Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-10-068 - Demolition control app DC 10/01/H/ATP - 1070 Hidden Valley Drl Kl~rc~~R Qe~elapment& Technical Services Report To: Development and Technical Services Committee Date of Meeting: April 12, 2010 Submitted By: Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning Prepared By: Alexandra Pires, Planning Technician (519-741-3400 ext. 3177} Ward Involved: Fairview -Gateway (Ward 3) Date of Report: March 30, 2010 Report No.: DTS-10-068 Subject: DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC10/01/H/ATP 1070 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD DAVID DIRKSEN ~~~~~ ,~7~ HIa~Et~ MALL R~ ~° Single detached dwelling to ~ be demolished Location Map -1070 Hidden Valley Road RECOMMENTATION: That Demolition Control Application DC101011HIATP requesting the demolition of a single detached dwelling municipally addressed as 1070 Hidden Valley Road, owned by David Dirksen, legally described as being Lot 3, Registrar's Compiled Plan No. 1519, be a roved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the owner obtains a building permit for the proposed residential unit; and, That upon satisfaction of condition 1, the Chief Building Official may authorize and issue a demolition permit under Section 33(6) of the Planning Act subject to the following condition: 6-1 In the event that construction of the new dwelling is not substantially complete within 2-years of the date of issuance of the demolition permit, the City Clerk may enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, $20,000 for each dwelling unit contained in the residential properties in respect of which the demolition permit is issued and such sum shall, until the payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permit to demolish the residential property is issued. BACKGROUND: The Department of Development and Technical Services has received an application requesting the demolition of a single detached dwelling municipally addressed as 1070 Hidden Valley Road. The subject property is designated as Limited Service Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential One Zone (R-1) in the Zoning By-law 85-1. Figure 1 below shows the subject property in proximity to adjacent subdivision development. Subject Property ~~~aF~ICH ~F~ ,~~~ ~1 ~ ~~ ~~ ,~" ~~~~ ~- ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 5•~ yi .k ~'~ ~-- _~ ..- ~~ - ~~' ~ ~ ~~ ~Y _.~, ,~ pa ~r• 1 {r _ ''°~ ~~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ._ Figure 1: Subject property in proximity to adjacent subdivision development The single detached dwelling proposed to be demolished is currently vacant. The applicant has advised that they would like to demolish the dwelling as it is in poor condition and requires major repairs. At this time there are no immediate plans to redevelop this property. REPORT: Planning Comments: The owner is proposing to demolish the subject dwelling with the intent to redevelop the site in the future. The owner does not have definite redevelopment plans at this time and has not submitted a formal building permit application for the proposed redevelopment. However, in order to ensure redevelopment of the site occurs in a timely manner, staff are recommending a condition as permitted by the Planning Act. The condition requires the owner to obtain a building permit and upon its issuance, a demolition permit may be issued. The demolition permit would then set out the condition imposing a fine of $20,000 per demolished 6-2 dwelling unit if redevelopment is not substantially complete within two years after the demolition permit is issued. ._. '. ~~ ~: ,w ~~ ~. ~ti . ... W. ~~ ; w -.~ ~ ,~. ~~~~ -, . m r ~!: Figure 2: Front view of subject property from Hidden Valley Figure 3: Rear view of property Seven criteria, as outlined in Council Policy I-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 subject property is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. Heritage Planning staff conducted a site visit of the subject property on February 9, 2010 in order to determine whether the property should be listed as anon-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. Upon evaluation, Heritage Planning staff confirmed that the property should not be listed. 6-3 2. Architectural and Historical Value Heritage Planning staff advise that although the property is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, further evaluation confirms that the property should not be listed as anon-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. 