Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage - 2010-11-02 HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2010 CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:02 p.m. Present: Mr. K. Kirby - Chair Councillor J. Gazzola, Ms. A. Oja and Messrs. T. Benedict, I, Mota, L. Robertson and G. Zeilstra. Staff: L. Bensason, Co-ordinator - Cultural Heritage Planning M. Wade, Heritage Planner D. Gilchrist, Committee Administrator DTS-10-179 - ‘REVISED’ HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2010-IV-019 1. - 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRESCENT - PROPOSED DRIVE SHED ALTERATIONS The Committee considered Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-10- 179, dated October 27, 2010, recommending refusal of the second revised Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-019. The report also recommends that the owner amend the application to include only specified works and that the amended application, as recommended in the staff report be approved with one condition. Finally, staff recommends that they continue to work with the owner to attempt to address the parking need. Ms. M. Wade presented the report, noting that consideration of Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-10-171, dated September 17, 2010, concerning a Heritage Permit Application for this property, was deferred at this Committee’s October meeting. The concern at that time was the loss of 3 parking spaces, the need to find an alternate location for these spaces and what impact this relocation may have on the reasons for designation. Since that time, a revised application has been submitted, with six different elements; some of the work having already been completed. Ms. Wade then provided a rational for the staff recommendation to refuse this application. She noted that staff supports some elements of this application; however, a separate application needs to be submitted as the committee can only recommend approval or refusal of an entire application and can not recommend approval of part of an application. She advised that staff are supportive of 4 of the 6 elements and suggests amendments for the other two. Ms. Wade explained that the owner wishes to find parking opportunities on the property as they find that 3 parking spaces are not sufficient. They require 3 parking spaces for themselves and need 2 for the bed and breakfast. The owner has installed a paving stone driveway that does not meet the requirements of the zoning by-law and they need approval of 5 variances which staff can not support. Reviewing the various elements of this application, Ms. Wade advised that the following alterations can be supported, subject to the owner submitting a new Heritage Permit Application: the roof vents on the driveshed roof, the relocated mailbox, the security light that has been removed from the driveshed, and the proposed new light post. Respecting the new carriage doors for the driveshed, Ms. Wade spoke in support of option 1 because the doors would be distinguishable and reversible; however, because they swing out, the doors would eliminate the 3 parking spaces in front of the driveshed. Respecting option #2, the doors proposed would not be distinguishable from the original and existing door hardware will have to be cut. Ms. Wade then addressed the existing driveway which is 18m wide and extends 4m down the side of the driveshed. A driveway of this size could accommodate 7 vehicles and staff is concerned about the cumulative impact. Ms. Wade spoke of the stone wall built by the applicant that was to have a maximum height of 3.5’ but is higher in some places and already obstructs views to the natural heritage features; and, parking will extend the obstruction. Ms. Wade advised that she can support part of the driveway but not that portion east of the driveshed. Ms. Wade advised that conversion of the driveshed to allow it to accommodate 2 parking spaces is a compromise that staff has recommended. In addition to those 2 spaces, the owner can locate 3 parking spaces in front of the driveshed. The owner is not in support of this compromise. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2010 - 31 - CITY OF KITCHENER DTS-10-179 - ‘REVISED’ HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2010-IV-019 1. - 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRESCENT - PROPOSED DRIVE SHED ALTERATIONS (CONT’D) Mr. Ariens addressed the Committee advising that each heritage permit application has to be considered based on its public and private interests. He also explained that the work he has already undertaken was included in a previous application and as that application was approved, he assumed he could go ahead with the work. Mr. Ariens stated that the world is dynamic and people need to be able to use their property in ways never thought of when the property was developed. At the same time he wants to minimize adverse impacts on the property. Respecting his private interests, Mr. Ariens advised that he wants to have covered parking and he has permission for 5 parking spaces. He advised that he is interested in aesthetic design but at the same time needs to minimize costs. With respect to using the driveshed for 2 parking spaces, Mr. Ariens advised that he arranged for an engineer to review the structural integrity of the building and using the undercroft for parking is not possible because of the way in which the build will be affected. He also advised that he attempted to buy more land in order to be able to construct a garage; however, that was not possible. Mr. Ariens stated that the driveshed was fully supported in July; and, advised that the 3 parking spaces in front of it were supported by staff as approved by the Committee of Adjustment. He then displayed a model of the doors proposed for the driveshed which are made by a company in Seattle, noting that the top of the doors will be fixed and the rest of the doors will swing out, so the 3 parking spaces in front of the driveshed would not be useable. Mr. Ariens showed the site plan submitted with the previous application that was approved by this committee. He referred to the 3 parking spaces located at the front of the property between the location of the stone wall and the driveshed. He noted that the surface in this area is flagstone and the 3 parking spaces have been separated with soldier courses. He noted that the seasonal parking spaces will be intermittently used and he does not want the parking area to intrude beyond the driveshed. He also noted that the relocated parking spaces will need to be approved by the Committee of Adjustment. He stated that the intrusion of the parking into the view of the cultural heritage landscape is minimal. The parking layout still allows for views of the cultural heritage landscape and it is not an obstruction. He also stated that removing the parking from