Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-10-179 - 300 Joseph Schoerg CrescentREPORT REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: November 2, 2010 SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning PREPARED BY: Michelle Wade, Heritage Planner (519-741-2839) WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: October 27, 2010 REPORT NO.: DTS-10-179 SUBJECT: SECOND REVISED HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2010-IV-019 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRESCENT PROPOSED ALTERATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, second revised Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-019 as submitted be refused; and, 2. That should the applicant agree to amend Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010- IV-019 to only include the following scope of work: the installation of two roof vents on the west elevation of the drive shed; the removal of a security light on the north elevation of the drive shed; the relocation of the mail box in front of the north west corner of the front gate; and, the installation of a new light post adjacent to the north east corner of the drive shed, all at the property municipally addressed 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, then pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-019 as amended be approved in accordance with the plans and supporting information submitted with the application, subject to the following condition: i. That the final design of the light post be submitted for review and heritage clearance by heritage planning staff prior to installation; and further, 3. That Staff be directed to continue to work with the applicant in an effort to address parking needs and heritage requirements and report back to Council in March 2011. BACKGROUND: The Development and Technical Services Department is in receipt of a second revised Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-019. The applicant is seeking Council’s permission to: (1) install two new roof vents on the west elevation of the drive shed; (2) remove the security light and conduit from the north elevation of the drive shed (note that the security light has already been removed); (3) relocate the mail box in front of the gates of the dry stone wall (note that the mail box has already been relocated); (4) install a new light standard adjacent to the north east corner of the drive shed; (5) install two new carriage doors on the north elevation of the drive shed; and, (6) install a paving stone driveway that is 18 metres wide across the front of the property, at 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent (note that this stone driveway has already been installed). REPORT: The subject property is located on the south side of Joseph Schoerg Crescent in the Pioneer Tower West community, and is subject to a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement and designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The key features that define the heritage character of this property include: the Betzner Farmhouse Building; the Betzner Drive Shed Building; and, the Cultural Heritage Landscape. The heritage features identified in the easement agreement are the same as those referenced in the designating by-law. The Part IV Designating By-law describes the Betzner Drive Shed Building: “As a typical utilitarian accessory structure that added to the efficiency of living and working on the former farmstead, and also having historic ties to the Pioneer founding families. Specific architectural features and details of significance include all exterior building elevations, the fieldstone foundation, roof and roofline, window and door openings, door hardware on north and west elevations, and all 6/6 windows.” The Part IV Designating By-law describes the Cultural Heritage Landscape as follows: “Key attributes of the farmstead and its environs that reflect its value as an important link to the history of the City of Kitchener and Waterloo County include; views atop a ridge of land overlooking a natural environment and natural heritage features that attracted the pioneer settlers to the area over 200 years ago, including rich fertile soils, a mixture of dense forest and open meadows, and proximity to the Grand River; the historic cluster and spatial order of buildings having ties to the original founding families.” Development and Technical Services report DTS-10-171 recommended approval of HPA-2010- IV-019 and was originally scheduled for consideration by the Heritage Kitchener Committee on October 5, 2010. Shortly before the October 5, 2010 Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting, Heritage Planning staff became aware that the proposed alteration to facilitate the adaptive re- use of the drive shed as a garage for two legal parking spaces would result in the loss of three parking spaces which were previously legalized through a Heritage Permit application and Committee of Adjustment application. Heritage Planning staff also became aware that the loss of these three parking spaces would result in the need to find an alternate location for three legal parking spaces elsewhere on the property, which may impact the reasons for designation. As a result, Heritage Planning staff requested the Heritage Kitchener Committee to defer consideration of HPA-2010-IV-019 to the November meeting in order to allow staff time for additional review and consultation. Development and Technical Services report DTS-10-179 replaces DTS-10-171, which had no action. The applicant agreed to defer consideration of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-019 to ndth the November 2 Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting and the