3. Condition of the Dwelling A City Building Inspector examined the dwelling in February 2010 and advised that the two storey house is approximately 1,300 square feet and has an unfinished basement. The property is only serviced by hydro and there is a septic bed and well located in the rear and side yards. The house consists of three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen and a living room and appears to be an old farmhouse constructed with a fieldstone foundation, a timber frame and masonry construction. The exterior of the house is in fair condition although the soffits are deteriorating and there was no eaves troughing observed. The roof is in fair condition without insulation and sagging of ridge observed. The attached storage area and covered side entrance is in need of repair. Electric baseboard heating is provided throughout the house with a wood stove connection in the kitchen. There is a newer disconnected hot water heater located in the basement. The plumbing has been updated however; drainage and venting do not comply with the Building Code. There is no evidence of major settling or foundation movement of the fieldstone foundation or timber frame. There was some evidence of rotting of the exterior timber frame as well as peeling of paint and damaged lath and plaster throughout the exterior of the house. Overall the house is estimated to be over a 100 years old and is in fair to poor condition. The house appears to have been vacant for a few years and the well and septic system would have to assessed and updated if used in the future. The house has undergone a number of renovations in the past and the cost of repairing the damaged structure and finishes would be significant. 4. Impact of Demolition on Abutting Properties, streetscape, and Neighbourhood Stability The building proposed to be demolished is currently vacant, in poor condition and its removal will help address any safety concerns. Due to the proximity to Hidden Valley Road, the deteriorating condition of the house does not make a significant contribution to the streetscape and it is staff's opinion that the demolition will not negatively impact the abutting properties. The redevelopment of the site will enhance the aesthetics of the large property and surrounding location making a positive contribution to the streetscape. 5. Timeframe of Redevelopment The applicant has stated that the timeframe for redevelopment is unknown at this time. Therefore in order to encourage timely redevelopment after issuance of a demolition permit, staff are imposing a condition where the owner is required to redevelop within 2 years or the owner will face substantial fines as a result. 6. Proposed Use In Terms of Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties The owner does not have definite redevelopment plans in mind as yet but given the existing R-1 zoning, the likely redevelopment will be one of the permitted uses. 7. Neighbourhood Consultation On February 1, 2010, all property owners within 60 metres of the subject property were circulated an information letter giving a summary of the proposal and invited to submit comments. Planning staff did not receive any correspondence as a result of the circulation. Internal Agency Comments: Heritage Comments: Staff have no objections to the proposed demolition. 6-4 Urban Design Comments: Staff have requested that the applicant submit a basic tree management plan to address the protection of existing trees on the subject property. While not a requirement of demolition approval, staff and the applicant are committed to working together to ensure that the plan illustrates tree protection fencing to City of Kitchener standards. Staff do not have further concerns with the proposed demolition. Building Division Comments: Staff have no objections to the proposed demolition. Engineering Division Comments: Engineering staff have reviewed the application and advise that the subject property does not have a sanitary sewer along the front of the property and therefore there is no sanitary connection to this house. This property does have an existing water connection to the property line and if it is hooked up to the house and used in the near future, staff will require that the applicant submit a letter stating the aforementioned. If the connection is not going to be used, it will be need to be capped at the main at the expense of the owner. Any redundant driveways will need to be removed and the boulevard reinstated at the owner's expense. In addition, an inspection fee will be collected to ensure that the required work is completed to City standards. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No new or additional capital budget requests are expected with this recommendation. COMMUNICATIONS: On February 1, 2010, all property owners within 60 metres of the subject property were circulated an information letter giving a summary of the proposal and invited to submit comments. Planning staff did not receive any correspondence as a result of the circulation. Additionally, all property owners within 60 metres of the subject property will receive notice of the Development and Technical Services meeting dealing with this demolition control application. CONCLUSION: Planning staff have considered this application and are of the opinion that the proposed demolition is justified as the demolition will address safety concerns and the redevelopment of the site will enhance the aesthetics of the large property and surrounding area making a positive contribution to the streetscape. As such, Planning Staff recommend that Demolition Control Application DC10/01lHlATP requesting permission to demolish one single detached dwelling, located at 1070 Hidden Valley Road, owned by David Dirksen, legally described as being Lot 3, Registrar's Compiled Plan No. 1519, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the recommendation section of this report. REVIEWED BY: Della Ross, Manager of Development Review ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager Development and Technical Services Department AttarhmPnt~• • Appendix "A" -Demolition Plan • Appendix "B" -Internal agency comments 6-5 DTI Report No. DTS - ~t~~ - ~~f~ ~4ppend~x "~" 6-6 DTS ~epar~ No. DTS ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~~A ~, . Q pp ° ° A endix " ~ " ~. a 4 dl ~ q U c n ~ ~:. ,~ ~ I d a U G ~3 {ti C [1. x.. Cl 4~ Q C _N p) ~ C C7J ~ (1S © ~ ~2 N C] ~" ~ i~3 ~ Z' ~ ~ ~ #ll ? ~ ~ ~ ~ L]. ~ o ~ a ~, a v ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ W °'~~[t~ ~ o~rn ~ ~'~ ~~ ~ c . ~ :c ~, ?~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ v .~.. ~']. ..r O r' ~~ c ~ ~ a m a~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ .~ ' i m '~ .x ~~ m~0 CCn 0~ ~~~ ~-" ~ mg ~y a~~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ $~ ~~FA ~ ~ . ~' E ~~d~ ~ :~ i a ~~~ s~ ~ . ~ ~~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~~ ~ P3M~ r m ni a ~ ~ r G i ~ m m ~ 9 4 ~~~ N ~ m i ~ m m .!Q ~' '~ m ~, ~ ~ ~' gg~ ~ .~,a .~ m o W m ~rnv t ~ ~ x ~ ~ ,~ ~ i LL N }~ V} $ W ~ m .x m ~ ~ ai di ~yp- T~ ~~~iY- a ~t N rh d Q ~t' 6-7 ~ ~IX}~ r (r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y % ~ « A] ~©~ 11 ~_" ~ [~,, ~ ~ ~ 97 ~ Y N r~ 0 t~ t7 a d ~.. 0 i ~ o ~ v N .~ ~ t ~ } ~ ~ } `~ ~ ~ Z W ~ ~ ~, Q- ~ ~ ©_ ~ .~ ~ 4 ~ o w,w ~ v ~ ~~ q~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p N nA a N V a r~ air d ~ M p .~ sn , U ~ ~ ~ ~} ~~~ N ~~ ~ ~ Li ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a `"~ ~ ~ ~. U~ro u~ ° ~ y ~mc~. ~~ ~ ~ c '~; ~ rn ~ ~ ~ is ~ a ~ o '~, ~ , '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ •~ ~ ~ m *= ti ~ ~ pp p ~ ~ cr ~~ ~ to ~ c p ~, A t3 ._ ~ ~~ ti~m Cr~~ ~d~d~~ ~v ~N~.. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a3.] ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~' C? C Q N ~ ` p ~ ~ , ~ ~ 0 ~ 7~~ ~~ ~ bh . p} v ~ ~ ~ rn' ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ p ~~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~' ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ rn~ ~vro pp _ ~ ~ ~ a a ~~c o~ ~~~ ~~.c~3 ~~ ~ ~-.~~ ~ ~'"~ Eq ~ N !C} . + '{3 .C r ~ +. (71 d T7 '~33 ~ C ~Ut ~ ~ '~ "t'I ~ N ~ q „~ ~ ~ ~ tt t" ~ ~7' Q ~7 ~. p ~ ~ ~ ~ .C 41 C_ ~ ~~ O 0 7+ ~ p N ~ N ~ L C p ~ U ~ Qj N ° H ~ ~ q; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ a c a q ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ aw ~ rn ''o~ ~ ` ~~ ~ ~ ~- its ~ ~ ,~ o .a _rn 41 ~ N dL ~ ~ ~ ..~ m°~ ~~ ~~tltl} ~ L3 °~a~ ~ ~ pa ~~ ~ , ~~,c '~ ` ' N o~~ ~..~ u1 ~~c ,A co~~:~ ~ ~o ' • ~~o ~ a~- roc t~o~ ~~ ~o'` ° ~ ~~ a c ~ao a~ ~~' ~ . - . . ~ m ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ " p.~~ro 4~~vr~~ t~a~~~N~ 0 a'~~m. U~ ~ ~ U3 fU d ~~ ~ ~ 47 U1 a) ~ ~ ,~, ~ ~t7~ i7 ~, N 7 N Q 01N ~p ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ *' - "~! 0 ~ N w W~C7"" 4! 7 ~ L ~ ~- L1. ~- ~,.,,- C] {f) W V ~, W tC d U W Z tX. Z . .G.~p~ d ~- F- ^. ~ ran c~ ~ D ~ ~ fq^^ ~ (~ ~ a ~ ~ v ~~" ~ ' .~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~' N ~ ' ~ r r r ~ y r r r r ~ r r r r r o r s r ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ r^ ~~ ~ W ~ H a = W ~ ~ d {~ 0 cn ~}- a, ~ ~ ~~~ d p ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a ~ ~ N G ~~~ ~ 4 s 0 ~{ ~~~ ~ a~c v 0 :~ o c ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ n~~ u y , L U1 L ~ ~~ L ~" ~ _ cn C ~ .~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~U . ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ o 0 ~ ~ C ~ ~ t L " ~ ttf ~ ~ ~ C ~1 ~ L ~ ,~-' .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~'c~~ ~~ ~. ~ {~ +' .~ llf ~ ~ ~ Y.,, ' ~ ~ ~ ' Q ~ N +, ~ ~ © ui ~ ~yN~"~ Dp to ~ .... ~~~ ~ , © ~ ~ O~~fC ~~ ~ ~~ ~h N R1 77 ~ ~ ~ =' ~ ("'j '~ {!~ 4 'L7 ~ ~ ~ ~ CC3 Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ r - ~' ~~ d ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~'QL ~ ~ ~tu.~=Y~m~d ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ar c._~{O...Qiu m , _~ r~l- ra c ~~.c ~ , ^1 D©WUntcnC~YUF•-[L 6-8