building used to accommodate off -street parking shall be located closer than 6.0 metres from the street. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that where a driveway leads to a garage there is sufficient space between the garage and the property line to accommodate one vehicle. In this case, because the setback is to the side of the garage, there is no need to accommodate a parking space between the garage and the street. The side yard setback to a street also helps to ensure there is adequate distance between the building and the street both for landscaping and to ensure that visibility triangles are preserved for intersections and driveways. The applicant has included preliminary 3-D elevation drawings as part of their submission. These show that there are 2 windows proposed on the street side of the garage. Furthermore, the owners have indicated that they would like to introduce new landscaping into the side yard. Staff feels that these measures will help to maintain an attractive streetscape. The proposed structure is setback back nearly 18 metres from the intersection and well away from the neighbour's driveway and therefore should not have any impact on visibility triangles. With respect to the requested variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.0 metres staff note that the intent of the rear yard setback is to maintain adequate private amenity space for residents. The reduced setback will only apply to a portion of the rear yard and a rear yard setback of about 16 metres will be maintained for the remainder of the property. Staff is of the opinion that adequate private amenity space has been maintained and is of the opinion that the intent of the zoning by-law has been maintained. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are minor and are appropriate for the development and use of the subject lands. The proposed garage and mudroom will help to increase the usability of the property for the owners and there is limited opportunity to locate the garage in any other location on the subject lands. In addition the garage will have 2 windows facing onto the street. Staff recommends that a condition be included to require that front and side elevation drawings for the garage be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval prior to the issuance of a building COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 19 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-007 (Cont'd permit. Staff understands that the owners intend to install landscaping in the side yard which will also help to improve the streetscape. The proposed setback for the garage is similar to that of the existing fence. Staff note that the existing fence will be relocated as part of the renovations so that it is in line with the proposed garage and will also be setback 3.0 metres from the street. The owners have agreed to reduce the height of the fence to a maximum of 1.82 metres so that it is in compliance with the City's Fence By-law. A condition of approval has been included in this regard. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 4, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Ms. Roberts advised that she lives on Roxborough Avenue facing the side yard of the subject property. Currently she faces a fence on the subject property which will be removed and replaced by the proposed garage which will be located 1' closer to Roxborough Avenue than the existing fence. Ms. Roberts stated that rather than a streetscape, she will be looking at a rear yard. Mr. McColl stated that the variance from 7.5m to 6m is minor in nature and although larger in number, the variance from 6m to 3m is minor and appropriate in this circumstance. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Daniel Adam and Denise Leschak requesting permission to construct an attached garage to have a side yard abutting Roxborough Avenue of 3m (9.8') rather than the required 6m (19.68') and a rear yard of 6m (19.68') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Part Lots 631 & 632, Plan 230, 77 Marlborough Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed attached garage, the owner shall receive approval from the Director of Planning for elevation drawings for the side of the garage abutting Roxborough Avenue. 2. That within one year of the date of issuance of the building permit for the attached garage, the height of the fence located within the side yard abutting the street be reduced to a maximum height of 1.82 metres in accordance with the City of Kitchener Fence By-law. 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 Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2010-008 1658194 Ontario Ltd. 330 Mill Street Part Lot 19, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract S. & B. Huber None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 20 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 4. Submission No. A 2010-008 (Cont'dl Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate a personal service use (hair salon) in a building containing 2 dwelling units rather than 20 dwelling units, and legalization of an existing building having a setback from Mill Street of 3.9m (12.79') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 3, 2010, advising that the subject property is located on the north/east side of Mill Street between Stirling Avenue and Ottawa Street. The neighbourhood is composed of a mix of residential (both low and medium density), commercial, and industrial uses. The subject property is approximately 2780 square metres in area and contains two buildings which are described in greater detail, below. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the subject property on February 3, 2010. The subject property is split designated and zoned. The portion of the property closest Mill Street is designated Low Density Commercial Residential in the Mill-Courtland- Woodside Park Secondary Plan and is zoned Commercial Residential One Zone (CR- 1)with Special Use Provision 158U. Special Use Provision 158U permits a driveway for the purposes of industrial and commercial access. This portion of the property contains a building originally constructed as a single detached dwelling, which has been converted into athree-unit building. Two units are used for residential purposes (i.e., duplex), one of which contains a private home day care. The third unit is 39 square metres in area, is vacant, and is the proposed location of a hair salon (personal services use). The rear portion of the property is zoned General Industrial Zone (M-2) with Special Regulation Provision 1 R and Special Use Provision 159U. Special Regulation Provision 1 R requires that a permit be obtained from the Grand River Conservation Authority prior to the commencement of certain site development works. Special Use Provision 159U places restrictions on the use of the property for the sale and rental of motor vehicles and major recreational equipment. This portion of the property contains a 2-storey building used for small scale manufacturing, a dwelling unit approved through a previous variance, and