November 15 Council th meeting. Following the October 5 Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting the applicant submitted a second revised Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-019 for consideration at the November meetings. The second revised Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-019 is requesting permission to: (1) install two new roof vents on the west elevation of the drive shed; (2) remove the security light and conduit from the north elevation of the drive shed (note that the security light has already been removed); (3) relocate the mail box in front of the gates of the dry stone wall (note that the mail box has already been relocated); (4) install a new light standard adjacent to the north east corner of the drive shed; (5) install two new carriage doors on the north elevation of the drive shed; and, (6) install a paving stone driveway that is 18 metres wide across the front of the property, at 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent (note that this stone driveway has already been installed). The Ontario Heritage Act requires Council, in consultation with Heritage Kitchener, to either: consent to the application; consent to the application with terms or conditions; or, refuse the application. Heritage Planning staff support some but not all of the proposed alterations identified in the second revised Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-019. Given the Ontario Heritage Act does not provide the authority to consent to parts of an application, Heritage Planning staff are recommending that the application as submitted be refused. However, Heritage Planning staff have identified an alternative recommendation that would allow for the proposed alterations that are supported by staff to be approved. In addition, Heritage Planning staff have proposed an alternate driveway and parking option that could be supported by staff. Heritage Planning staff note that numerous options to accommodate parking on the subject property have been discussed over the last few years with the applicant. Some of the previous parking options that were considered include: the introduction of a new surface parking area between the drive shed and the house; the introduction of a new garage between the drive shed and house; the introduction of a new garage east of the house; and, the alteration of the undercroft area of the drive shed to allow for the parking of two vehicles. Heritage Planning staff did not support the options that considered the introduction of surface parking or a new garage between the drive shed and the house given these options would have an impact on the cultural heritage landscape and in particular the unobstructed views to the natural environment and natural heritage features, as well as the historic cluster and spatial order of buildings. Heritage Planning staff did support the concept of the introduction of a new garage east of the house; however, the applicant did not have sufficient lands and was not able to acquire additional lands. Heritage Planning staff also supported and Council approved parking for three vehicles in front of the drive shed and the alteration of the under croft area of the drive shed to allow for the parking of two vehicles; however, the applicant chose not to proceed with the alteration to the under croft area of the drive shed. As a result, the applicant in now proposing to install two new carriage doors on the north elevation of the drive shed to accommodate parking for two vehicles inside the drive shed. It is important to note that legally under the Zoning By-law, the applicant must provide three legal parking spaces. One space is required for the house while two spaces are required for the two bedroom Bed and Breakfast. A previous Heritage Permit Application was approved to allow these three legal parking spaces to be located in front of the drive shed. In addition, a previous Minor Variance Application was approved to allow these three parking spaces to be located in front of the drive shed subject to the applicant satisfying the Director of Engineering in consultation with Transportation Planning staff that the legal parking size (2.8 metres by 5.5 metres) could be accommodated between the drive shed and the sidewalk, and subject to the applicant entering into an Encroachment Agreement with the City of Kitchener. Although only three legal parking spaces are required, the applicant has advised that three legal parking spaces are not sufficient for their needs. The applicant has advised that they require a minimum of five legal parking spaces. Three parking spaces are needed for personal vehicles, while two parking spaces are required for the Bed and Breakfast guests. At the same time, the applicant has advised that to date, only six guests have stayed at the Bed and Breakfast and never two guests at the same time. As a result, Heritage Planning staff it is reasonable to suggest that four legal parking spaces may be sufficient to meet the applicant’s needs. (1) Proposed New Roof Vents on Drive Shed The two roof vents will be installed 8 feet from each gable end near the ridge of the roofline on the west elevation of the drive shed. The applicant is proposing to install the slant back roof vent by Duraflo. Duraflo is able to manufacture roof vents in light colours such as grey or weatherwood. The applicant has suggested that the weatherwood colour would be an appropriate match. Heritage Planning staff believe that the weatherwood colour will blend well with the existing asphalt shingles and not detract from the character of the drive shed. It is noted that some members of Heritage Kitchener expressed concern with the introduction of modern roof vents, and suggested that