in front of the driveshed allows for a better view of the building. Respecting the public view of the cultural heritage landscape, Mr. Ariens advised that they are readily available as there are 330m of public sidewalks and trails from which to view the landscape. Mr. Ariens then advised that he could comply with the zoning by-law by moving the parking into the property 3m, or he could build a garage. He noted the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement which states that cultural heritage landscape includes human interaction. He also noted that the previous owner had a parking area east of the driveshed and parking has been located east of the driveshed, as part of the cultural heritage landscape, for at least 20 years. Mr. Ariens requested approval of the application. Mr. Robertson spoke against the application noting that one of the difficulties is the third dimension; the modern world of parking with the historic world. He suggested that gravel instead of paving stones would look much better. He also suggested that the best parking arrangement would be 2 cars in the driveshed and 3 parking spaces perpendicular to the street and located farther into the property. He spoke in support of the staff recommendation. Mr. Ariens responded that the paving stones were approved by this committee. Mr. Robertson responded that the scale of the continuum of paving stones is not the same as 3 parking spaces. Mr. Robertson noted that 3 cars perpendicular to the street and in front of the house will give a better view of the cultural heritage landscape and less of a view of cars. On motion by Mr. L. Robertson - it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the second revised Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-019 as submitted be refused; and, HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2010 - 32 - CITY OF KITCHENER DTS-10-179 - ‘REVISED’ HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2010-IV-019 1. - 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRESCENT - PROPOSED DRIVE SHED ALTERATIONS (CONT’D) 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, That Staff continue to work with the applicant in an effort to address parking needs and heritage requirements and report back to Council in March 2011.” DTS-10-175 - HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2010-V-022 2. - 215 OLD CARRIAGE DRIVE - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DUPLEX DWELLING The committee considered Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-10- 175, dated October 21, 2010, recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2010-V-022 in which the applicant seeks approval to construct a duplex dwelling on the property municipally addressed as 215 Old Carriage Drive. It was noted that the property owners were registered as a delegation for this meeting but were not in attendance. The committee generally agreed to consider this application, in their absence, rather than deferring consideration to the January 2011 meeting, as that meeting would be beyond the legislated time limit for considering the heritage permit application. Ms. Wade explained the application noting that its purpose is to allow for the construction of a duplex close to the north east corner of the property. Ms. Wade displayed elevation drawings for this duplex noting that there will be a full brick fascade at the front of the building and a full width front porch; also, there will be 4/4 windows with shutters. The roof of the duplex will be a hip roof. As the duplex will be built into the slope of the land, it will have 3 storeys visible at the front of the building and 2 at the back. She noted that there are other buildings within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (UPHCD) of a similar height; as well, the hip roof is similar to other buildings in the district. Respecting the location of the building on the lot, it will be outside the limit of the Grand River Conservation Authority and will be set back from the trail; further, this building will not be close to any other historic buildings in the UDHCD. Ms. Wade reviewed the merits of the application noting that a duplex is a permitted use on this property and the owners have considered the requests of the Heritage Kitchener representative for the UPHCDD regarding the materials to be used and the design of the building; and, noting that staff is recommending approval of this application. Ms. A. Oja advised that she has concerns with the proposed duplex and has visited the site. She stated that this building will definitely appear as 3 storeys in height and on the opposite side of the trail there is a 3 storey house; so, the duplex at 3 storeys will definitely have an impact on the trail. She noted that the proposed duplex will have 3 exterior doors and it looks like it could possibly be converted to a triplex; which is something that happened in the village approximately 6 years ago. Ms. Oja advised that she does not want large homes of this nature being accepted in the village. Mr. Bensason explained that although the village has a rural character, there are some contemporary houses there. He advised that the property is not on Doon Village Road and is not adjacent to any historic homes. The proposed height of the building is permitted in the zoning by-law. He also advised that if the Committee has any concerns about this application, they must be of a heritage nature. Mr. Bensason noted that the duplex will have a substantial setback from a street and the houses onOld Carriage Drive are mostly semi-detached HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2010 - 33 - CITY OF KITCHENER DTS-10-175 - HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2010-V-022 2. - 215 OLD CARRIAGE DRIVE - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DUPLEX DWELLING (CONT’D) dwellings and are quite suburban looking. Mr. Robertson suggested that the owners need to develop a design for the building that is more in keeping with the district and it would be possible to design a 3 storey building that looks like it belongs in the district. Mention was made of the fact that in summer the building would be surrounded with trees and not visible from the trail; however, in other seasons when there are no leaves on the trees, the building will be visible from the trail. Mr. Bensason advised that this Heritage Conservation District is very mixed; there are suburban style houses in this area and they have been approved by Heritage Kitchener. On motion by Ms. A. Oja - it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-V-022 to permit the construction of a new duplex dwelling at the property municipally addressed 215 Old Carriage Drive, in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, be refused.” ADJOURNMENT 3. On motion, this meeting adjourned at 5:26 p.m. Dianne Gilchrist Committee Administrator