a driving school (educational establishment). The applicant is a prospective tenant of the vacant third unit of the building closest Mill Street. The applicant is seeking minor variance approval to allow personal services use (hair salon) within a building having 2 dwelling units whereas the Zoning By-law requires that such use is permitted only within a multiple dwelling or mixed commercial- residential building containing a minimum of 20 dwelling units, a residential care facility having a minimum of 20 residents or a building containing a minimum of 4700 square metres of gross floor area designed for office. In addition, the applicant is seeking minor variance approval to allow a minimum front yard of 3.9 metres for the existing building closest Mill Street, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum front yard of 4.5 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan (OP) and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the Low Rise Commercial Residential OP designation is to recognize existing areas of small scale commercial and residential development as well as to allow for the low rise, low density redevelopment of such areas with commercial, institutional and residential uses. This designation is also intended to create transitional or buffer areas between some industrial and surrounding residential uses. The designation allows a wide variety of low rise residential and commercial uses, including, but not limited to: duplex use, educational establishment, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 21 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-008 (Cont'd and office. Low Rise Commercial Residential also permits personal services use as long as it is contained within a large residential, commercial, or mixed use building. Ultimately, this policy seeks to achieve a mix of commercial, institutional and residential land uses through redevelopment. Staff is of the opinion that while the proposal does not technically appear to meet the policy requirement to allow personal services use only within large residential, commercial, or mixed use buildings, it does meet the general intent of the policy, which is to limit personal services use on the site and to achieve a mix of certain uses. In this case, the site already contains a mix of land uses, including: educational establishment, small scale manufacturing, and residential dwelling units. In order to ensure that the intent of the policy to limit personal services use is maintained, staff recommends that an approval condition be imposed to require that the use be permitted only within the existing building and be limited to the size of the unit proposed to contain the use, being 39 square metres or approximately 7 percent of the gross floor area of the property. In addition, staff is satisfied the proposed variances would not have the effect of compromising the future redevelopment of the property at a higher density since any financial investment in the building would be limited in scale as long as the above noted condition is imposed (that is, the redevelopment of the property would not be stifled due to improvements to the existing building completed in order to accommodate the personal services use). Staff is of the opinion that personal services use, which would be permitted through the proposed variances, would act as a transitional use between the industrial uses north/east and the residential uses on the opposite side of Mill Street. In determining the appropriateness of a variance to reduce the minimum front yard, staff advises that planned road widenings must be considered. In this case, staff has confirmed that although a widening requirement is identified in the OP, the widening has already been taken by the City along this section of Mill Street. In addition, Transportation Planning staff has not identified any safety related issues with the existing building closest to Mill Street. With respect to required parking under the Zoning By-law, a total of one off-street parking space is required for the personal services use (dependent on the use occupying 39 square metres of floor area). Staff has identified that required parking for the site is as follows: Rear Building 1. Dwelling unit - 1 parking space required 2. Educational Establishment (VIP Driving School) - 2 parking spaces required as per occupancy certificate 07118807 3. Manufacturing (Die Trim International) - 1 required per 2 employees. 5 employees; therefore, 2 parking spaces required Front Building 4. Dwelling Unit including Private Home Day Care - 1 parking space required 5. Dwelling Unit - 1 parking space required 6. Proposed Personal Services (Hair Salon) - 1 parking space required per 40.0 square metres of GFA. 39 square metres proposed; therefore, 1 parking space required ) The site requires a total of 8 parking spaces under the City's Zoning By-law. A row of parking along the westerly side lot line exists which may provide all 8 parking spaces. Transportation Planning staff has identified concerns with other parking spaces on the site, however, including front pad parking and a two rows of parking running parallel to the rear building on the site (a row of 10 and a row of 2 spaces). Staff recommends a further approval condition requiring removal of or installation of barriers to disallow COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 22 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-008 (Cont'd accessibility to the front pad parking and revisions to and/or removal of parking spaces from the rear parking area. In this regard, staff recommends that a parking plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Transportation Planning, addressing these concerns. The variances are minor for the following reasons. As mentioned above, staff can support the variance to allow personal services use only if a condition is imposed to limit the area and location of such use. In addition to reserving the majority of the site for other commercial or residential uses, this condition seeks to ensure that impact on adjacent residential uses is limited. As outlined above, only one parking space is necessary for the proposed personal services use (can be accommodated on-site). So long as such a condition is imposed, staff does not foresee any unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land for the following reasons. The variances would allow the use of the front building for personal services use which may serve the surrounding residential and commercial neighbourhoods. In addition, staff is of the opinion that the proposed personal services use would not affect the planned function of any intensification areas outlined in the Kitchener Growth Management Strategy, the nearest such area located at Courtland and Stirling Avenue (more than 650 metres away). The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 4, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planner, dated February 2, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Ms. Huber questioned the required parking plan and was advised by Mr. Lewis that she will have to provide a plan to scale, showing the location of all off-street parking on the property. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of 1658194 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to locate a personal service use (hair salon) in a building containing 2 dwelling units rather than 20 dwelling units, and legalization of an existing building having a setback from Mill Street of 3.9m (12.79') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), on Part Lot 19, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract, 330 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the use of the property for personal services may not include the cleaning of apparel as a main use. 2. That an occupancy certificate shall be obtained for the proposed personal services use. 3. That the owner shall submit a parking plan to the satisfaction of the City's Transportation Planning Division showing removal of or installation of barriers to disallow accessibility to the front pad parking and revisions to and/or removal of parking spaces from the rear parking area. Any required revisions/removals to the parking areas shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City's Transportation Planning Division, within one year of approval of Application for A2010-008. 4. That the personal services use shall be limited to 39 square meters in area and shall be located only within the building closest Mill Street, existing on the date of approval of Application for A2010-008. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 23 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-008 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 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 Nos.: A 2010-009 Applicant: Joan & Raymond Eales Property Location: 2 Putnam Place Legal Description: Lot 677, Plan 139 Appearances: In Support: J. & R. Eales Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing driveway having a width of 10.77m (35.33') being 52% of the width of the lot, rather than 50% of the width of the lot at a maximum of 8m (26.24'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 8, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at the corner of Putnam Place and Westheights Drive and is developed with one single detached residential dwelling. The land is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in By-law 85-1. The Applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1.b.ii.e of the Zoning Bylaw 85-1 to legalize and existing driveway with a width of 10.77 metres. The Zoning By-law states that on a lot with a width greater than 10.4 metres, a driveway may extend beyond the width of the attached garage to a maximum width of 50% of the lot width or 8 metres, whichever is less; and shall be located no closer than 0.6 metres to the side lot line. The Applicant has applied to legalize a driveway with a width of 10.77 metres which is 52% of the lot width. 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 expansions. The intent is to accommodate a full range of housing types that achieve an overall low density and the proposed development will not affect the density. The proposed variance at 2 Putnam Place will legalize an existing driveway that meets the intent of the Official Plan. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of limiting the width of a driveway to 8.0 metres or 50% of the lot width, is to reduce the amount of paved surface across the front of a property, so that the driveway is not the dominant feature of the property. The intent of limiting driveway width is also to discourage large spans of City sidewalk that cross private parking areas. The Owner is proposing to legalize the existing driveway in the side yard abutting a street. The Zoning By-law states that on COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 24 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-009 (Cont'd corner lots, the front yard is the smaller of two yards abutting a street and that lot width is the distance between two side yards. In this case, the driveway is within the side yard abutting Putnum Place, which has a greater frontage on a street than the true width of the lot, which fronts Westheights Drive. The driveway is less than 50% of the lot width of the yard in which it is located, but 52% of the true lot width (see Figure 1 above). The Owner is not proposing to increase the throat of the driveway access to the street on City property. In this case, the driveway widening does not require an additional crossing distance for the City sidewalk through the private parking area as the driveway is wider on one side of the sidewalk that the other. The variance is minor because the Applicant is legalizing an existing driveway that meets the intents of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The driveway is suitable for the property as it is located in the side yard abutting a street, which is the property's largest frontage on a street. Putnam Place is a cul-de-sac and has limited on-street parking. The driveway provides for off-street parking in excess of the minimum requirements set out in Section 6.1 of the zoning by-law The variance is appropriate for the property because the driveway is located in the side yard abutting a street which is the property's largest frontage on a street. The Owner is proposing to legalize an existing driveway and is not proposing the increase the width of the access throat onto Putnam Place. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 4, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Joan & Raymond Eales requesting legalization of an existing driveway having a width of 10.77m (35.33') being 52% of the width of the lot, rather than 50% of the width of the lot to a maximum of 8m (26.24'), on Lot 677, Plan 139, 2 Putnam Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission Nos.: A 2010-010 Applicant: APA Holdings Inc. Property Location: 89 Paige Street Legal Description: Part Lots 12 & 13, Registered Plan 58M-411, being Parts 32 & 33, Reference Plan 58R-15644 Appearances: In Support: M. Markovic Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 25 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-010 (Cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a covered deck at the rear of the house to have a rear yard of 5.94m (19.48') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 1, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at 89 Paige Street and contains atwo-storey residential building, currently under construction. The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four Zone (R4) in By-law 85-1. The applicant is proposing to construct a roofed and un-enclosed slab-on-grade patio to the rear of the structure, and is requesting permission for a rear yard setback of 5.94 metres, whereas a setback of 7.5 metres is required. 