the applicant consider the installation of a ridge vent or a cupola. The applicant considered the installation of a cupola; however, Heritage Planning staff expressed concern. It is staff’s opinion that the introduction of a cupola is not appropriate because the drive shed is a Mennonite Georgian utilitarian structure, and cupolas were not commonly associated with Georgian architecture. Heritage Planning staff could recommend approval of the proposed new roof vents on the drive shed should a revised or new Heritage Permit Application be submitted. (2) Request to Approve Previously Removed Security Light A review of previous Heritage Permit Applications confirms that the removal of the security light on the north elevation of the drive shed was not formally considered or approved because the request was not made in writing as part of the written description of the project proposal. The applicant has now requested permission to approve the previously removed security light. The security light was not original to the building nor did it add to the character of the building. Heritage Planning staff could recommend approval of the request to approve the previously removed security light on the drive shed should a revised or new Heritage Permit Application be submitted. (3) Request to Approve Previously Relocated Mail Box A review of previous Heritage Permit Applications confirms that the relocation of the mail box was not formally considered or approved because the request was not made in writing as part of the written description of the project proposal. The applicant has now requested permission to approve the previously relocated mail box. The design of the mail box was subject to two different Heritage Permit Applications. The review of the design of the mail box provided an understanding of location of the relocated mail box. Heritage Planning staff could recommend approval of the request to approve the previously relocated mail box should a revised or new Heritage Permit Application be submitted. (4) Proposed New Light Post A review of a previous incomplete Heritage Permit Application confirms that the applicant had the intention of requesting permission to install a new light post. Additional supporting information was not submitted to complete the Heritage Permit Application and therefore the request to install a new light post was not formally considered or approved. The previous incomplete Heritage Permit Application only provided details regarding the proposed location of the new light post. The applicant has submitted a general written description along with a photograph of an example of the design of the proposed new light post. The applicant is proposing to install a new light post adjacent to the north east corner of the drive shed. The proposed new light post will be a 7 or 8 foot high wood cedar post with a 16 inch wide narrow cedar cross piece with a light fixture. The proposed location of the new light post will not impact the cultural heritage landscape and the proposed design of the new light post will not detract from the character of the property. As a result, Heritage Planning staff could recommend approval of the proposed new light post should a revised or new Heritage Permit Application be submitted andsubject to the final design of the light post being submitted for review and heritage clearance by heritage planning staff prior to installation. (5) Proposed New Carriage Doors on Drive Shed The applicant has proposed two options associated with the introduction of new carriage doors on the north elevation of the drive shed to facilitate its adaptive reuse as a garage. Both proposed options for the design of the new carriage doors will alter the north elevation of the drive shed and create two legal parking spaces inside. However, as the carriage doors swing outward, the three parking spaces currently in front of the drive shed will no longer function as legal parking spaces. The first option involves: installing two new 9 feet by 7 feet side hinged cedar carriage doors with a “Z” brace design; installing two new 9 feet by 3 feet cedar fixed panels; installing a new wooden shield to match the existing; and, relocating the existing rollers so that they will be centred on the fixed panels. The carriage doors will swing outward. The applicant has indicated that when closed, the carriage doors and fixed panels will resemble a functioning sliding door and together the carriage doors and fixed panels will be the same height as the existing sliding doors. The balance of the north elevation will be re-clad with board and batten as approved in a previous Heritage Permit Application. Heritage Planning staff note that this option will result in a visual alteration to the north elevation but the alteration will be distinguishable from the existing original doors and cladding. Heritage Planning staff also note that the alteration could be reversed since the repair or full replacement of board and batten cladding is a normal maintenance practice. The second option involves: installing two new 9 feet by 10 feet hinged pine tongue and groove carriage doors; relocating the existing rollers so they will be centred on the carriage doors; and, cutting the original roller hardware. The carriage doors will swing outwards. The applicant has indicated that when closed, the carriage doors will resemble the existing functioning slide door. The balance of the north elevation will be re-clad with board and batten as approved in a previous Heritage Permit Application. Heritage Planning staff note that this option will result in irreversible damage to the north elevation door hardware, which is identified as a heritage attribute. This option also may not be fully distinguishable