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 roofed and un-enclosed patio construction at 89 Paige Street is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. Therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The purpose of a 7.5 metres rear yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. Staff's opinion is that a setback of 5.94 metres for the roofed and un-enclosed patio would continue to allow sufficient outdoor amenity space to be provided within the rear yard. Therefore, staff feels that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The applicant has requested a minimum setback of 5.94 metres, whereas a setback of 7.5 metres from the rear property line is required. The difference is 1.56 metres, or approximately 5 feet closer to the rear property line than what is permitted as-of-right by the zoning. The structure is situated at the south end of the yard, and given the pitch of the proposed roof; staff would expect that any visual and shadow impact from asingle- storey roofline would be comparable to that of a structure meeting the setback requirement. Therefore staff considers the variance to be minor in nature. The variance can be considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the subject lands because the proposed single-storey roof structure appears to be a complimentary addition to the house, echoing the design and materials used. The structure will provide shade to an otherwise open-air outdoor amenity area, functioning much like an awning or pergola structure. The additional 1.56 metres of length provided to the structure will allow it to be of a functional size for shelter with minimal impact anticipated on adjacent properties. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 4, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. McColl advised that he is not opposed to a covered patio but he could not support an enclosed deck and his motion will reflect this concern. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of APA Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a covered, unenclosed deck at the rear of the house to have a rear yard of 5.94m (19.48') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Part Lots 12 & 13, Registered Plan 58M-411, being Parts 32 & 33, Reference Plan 58R-15644, 89 Paige Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 26 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-010 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 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 Nos.: A 2010-011 Applicant: Brenda Woodrow Property Location: 145 Louisa Street Legal Description: Part Lot 34, Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: W. Heer M. Sacie Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition in the rear yard to have a rear yard setback of 5.3m (17.38') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6') and legalization of a parking space setback 4.6m (15') from Duke Street rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 7, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at the corner of Louisa Street and Duke Street, and has approximately 14.8 metres of frontage and an area of approximately 365 square metres. The property is developed with a duplex dwelling which was constructed in 1910. It is zoned Residential Five (R-5) and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the rear of the dwelling to add another bedroom to the dwelling to facilitate the construction of the addition, the applicant is requesting a minor variance to have a 5.3 metres rear yard setback rather than the required 7.5 metres rear yard setback. The applicant is further requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 of the Zoning By-law to reduce the required minimum off street parking setback from 6.0 metres to 4.3 metres to legalize an existing driveway. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The intent of this designation is to accommodate a full range of housing to achieve an overall low density. The proposed variance will allow the construction of the additional living space while maintaining the low density character of the property. The rear yard setback 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. There is adequate amenity space in the side yard adjacent to the street and the front yard for the residents. It is also staff's opinion that a setback of 5.3 metres continues to provide for outdoor amenity space and the impact on neighbouring properties is minimal. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 27 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-011 (Cont'd) The parking setback variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law because the purpose of locating the required off-street parking space 6.0 metres from the street line is to provide an adequate buffer between the garage and street. It is also established to maintain the appearance of the streetscape and to allow an opportunity for parking off of the road right-of-way on the property. The applicant has stated that should approval be given for the variance to allow the addition of the rear of the dwelling, there would no longer be the need for the current structure fronting Duke Street and encroaching in the driveway. The variances are considered minor in nature 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 reduction of the driveway setback from 6 metres to 4.6 metres does not affect the streetscape or a driver's ability to safely ingress/egress from the driveway. On-site parking is still adequately provided in front of the garage with out any negative impacts to the functionality of the site. 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 February 4, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Brenda Woodrow requesting permission to construct a rear addition to have a rear yard setback of 5.3m (17.38') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6') and legalization of a parking space setback 4.6m (15') from Duke Street rather than the required 6m (19.68'), on Part Lot 34, Plan 376, 145 Louisa Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 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 Nos.: A 2010-012 Applicant: Brian and Wilma Skipper Property Location: 187 Queen Street North Legal Description: Part Lots 3 & 4, Plan 106 Appearances: In Support: B. & W. Skipper Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a tourist home, as a home business, to have 3 bedrooms rather than 2 bedrooms, as permitted COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 28 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-012 (Cont'd in the zoning by-law; to have 3 parking spaces for the home business to be located in the rear yard, rather than the 1 permitted parking space with 2 of the parking spaces to egress in a rearward motion rather than in a forward motion. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 5, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at 187 Queen Street North and contains a single detached dwelling with a detached garage. The subject lot is approximately 17 metres wide by 49 metres deep, with an area of approximately 833 square metres. The property is designated Low Rise Residential Preservation in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Plan and zoned Residential Five (R-5), 127U, which permits home based businesses. The applicant is requesting permission to operate a home business (tourist home); to have three bedrooms rather than the permitted maximum of two bedrooms; to have three parking spaces for the home business located in the rear yard rather than the maximum permitted one parking space; and to permit two parking spaces in a parking lot to egress in a rearward motion rather than a forward motion. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variances do not propose to alter the usability of the existing use of the single- detached dwelling on the site, and will support the home occupation business-use operating on the site. Staff feels that the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan as it does not affect the subject property's compliance to its designation as Low Rise Residential-Preservation. The Official Plan requires that all parking areas shall be designed, constructed, and maintained for the safe and efficient movement of motor vehicles and pedestrians, on the site, and at points of ingress and egress related to the site. Staff is of the opinion that the parking variance to egress in a rearward motion rather than a forward motion complies with the intent of the Official Plan as it continues to allow for safe and efficient movement of vehicles. Front yard parking is discouraged in the Civic Centre Heritage District. The Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation Plan: Streetscape Design Guidelines states that any "additional parking requirements that may be necessary to meet business needs or zoning regulations should be located at the rear of the building." As such, this proposed variance for additional parking at the rear meets the objectives of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation Plan There are no physical changes being proposed; thus, the variances do not alter the outdoor amenity space or aesthetic appearance of the property. Therefore, staff feels that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. Staff feels that the variances are minor because the existing parking situation exceeds the bylaw maximum and is located to the rear of the dwelling unit where it is not visible from the street. As such, the impact on the adjacent properties resulting from the increase of two parking spaces in rear yard is negligible. The variances are considered desirable because it will not alter the appearance of the dwelling from the street line and the character of the neighbourhood will be maintained. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land, as it does not affect the ability to utilize the property as asingle-detached dwelling, but will facilitate the home occupation as permitted by the current residential zoning. Sufficient outdoor amenity space will be maintained on the site provided the delineation of the parking area is kept in order to avoid parking in areas intended for amenity use. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 29 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-012 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 4, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott That the application of Brian and Wilma Skipper requesting permission for a tourist home, as a home business, to have 3 bedrooms rather than the permitted 2 bedrooms; to have 3 parking spaces for the home business to be located in the rear yard, rather than the 1 permitted parking space; with 2 of the parking spaces to egress in a rearward motion rather than in a forward motion, on Part Lots 3 & 4, Plan 106, 187 Queen Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: The owner shall obtain an Occupancy Permit from the City of Kitchener Planning Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 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 Nos.: A 2010-013 Applicant: Fineway Properties Limited and Canuck Properties Ltd Property Location: 500 Fairway Road South Legal Description: Part Lots 17 & 18, Plan 988 and Part Lot 167, Streets and Lanes, being Parts 3-6, 11-18, 24, 27-29, Reference Plan 58R-3933 Appearances: In Support: S. Patterson A. Levine A. Sheilds Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand the legal non-conforming retail use into a newly constructed portion of the building. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated February 9, 2010, advising that the subject property is zoned Commercial Campus Zone (C-8) with special provision 297R. The Official Plan designation is Primary Node (Fairway Road Commercial Corridor). City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on February 5, 2010. In considering the expansion of the legal non-conforming use as outlined in Section 45(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The C-8 zone permits retail uses provided the gross floor area devoted to retail exceeds 1,500 square metres. However, the current retail uses existed before the C-8 zoning COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 30 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-013 (Cont'd was applied to the subject property. The previous zoning of the property had a special provision, 7U, permitted all retail uses without any minimum gross floor area requirement. As such, the existing retail uses with a gross floor area of less than 1,500 metre are legal non-conforming. A portion of the existing building which currently contains the theatres is being demolished. In its place, an addition to the structure which contains the existing legal non-conforming retail units is being proposed. As the use of the subject lands is a legal non-conforming use, expansions or enlargements to a legal non-conforming use requires approval from the Committee of Adjustment. The proposed addition is for retail use, which are similar to and consistent with other uses on the site. The applicant is requesting the committee's permission to expand the legal non- conforming retail use into a proposed building addition. A portion of the existing plaza currently contains a cinema complex use that will be vacating the site. Because of the construction design used for the cinemas it is not possible to redevelop the unit for other commercial uses. The cinemas will be replaced by an addition that will be constructed in generally the same location. The proposed extension of the legal non-conforming retail use into a proposed addition is similar in size and use to the existing retail uses on the site. Expansion of this regulation and use into the new building addition is considered to be a similar use. The existing building has a gross floor area of 8,363 sq.m. and the proposed demolition and rebuilding for the plaza will result in a total gross floor area of 8.294 sq.m. The resulting floor area is slightly less than its current size. As well, the plaza is located on a primary arterial road which is a major shopping destination for the public and the extension, with no increase in floor area, will continue to provide appropriate uses for the property, that are consistent with the C-8 zone. The application is in the public interest and represents good planning. The application does not create