from the existing original doors and cladding. While Option No. 1 is the better of the two options proposed (from a built heritage conservation perspective), Heritage Planning staff cannot recommend approval of either option. Both options will result in the loss of the three legal parking spaces located in front of the drive shed (given the carriage doors swing outward). The applicant, who has identified the need to have five parking spaces, proposes to locate at least three legal parking spaces along the frontage of the property east of the drive shed. The location and parking of vehicles in these spaces will, in the opinion of Heritage Planning staff, negatively impact the cultural heritage landscape. Carriage Door Option 1 Carriage Door Option 2 (6) Request to Approve Existing Paving Stone Driveway The applicant has installed paving stones as a driveway for parking across the front of the drive shed and extending east to the existing dry stone wall. A Heritage Permit Application is required since the introduction of a new surface material and the parking of vehicles may impact the reasons for designation and in particular the cultural heritage landscape. Heritage Planning staff recently met with the applicant on site to review the installed paving stone driveway. The total width of the paving stone driveway is 18 metres (60 feet) while the depth of the driveway is 4.5 metres (15 feet) or less. The width of the installed paving stone driveway could physically accommodate the parking of 7 vehicles (not including the two parking spaces proposed to be located in the drive shed). During the site visit, Heritage Planning staff were able to view the driveway with and without vehicles. Figure 1 shows a landscape view of the property. Figure 1. Heritage Planning staff are concerned about the cumulative impacts of multiple alterations to the property and its cultural heritage landscape. A previous Heritage Permit Application approved the concept of a 3.5 foot stone wall across the frontage of the property subject to satisfactorily addressing matters associated with its ultimate location. The stone wall was constructed; however, its height exceeds 3.5 feet, and sign off in accordance with the above condition regarding its location was never granted. As a result, the height and location of the stone wall obstructs views to the natural environment and the natural heritage features (See Figure 2). The parking of vehicles on the 18 metre wide driveway will further obstruct views to the natural environment and natural heritage features (See Figure 3 and 4). It is staff’s opinion that the introduction of parking along the frontage of the property will impact the public’s ability to fully appreciate the view of the cultural heritage landscape on the subject property from atop the ridge in an unobstructed manner. Further, the installation of impermeable paving stones over what was a permeable surface in close proximity to the root zone of the adjacent maple tree in the front yard may impact the health of the existing tree. The introduction of paving stones as a hard surface material is generally not in keeping with the rural character of the subject property that originally featured a gravel laneway. However, given the installation of a hard surface material directly in front of the drive shed is reasonable to facilitate its adaptive reuse as a garage, Heritage Planning staff could recommend approval of the existing paving stones located in front of the drive shed only should a revised or new Heritage Permit Application be submitted. Heritage Planning staff can not recommend approval of the paving stones installed east of the drive shed to the westerly limit of the existing dry stone wall as the parking of three vehicles in this area will impact significant views. As a result, the paving stones installed east of the drive shed should be removed and replaced with landscaping to the satisfaction of the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning so as to address the permeability of the surface. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. It is important to note that a Minor Variance Application to both the Fence By-law and the Zoning By-law is required since the installed paving stone driveway does not comply with either the Fence By-law or the Zoning By-law. In this regard, at minimum, the applicant will require minor variances to the following regulations: (1) relief from the driveway visibility regulation under the Fence By-law; (2) relief from the parking setback requirement under the Zoning By-law; (3) relief from the parking stall depth requirement under the Zoning By-law; (4) relief from the maximum driveway width requirement under the Zoning By-law; and, (5) relief from the parking lot requirements under the Zoning By-law. The applicant has been advised that the above-noted variances will not be supported by Planning, Site Plan, Transportation and Zoning staff. Heritage Planning staff understand that the applicant will apply for the minor variances once the heritage issues have been considered by Heritage Kitchener and Council. Alternative Driveway and Parking Option Proposed By City Staff As noted above, numerous options for parking have been discussed with the applicant. In regards to the paving stone driveway, Heritage Planning staff met with Planning, Site Plan, Transportation and Zoning staff to discuss alternative driveway and parking options that could be supported. One alternative driveway and parking option was identified that could be supported by all staff and provide the applicant with the five requested parking spaces. The option would involve: creating two legal parking spaces within the drive shed (as proposed), and one legal parking space directly adjacent to the north east corner of the drive shed (not to extend more than 3.0 metres from the north east corner of the drive shed). This option would create three legal parking spaces as required under the Zoning By-law and provide the applicant with the ability to park two or three additional vehicles in front of the drive shed (therefore accommodating as many as 5 or 6 vehicles). While this option would result in one vehicle being parked immediately east of the drive shed and partial obstruction of the views to the cultural heritage landscape from atop the ridge (See Figure 5 and 6), Heritage Planning staff believe this option represents an acceptable compromise. Staff requested that the applicant consider this alternative driveway and parking option. Heritage Planning staff recognize that parking two or three vehicles in front of the drive shed may require the applicant to move vehicles in order to access vehicles within the drive shed. The need to move vehicles would be no different than the situation in many other areas where an owner chooses to park a vehicle in a garage and park a second vehicle in tandem in front of the garage. As the applicant has indicated that they have never had more than one Bed and Breakfast guest at a time, staff believe it would be reasonable to assume that the Bed and Breakfast guest could park in the legal space adjacent to the north east corner of the drive shed and not impact the applicant’s ability to access vehicles in the drive shed. The applicant advised that they are not in support of this alternative driveway and parking option, and requested that Heritage Planning staff proceed to process the application to accommodate the parking option as originally proposed in the second revised Heritage Permit Application. Figure 5. Figure 6. Alternative Driveway and Parking Option Recommended Condition Should the Application as Submitted be Approved Heritage Planning staff are recommending refusal of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV- 019 as submitted. Should Heritage Kitchener support or Council approve the application as submitted or an alternative, then Heritage Planning staff recommend that the following conditions apply: i) That the final design of the light post be submitted for review and heritage clearance by heritage planning staff prior to installation; and, ii) That the final building permit drawings identify how the interior of the drive shed will be engineered to accommodate two legal parking spaces and be stamped by a professional engineer and submitted for review and heritage clearance by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit; and further, iii) That approval of the second revised Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-019 not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the regulations of the Building Code, Fence By-law, Hedges By-law, Zoning By-law or subsequent Heritage Permit Application approvals required under the Ontario Heritage Act. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None CONCLUSION: Heritage Planning staff recognize the importance of finding suitable alternative uses for cultural heritage resources in order to ensure their long term conservation. The original Betzner house was successfully restored in accordance with an approved Heritage Permit Application to accommodate a single family dwelling. Various proposals have been presented for the adaptive re-use of the drive shed. One proposal was to convert the drive shed to a coach house while another was to convert the under croft of drive shed to a garage for vehicle parking. While Heritage Planning staff acknowledge that finding alternate uses for cultural heritage resources is an important part of conservation, such proposals must not negatively impact the cultural heritage resource. The current Heritage Permit Application requests approval for six different alterations some of which will negatively impact the cultural heritage landscape associated with the property. As a result, Heritage Planning staff cannot recommend approval of the application. Heritage Planning staff could support some alterations as noted in the report should a revised or new Heritage Permit Application be submitted. The request to install two new carriage doors on the north elevation of the drive shed and the request to extend the paving stone driveway east of the drive shed to the stone wall cannot be supported. These requests will negatively impact the cultural heritage landscape by obstructing views to the natural environment and altering the aesthetic and visual relationships of the historic cluster and spatial order of the buildings and landscapes. These requests may also impact the health of existing trees. In addition, the request to extend the paving stone driveway east of the drive shed to the stone wall will require other approvals through the Committee of Adjustment that are not supported by Planning, Transportation Planning or Zoning staff. Heritage Planning staff have presented a viable alternative driveway and parking option in order to meet the needs of the applicant and the City’s interest to conserve cultural heritage resources. The alternative driveway and parking option will provide the applicant with 5 or 6 parking spaces. Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that the alternative driveway and parking option is a reasonable comprise that will facilitate the adaptive re-use of the drive shed as a garage, mitigate impacts on the cultural heritage landscape, and provide the applicant with the requested number of parking spaces. REVIEWED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager Development and Technical Services Department List of Attachments Second Revised HPA-2010-IV-019