unacceptable adverse impacts upon abutting properties. As noted above, the redeveloped building area will not exceed the current building area on site. The existing building has legal non-conforming status for the to retail use and therefore replacing the floor area with a new building does not increase the overall gross floor area of what is already legal non-conforming. Also, the existing and proposed parking spaces on site exceed the requirement for plaza parking and therefore there are no parking concerns. There have been no parking complaints or concerns received to date and the cinema use would likely generate more demand for parking than the proposed redevelopment without the cinemas. Therefore it is staffs opinion that there are no adverse impacts upon either the subject or neighbouring properties as a result of the proposed addition. Lastly, Planning staff would like to have it noted that the Official Plan states that in this area "a high level of urban design will be expected of all new development". The current parking demarcation, though approved in 1995, does not meet current Transportation Planning and Urban Design Guidelines. There are safety concerns with how the parking functions and flows on the site. Although the applicant/owner has stated they do not intend to repave or re-demarcate the entire site at this time, staff highly recommend that the owner does take this opportunity while redeveloping a portion of the site to update the entire parking area of the property to Transportation Planning and Urban Design Guidelines standards that are currently in place. Staff is willing to work with the owner on developing an appropriate parking layout for the plaza. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 4, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application; However, additional requirements will be submitted to the City through the site plan approval process. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. M. Hiscott COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 31 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-013 (Cont'd) That the application of Fineway Properties Limited and Canuck Properties Ltd. requesting permission to expand the legal non-conforming retail use into a newly constructed portion of the building, on Part Lots 17 & 18, Plan 988 and Part Lot 167, Streets and Lanes, being Parts 3-6, 11-18, 24, 27-29, Reference Plan 58R-3933, 500 Fairway Road South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the owner shall apply for and receive approval of a demolition permit for the existing cinema complex and a building permit for the new addition. 2. That the new building addition shall have a maximum gross floor area of 2,400 square metres. It is the opinion of this Committee that retail on this property has lawfully existed since the date the by-law was passed prohibiting this use and has continued until the date this application to the Committee of Adjustment was made. Carried 10. Submission Nos.: A 2010-014 Applicant: First Capital (Fairway) Corp. Property Location: 655 Fairway Road South Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Plan 1525 Appearances: In Support: R. Juknevicuis Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a new commercial building to have a setback from Fairway Road of 4.5m (14.76') rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated January 29, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at 655 Fairway Road South as shown on the Location Map above. The property currently contains a large commercial plaza which includes a range of commercial uses. The applicant is proposing to demolish the building which is currently located on the western side of the site near Fairway Road and to replace this building with an LCBO. The property is designated Primary Node in the Official Plan and is zoned Commercial Campus Zone (C-8) with Special Regulation Provisions 297R and 413R and Special Use Provision 112U. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow a 4.5 metre front yard setback whereas the zoning by-law requires a front yard setback of 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. Staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The property is designated Primary Node -Fairway Road Commercial Corridor. The designation states that within this designation, "a particular emphasis will be placed on streetscape elements and building mass. In order to achieve an aesthetic environment and enhance pedestrian accessibility, the City may require major new developments to locate near to the street through the use of maximum front yard setbacks or other specific requirements." The applicant is proposing to reduce the front yard setback and bring the proposed building closer to the street. Staff is of the opinion that this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Official Plan. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 32 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 10. Submission No. A 2010-014 (Cont'd) Staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The property is zoned Commercial Campus Zone (C-8) which requires a front yard setback of 6.0 metres. This setback helps to preserve sight lines at driveway visibility triangles and also allows space for landscaping along the street. The proposed building has received Approval in Principle from the Site Plan Review Committee. Staff notes that Transportation Planning has no concerns with respect to driveway visibility and through the Site Plan Approval process Planning Staff will require that new landscaping will be installed between the building and the street. . Staff is of the opinion that the variance is minor and is appropriate for the development and the use of the lands. Visually, the proposed building would be set back slightly further than the parking stall and donation bin as shown on the above photo. To the passerby, the proposed 4.5 metre setback will appear consistent with the setback of buildings located on the opposite side of Fairway Road (due to the very wide boulevard between the sidewalk and the property line). Staff notes that locating buildings closer to the street can also help contribute to a comfortable pedestrian environment and is consistent with the City's urban design principles. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 4, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of First Capital (Fairway) Corp. requesting permission to construct a new commercial building to have a setback from Fairway Road of 4.5m (14.76') rather than the required 6m (19.68'), on Part Lot 2, Plan 1525, 655 Fairway Road South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 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. CONSENT Submission Nos.: B 2010-003 Applicant: First Capital (Fairway East) Corp Property Location: 589 Fairway Road South Leaal Description: Part Lot 4, Plan 1525 Appearances: In Support: R. Juknevicuis Contra: None Written Submissions: None Carried Mr. Juknevicuis addressed the Committee stating that he has been advised by City staff that this application is not required. Ms. von Westerholt advised that since this application was submitted. The site plan was changed, the parking spaces were removed and the easement is no longer required. Mr. Junevicuis advised that he is withdrawing this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 33 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 COMBINED APPLICATIONS Submission Nos.: A 2010-015, A 2010-016 & B 2010-004 Applicant: Rankar Investments Inc. and Rikago Investments Inc. Property Location: 111 Bleams Road Leaal Description: Lot 12, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1489 Appearances: In Support: H. Handy K. Green G. Anderson R. Gondosch Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Bleams Road of 78.9m (258.85'), a depth of 74.3m (243.76') and an area of 5511.8 sq. m. (59,330.46 sq. ft.). The severed land will benefit from an easement over part of the retained land for access to the railway spur line. The retained land will have easements over the severed land for access, sanitary and water services. The severed land contains an existing building which will be used for warehousing. The retained land will have a width on Bleams Road of approximately 43.3m (142.06') on the east side of the severed parcel and 13.52m (44.35') on the west side of the severed land; a depth of 203.9m (668.96') and an area of 20,455.8 sq. m (220,191.6 sq. ft.). There are existing buildings on the property and the use is custom metal fabrication. The severed land would require permission for a rear yard for the existing building of Om rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The retained land would require permission for a storage shed to have a Om side yard rather than the required 1.2m (4'). The retained land requires permission for outdoor storage to be located in the front yard which is not permitted in the zoning by-law; and, legalization of an existing accessory building in the southwest corer of the property having a rear yard setback of Om rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated November 30, 2009, in which they advise that the owners of 111 Bleams Road are proposing to sever a parcel of land that would contain the front building and associated parking while retaining a parcel that would house the rear building, outdoor storage containers and other storage buildings. The severed and retained parcels will have separate access onto Bleams Road that will function independently; municipal servicing will be shared and, as a result, easements in favour of the retained lands are required. Minor variances are also being requested in order to facilitate the severance. Surrounding land use are industrial lands of varying lot sizes. A railway spur line runs north/south along the west side of the subject lands. The applicant, GSP, has prepared aConsent/Easement plan (January 15, 2010) in support of the application. It shows the severed parcel with a proposed lot width of 78.9 metres fronting onto Bleams Road by 74.3 metres in depth for an approximate total area of 5,512 square metres. The retained parcel of land has 52+/- metres of frontage onto Bleams Road and 203+/- metres in depth with an area of 20,455.8 square metres. Because of the location of existing buildings/structures on-site, several minor variances are required including: (1) zero metre rear yards for both the severed and retained lands; (2) zero metre side yard for the retained lands and (3) permission to allow outdoor storage in the front yard. These will be discussed further in the Minor Variance Considerations section of the report. The subject lands are designated as Heavy Industrial in the City's Official Plan and zoned Heavy Industrial M-4 in Zoning By-law 85-1. The intent of the Heavy Industrial COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 34 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-015. A 2010-016 & B 2010-004 (Cont'd designation is to allow industrial uses that are devoted to heavy manufacturing; however, in addition to manufacturing a wide variety of industrial business activities are also permitted. It is staff's opinion that the proposed use of building situated on the severed lands and the existing metal fabrication operation on the retained lands are in conformity with the Official Plan designation. Consent Considerations: 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 as a moderate form of Industrial intensification. Figure 1 illustrates the surrounding industrial lotting fabric. It shows lot sizes of varying widths and areas, especially along Ontonabee Drive, which support an array of industrial business activities. Moreover, demand for industrial lot sizes in the 3 to 5 ha size range is strong, according to the City's Economic Development staff, suggesting that industrial lot sizes of varying ranges provide choice. In this case, the applicant has demonstrated that the severed lands can function independently. The configuration of the retained lands is suitable for the purpose for which it is to be subdivided as it will have public road frontage. The retained parcel creates a separate lot for the metal fabricating building, which will retain more than adequate frontage onto Bleams Drive. Under normal circumstances where a vacant lot is being proposed, separate services would be required. In this case both buildings are serviced from one connection as the site was originally built under common ownership; as such, servicing easements in favour of the retained lands are required. The existing parking will be split as a result of the severance and the applicant has shown separate parking for each parcel. The owner will be required to obtain site plan approval, showing the parking and fire route for the site. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land are serviced with adequate service connections to municipal services. Also, the lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. Easement Considerations The severance will require that easements be created for water and sanitary services in favour of the retained parcel. This is a result of the fact that there is currently one connection from the street that services the two main buildings. The Consent/Easement sketch prepared by GSP illustrates the location of services and proposed easements. Engineering staff has reviewed this application and has no concerns with this request. Defined easements will also be created for the use of the rail spur as access to the spur line will remain in the ownership of the retained parcel. A complete breakdown of the proposed access and servicing easements are as follows: • Easement over Parts 5 and 6 in favour of Part 1 for access/rail spur use; • Easement over Part 2 in favour of Parts 3 to 8 for access; and • Easement over Part 1 in favour of Part 3 for services and maintenance. There are also two existing easements on site. These are easements are over Part 8 in favour of KW Hydro and an easement over Parts 6 and 7 in favour of CNR. These are intended to remain. Minor Variance Considerations: Four minor variances are being requested. Two of the four variances are required to facilitate the severance. These two variances are for a zero metre rear yard setback for COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 35 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-015. A 2010-016 & B 2010-004 (Cont'd the severed parcel and a zero metre side yard setback for the metal clad building that is attached to the rear of the building located on the severed parcel. It is important to note that the owners of the retained parcel would like to retain ownership of the attached metal clad building. In considering the four tests for minor variance, staff offers the following comments with respect to the requested zero metre setback variances. The intent of the Official plan is to encourage a variety of industrial uses and operations. This is being achieved as the existing and proposed uses conform to the Official Plan designation. The intent of M-4 zoning rear yard setback is to ensure there is adequate space at the rear of industrial properties, typically for on-site circulation and for loading/unloading of manufactured goods. In the case of the severed property, the loading/unloading doors are situated at the east side of the building, thus a zero metre setback will have no impact on the operation of the business. It is the opinion of staff that the variance is desirable because it will result in a new industrial parcel that is both viable and compatible with the surrounding land uses. The zero metre side yard variance is for the attached metal clad building. As discussed, the owner of the retained parcel wishes to retain ownership of the metal clad building that is attached to the rear of the main building on the severed lands. By proposing the new lot line along the common wall a Code issue is created although nothing on the ground has changed. Because of the location of proposed rear and side lot line, spatial separation, firewalls, etc. will need to be addressed as part of a comprehensive review of this proposal. In this regard, Building staff is requesting the owner to complete a Building Code Assessment and depending on the findings, may require building permits to complete the work. This will be required as a condition of approval of the consent. A third variance is requested for a zero metre rear yard setback for the existing metal clad building located at the southwest corner of the retained lands. The intent is to legalize a legal non-complying setback. Staff has no issues with this request, as the building backs onto an industrial property and its location does not impede the operation of the main building nor impacts adjacent lands. The fourth and final variance is to permit outdoor storage in the front yard. Currently, the owner has over a dozen large green storage containers stored at the northeast section of subject lands. As a result of the severance, these storage containers will be situated in the front yard of the retained lands. The intent of this zoning regulation is for aesthetic reasons. These containers are easily viewed from Bleams Road and are therefore within the public realm and now this is an opportunity to address this situation. The owner could choose to relocate the containers elsewhere on the property; through screening or through other acceptable means. Relocation may be impractical. Screening is an effective solution and has been used elsewhere in other industrial areas of the City. Mr. Handy advised that he is in agreement with the staff recommendation, except for condition no. 4. He advised that what is being stored is the finished product and there is no storage within these containers. These containers are composting vessels and they are 10' high. Further, there is no storage in front of the chain link fence. The Committee agreed not to impose condition no. 4 in the staff report. Instead the decision for the Application for Minor Variance on the retained land will include a stipulation that outdoor storage in the front yard must be at least 25m from the lot line along Bleams Road. Submission No. B 2010-004 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 36 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-015, A 2010-016 & B 2010-004 (Cont'd) That the application of Rankar Investments Inc. and Rikago Investments Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Bleams Road of 78.9m (258.85'), a depth of 74.3m (243.76') and an area of 5511.8 sq.m. (59,330.46 sq.ft); together with an easement over the retained land for access to the railway spur line; and, subject to easements for water and sanitary services in favour of the retained land, on Part Lot 12, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1489, 111 Bleams Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners 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 owners shall receive final approval of Minor Variance Applications A2010-015 and A2010-016. 4. That the owners shall submit a Building Code Assessment and agree to implement the recommendations therein to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 5. That the owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 2% (commercial/industrial) of the value of the land to be severed. 6. That the owners shall obtain the approval of the City Solicitor Transfer Easement(s) creating the right-of-way for access and for servicing. 7. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the right-of-way for access and servicing easements are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 8. That the owners' solicitor 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. 9. That the owners' solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 37 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-015, A 2010-016 & B 2010-004 (Cont'd) Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 16, 2012. Carried Submission No. A 2010-015 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Rankar Investments Inc. and Rikago Investments Inc. requesting permission for the existing building on the severed land to have a rear yard of Om rather then the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Part Lot 12, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1489, 111 Bleams Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 2010-016 Moved by Mr. M. Hiscott Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Rankar Investments Inc. and Rikago Investments Inc. requesting permission for an existing storage shed on the retained land to have a side yard of Om rather then the required 1.2m (4'); legislation of an existing accessory building in the southwest corner of the retained land having a rear yard of Om rather they the required 7.5m (24.6'); and, permission to locate outdoor storage in the front yard of the retained land, no closer then 25m (82') to Bleams Road, whereas the zoning by-law does not permit outdoor storage in the front yard, on Part Lot 12, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1489, 111 Bleams Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of February, 2010. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 38 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment