HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-11-174 - PHA 2011-0V-013 - 215 Old Carriage (combined)1
S~r~~'Re~ art
~' .
I~TCH~.i~T~,~. ,~inanre and corporate SQrvrces Deparfm~nt www.kirthenerra
REPORT TO: Mayor C. Zehr and Members of Council
DATE OF MEETING: September 19, 2011
SUBMITTED BY: Heritage Kitchener
PREPARED BY: Colin Goodeve, Committee Administrator (519) 741-2278
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 4
DATE OF REPORT: September 7, 2011
REPORT NO.: FCS-11-174
SUBJECT: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2011-V-013 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AT
215 OLD CARRIAGE DRIVE
RECOMMENDATION:
For direction.
BACKGROUND:
Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) requires the owner(s) of a property located within
a designated Heritage Conservation District to apply for a Heritage Permit Application if they are
seeking to construct a new structure in said District. Within 90 days of an application being
formally received by the City, or within such longer period as agreed to by both the applicant(s)
and the municipality, Council is required to do one of the following:
(a) approve the Heritage Permit Application;
(b) refuse the Heritage Permit Application; or,
(c) approve the Heritage Permit Application, with terms and conditions
attached.
Section 42(4.1) of the OHA further requires that if a municipality has established a municipal
heritage committee, Council must, before taking any of the aforementioned actions, consult with
that committee. This report is being put forward to satisfy that consultation requirement as it
relates to Heritage Permit Application HPA 2011-V-013.
When reviewing a Heritage Permit Application submitted for a property designated under Part V
of the OHA, reference and consideration needs to be given to the policies and guidelines of the
respective Heritage Conservation District Plan. Heritage Conservation District Plans provide
guidance regarding appropriate conservation, restoration and alteration activities; however,
these Plans do not govern matters associated with land use planning. Such matters (including
issues such as permitted uses, building height, lot coverage, etc...) are addressed and
implemented under The Planning Act through the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws.
Accordingly, issues related to zoning or the future use of a property should not have bearing on
the merits of a Heritage Permit Application; provided such issues do not adversely affect the
character defining elements or designated heritage attributes of the Heritage Conservation
District.
2-1
1
S~r~~'Re~ art
~'
I~TCH~.i~T~,~. ,~inanre and corporate SQrvrces Deparfm~nt www.kirthenerra
Pursuant to Section 42(6), if Council refuses the application or grants approval with terms and
conditions attached, the owner(s) of the property may appeal Council's decision to the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB). It should be noted that if Council fails to act on a Heritage Permit
Application within the prescribed 90 days, the permit is deemed to be approved as submitted.
REPORT:
In accordance with Section 42(4.1), on September 6, 2011 Heritage Kitchener considered
Community Services Department report CSD-11-114, which recommends approval of HPA
2011-V-013 to permit the construction of a new building at 215 Old Carriage Drive; which is
located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Report CSD-11-114 gives
an overview of the proposed building and an analysis of how its design corresponds with the 8
policies contained in the Upper Doon HCD Plan that must be considered for new construction in
the District. In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff highlighted the
following:
• the proposed new building features a design similar to an industrial building, such as an old
mill, that could have been located in Upper Doon adjacent to Schneider's Creek in the past,
but with a contemporary twist that is complementary to the Heritage Conservation District;
• the proposed new building's height is compatible, complementary and similar to the height
of existing buildings in the Upper Doon HCD;
• the proposed new building complements the form of existing buildings in the area;
• the proposed gently sloped flat roof is complementary to the design of the building, ensures
a compatible building height, and is therefore complementary to existing buildings;
• the proposed windows are complementary to existing buildings;
• the proposed colours are compatible and complementary to existing buildings;
• the proposed materials are appropriate and typical of the Upper Doon HCD;
• location is in harmony with the physiography of the site;
• the setbacks encourage the siting of the proposed new building within the physiography of
the site;
• the property is not located along Doon Village Road or in close proximity to a Type `A'
historic building; and,
• the proposed new building may have limited visibility from the community trail as well as
Doon Village Road during certain seasons and would be approximately 165 metres away
from Doon Village Road.
Heritage Planning staff expressed the opinion that the construction of the proposed new residence
at 215 Old Carriage Drive would not impair or negatively impact the significance of the Upper Doon
HCD or the Doon Village Road streetscape.
The Applicants and their Architect attended the September 6t" meeting, and spoke in support of
the staff recommendation. They indicated that the proposed design complies with all relevant
City By-laws, and that the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has already issued a
permit to allow the construction of the new building.
2- 2
1
S~r~~'Re~ art
~'
I~TCH~.i~T~,~. ,~inanre and corporate SQrvrces Deparfm~nt www.kirthenerra
Some members of Heritage Kitchener expressed concerns in relation to the increased floor
space of the new building in comparison to the original residence on the site. It was suggested
that the number of windows makes the design appear too contemporary and the style seems to
be similar to a commercial office /medical building; rather than an old mill. Concerns were also
raised regarding the proposed roof being relatively flat, which was seen as being inconsistent
with the other buildings in the District. In addition, from the community trail running along
Schneider's Creek, the basement level would be visible giving the impression of a full 3 storey
building. It was put forward that without any other buildings in the vicinity to help soften its
impact, this would create the appearance of a large imposing structure which would not fit into
the surrounding landscape.
In response to questions, Heritage Planning staff advised that the proposed residence was in
compliance with the City's Zoning By-law in relation to height and lot coverage. Further, the
roof's shallow slope was used to maintain a height similar to the original building; though staff
did not believe height to be a factor given the property is isolated and far removed from the
historic streetscape of Doon Village Road.
Other members spoke in support of HPA 2011-V-013, and the Applicants' willingness to revise
their design based on feedback given by the Committee. This includes adjusting the height to
align with the original building, as discussed at the June 7, 2011 Heritage Kitchener meeting.
Resultant to this, a motion was put forward recommending approval of HPA 2011-V-013; which
was Lost on a tie vote.
Referencing the previously noted concerns, a further motion was put forward to refuse HPA
2011-V-013; which was also Lost on a tie vote.
Therefore, as the members could not reach a consensus, Heritage Kitchener is unable to submit
a recommendation for Council's consideration on this matter. It should be noted that in
accordance with Section 42(4) of the OHA, Council has until November 13, 2011 to act on HPA
2011-V-013; unless both the Applicants and Council agree to extend the formal timeframe for
consideration.
Attached hereto for Council's consideration are copies of Community Services Department
report CSD-11-114, Heritage Permit Application HPA 2011-V-013 and the June 7, 2011
Heritage Kitchener minutes.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The processing of Heritage Permit Application HPA 2011-V-013 aligns with the Quality of Life
Community Priority of the Strategic Plan, which specifically speaks to the importance of
protecting the City's cultural heritage resources through conservation practices.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications associated with this report.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
The September 6, 2011 Heritage Kitchener Agenda, Heritage Planning staff report, proposed
plans for the new building and elevation drawings were made available for review on the City's
website as of August 25, 2011.
2-3
1
S~r~~'Re~ art
~'
I~TCH~.i~T~,~. ,~inanre and corporate SQrvrces Deparfm~nt www.kirthenerra
While not legislatively required, in advance of the September 6, 2011 Heritage Kitchener
meeting, a courtesy letter was sent to those people who addressed Council on March 28, 2011
when consideration was given to an earlier proposal to construct a new building at 215 Old
Carriage Drive. As a result, one resident, who lives outside of the Upper Doon Heritage
Conservation District, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee in opposition to the
proposal outlined in Heritage Permit Application HPA 2011-V-013.
At the September 6, 2011 Heritage Kitchener meeting, the Chair informed all those in
attendance that Council would consider HPA 2011-V-013 at its September 19, 2011 meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Deputy CAO
Community Services Department
2-4
MITI E~
fJevePopment &
Technical Services
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: September 6, 2011
SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
PREPARED BY: Michelle Wade, Heritage Planner (519-741-2839)
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 4
DATE OF REPORT: August 15, 2011
REPORT NO.: CSD-11-114
SUBJECT: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA -2011-V-013
215 OLD CARRIAGE DRIVE
PROPOSED NEW BUILDING
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2011-V-013 be approved, to permit the construction of a new building at the
property municipally addressed 215 Old Carriage Drive, in accordance with the plans
submitted with the application, subject to the following conditions:
i) That the final building permit drawings be submitted and approved by
Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
BACKGROUND:
The Community Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2011-V-
013. The applicant is seeking permission to construct a new building at the property municipally
addressed 215 Old Carriage Drive (formerly 1224 Doon Village Road).
2-5
goo-~~o
~$~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~} ~~a~ ~~~.
~{.-~}~
~~a'~;~~
~~~
~ ~ ~~}
~~
L~~~
_,TU.
* =Subject
Property
- - - =Heritage
Conservation
District
Boundary
~.
-~ UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
REPORT:
The subject property is located on the south side of Old Carriage Drive within and at the northern
boundary of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (UDHCD), and is subject to
designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
A previous Heritage Permit Application (HPA-2010-V-007) that proposed to demolish a 1 '/2 storey
house was considered by the Heritage Kitchener Committee (DTS-10-104) and approved by
Council on June 28, 2010. In addition, a previous Heritage Permit Application (HPA-2010-V-022)
that proposed a new building was considered by Heritage Kitchener Committee (DTS-10-175) and
refused by Council on March 28, 2011. The applicant attended the June 7, 2011 Heritage
Kitchener Committee meeting in order to obtain comments to move forward with a new building.
Based on these comments, the applicant has submitted a new Heritage Permit Application
requesting permission to construct a new building.
___.----- ~1
_ T -
1y~~oj.~y d'LG _ `
1(- __ -
15
~tr ~'~_
~,1+~ ty
~ --
~~~--
ti ___f
"i _ - .. - - - -_~--
nrk
~"
~.
~~;~
~~, ~'
~ Figure 1: Location of proposed new building ~
2-6
The proposed new building will be located in the same general location as the existing building;
however, the building will be shifted slightly south from the rear yards on Old Carriage Drive in
order to meet the required setback under the Zoning By-law (see Figure 1).
Comments received from the Heritage Kitchener Committee related primarily to the height of a new
building. It was suggested that the height of a new building should be similar to the existing
building. The applicant has demonstrated that the height of the proposed new building is similar to
the height of the existing building (see Figure 2). Heritage Planning staff note that the height of the
proposed new building complies with the Zoning By-law.
r'>F 1. )INFO LCIL:NV
_ ~r
I
`?`if'd ltJ
_l.'r` _ I'di3 P.L'L4
_ ~
I L': -
_I:.'rt.. L'NG Y_CLV _ _
~~~'~ t Ele~~aki~n
~ Figure 2: Height of existing building in relation to height of proposed new building ~
The proposed new building features a design similar to an industrial building, such as an old mill,
that could have been located in Upper Doon adjacent to Schneider's Creek in the past but with a
contemporary twist that is complementary to the UDHCD. The proposed new building features: a
rectangular plan; flat roof; yellow brick; stucco; porch; first floor main entrance door with transom
and sidelights flanked by windows; second and third floor porch doors flanked by large windows
with transoms; and, first floor rear entrance door with sidelight.
The Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan (1988) states that:
"It is not the intent or desire that new building should reproduce past building styles. It is
vital that the historic character of the Village remain "honest" and not become aself-
conscious historic pastiche. In this regard new building should be of good contemporary
design and complementary to the height, proportion, scale and character of the district.
The natural environment of Upper Doon is also a feature to which new building design
should respond to with an emphasis on natural building form and materials (pg. 32)."
The UDHCD Plan contains 8 policies that must be considered when a new building is proposed.
Height -The height of new buildings shall be similar to the height of the historic building stock.
Buildings within the UDHCD range from 1 storey to 2 '/2 storeys in height. The proposed new
building is 3 storeys in height. The overall height of the building is similar to the height of the
2 - 7
existing building (see Figure 2). As a result, the proposed new building height is compatible,
complementary and similar to the height of existing buildings.
Form -The visual form of new buildings shall complement the form of the historic vernacular
building stock.
Buildings within the UDHCD feature a variety of forms such as rectangular or square plans; 1 to
2 '/2 storeys; gable or hip roofs; front porch or no front porch; and, brick, stone, stucco or wood
construction. The proposed new building features: rectangular plan; flat roof; 3 storeys; yellow
brick and stucco; and, symmetrical front fapade with porches. As a result, the proposed new
building complements the form of existing buildings.
Roof -The roof pattern shall complement the roof patterns of the historic building stock with an
emphasis on medium to steep pitches with dormer windows.
Buildings within the UDHCD feature simple roof patterns such as gable and hip roofs as well as
more complex examples with varying patterns and pitches. The proposed new building features
a gently sloped flat roof. The use of a gable or hip roof that is medium or steeply pitched would
result in an overall increase to the height of the building. In addition, the proposed new building
is not located in close proximity to the historic building stock on Doon Village Road. As a result,
the proposed gently sloped flat roof is complementary to the design of the building, ensures a
compatible building height, and is therefore complementary to existing buildings.
Windows -The placement and proportion of windows shall complement the historic building
stock with an emphasis on vertical sash and casement windows.
Buildings within the UDHCD feature casement windows as well as true divided light and
simulated divided light vertical sash windows. The placement and proportion of the windows is
dependant on the design of the building. The proposed new building features a rectangular plan
with three bays along the front elevation and four bays along the side elevations. Each floor on
the front elevation features a central door flanked by casement windows whose placement are
similar to existing buildings. Each floor on the side elevations features casement windows
whose placement and proportion are similar to existing buildings. As a result, the proposed
windows are complementary to existing buildings.
Colours -Colours used through paint and materials shall be historically sympathetic colours
being of quiet, subtle, natural shades.
Buildings within the UDHCD feature brown, red or yellow brick; or, beige, cream, white or yellow
horizontal siding. The proposed new building features shades of beige, light brown, or taupe. As
a result, the proposed colours are compatible and complementary to existing buildings.
Materials -Materials appropriate and typical of the Heritage District shall be used with an
emphasis on natural fabric such as brick, stone and wood as opposed to metals and plastics.
Buildings within the UDHCD feature brick, horizontal siding (aluminum and wood), and stucco.
The proposed new building will feature brick on the front elevation and stucco on the side and
rear elevations. As a result, the proposed materials are appropriate and typical of the UDHCD.
2 -
Sitin -New houses shall be sited in harmony with the physiography of their site
The proposed new building will be located in the same general location as the existing building.
The proposed new building will be built in to the low lying area of land located in the middle of
the property outside of the GRCA regulation limit. As a result, the location is in harmony with the
physiography of the site.
Setback -Varied setbacks are encouraged to maintain the natural and organic form of the
Village.
Buildings within the UDHCD are primarily located on Doon Village Road and feature varied
setbacks ranging from approximately 0 metres to 90 metres. The proposed new building is not
located on Doon Village Road. The proposed new building will be setback approximately 24
metres from the access right-of-way off of Old Carriage Drive (east property line); approximately
9 metres from the trail that parallels Schneider's Creek (south property line); approximately 34
metres from the west property line; and, 7.5 metres from the rear yard (north property line). The
setbacks encourage the siting of the proposed new building within the physiography of the site.
The property is not located adjacent or in close proximity to other historic buildings within the
UDHCD. In addition, it is important to note that the proposed new building will have limited
visibility from Doon Village Road between the properties municipally addressed 1200 Doon
Village Road and 1218-1222 Doon Village Road. The proposed new building will be
approximately 165 metres away from Doon Village Road. It is reasonable to expect that visibility
to the proposed new building from Doon Village Road may increase in the late fall, winter and
early spring when the surrounding vegetation has no foliage, and conversely decrease in the
summer months. Figure 3 depicts summer time views of the existing building and Figure 4
depicts winter time views of the existing buildings. Figure 3 and 4 were provided by the
applicant.
In reviewing the merits of the application, City staff note the following
^ HPA-2010-V-007 was approved to allow the demolition of a 1 '/2 storey house;
^ The proposed new building features a design similar to an industrial building but with a
contemporary twist that is complementary to the UDHCD;
^ The proposed new building height is compatible, complementary and similar to the height
of existing buildings;
^ The proposed new building complements the form of existing buildings;
^ The proposed gently sloped flat roof is complementary to the design of the building,
ensures a compatible building height, and is therefore complementary to existing buildings;
^ The proposed windows are complementary to existing buildings;
^ The proposed colours are compatible and complementary to existing buildings;
^ The proposed materials are appropriate and typical of the UDHCD;
^ The location is in harmony with the physiography of the site;
^ The setbacks encourage the siting of the proposed new building within the physiography of
the site;
^ The property is not located along Doon Village Road or in close proximity to a Type `A'
historic building; and,
^ The proposed new building may have limited visibility from the trail and Doon Village Road
during certain seasons but will be approximately 165 metres away from Doon Village Road.
2-9
~ i ~~~' lF'_ 1 ~~ ~t Y I 1~' sir i~ ~ - _ ~ 41 J ~~~h
J~ 4
W
~l, ~- - ~
~~ ~.
. ~. z
f ~:
Figure 4. Views from Doon Village Road during the winter
2-10
Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that the construction of the proposed new building at 215
Old Carriage Drive will not impair or negatively impact the significance of the Upper Doon Heritage
Conservation District or the Doon Village Road streetscape.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Community Priority -Quality of Life
The review and approval of Heritage Permit Applications supports the Quality of Life
Community Priority of the City of Kitchener Strategic Plan. An approved Heritage Permit
Application is required for proposed alterations to properties that are designated under the
Ontario Heritage Act. The review and approval of Heritage Permit Applications ensures that the
cultural heritage resource and its heritage attributes are conserved in accordance with the
designating by-law and good conservation practice.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Section 33(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the Municipal Heritage
Committee (Heritage Kitchener) before consenting to a Heritage Permit Application, consenting
to a Heritage Permit Application on terms and conditions, or refusing a Heritage Permit
Application. Members of the community will be informed via circulation of the report to Heritage
Kitchener and via formal consideration by Council.
REVIEWED BY:
Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff ~Ilmer, Deputy CAO
Community Services Department
List of Attachments
Heritage Permit Application HPA - 2011-V-013
2-11
~~ :.e ~,
Acry ..
1 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FARM
City of Kitchener
Community Services Department
Planning Division
KI'I~CHENER. 200 King Street West
Kitchener, Qntario N2G 4G7
(519) 74~-2426
i
I ~ i.
i [f.Y~=i.~7!'~4~t~~f
Nature of Application
Exterior ^
Demolition ^
Subject Property
Municipal Address: ~ ~ .
Legal Description (if known):
Interior ^
New Gonstruetion
Signage ^
Alteration ^
Relocation
Building/Structure Type: Residential [~ Commercial ^ Industrial ^ Institutional ^
Heritage Designation: Part IV ^ Part V (HCD) ^
Is the Subject Property subject to a Heritage E=asernent or Agreement? Yes ^ No ^
Property Owner
Name;
Address:
Telephone (Home):
Fax:
Agent {if applicabl^'
Name:
Address:
Telephone (Home):
Fax:
Written Description
Please provide a written description of the project proposal including any conservation methods you
plan to uso. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint calaurs, decorative
details, whether any original building fabric is to be removod~ or replaced, etc. Use additional pages
as required. Please refer to tho City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines
for further guidance.
2-12
Review of City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines
Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work.
~ r-r ; r
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V
Heritage Conservation District Plan.
Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ~ Yes ^ No
If yes, who? f~q c~F-~Q Ili t~~ C'i
Have you discussed this work with the Building Division? ~ Yes ^ No
If yes, who? ~ f ", ~y -~ -~tc r-Y.~,~,~
Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ^ Yes ~ No
Other Related Applications (BuildinglPlanning): Application No.
Acknowledgement
The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statoments contained in documents filed in support
of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that
receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener -Planning Division does not guarantee i# to be a
'complete' application, The undersigned acknowledges that Council of the City of Kitchener shall
determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the
application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional
information andlor resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the
application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary,
scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener Commi#tee and Council meeting, Submission
of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject
property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including photographs, which are necessary for
2-13
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines far the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at www.~c.gc.ca}.
Expected Start date: C~ ~ ('~~{~ 1 '~, Expected Completion Date; ~ 1 ~ ~ >' Z
(C]ay/MonthlYear) (DayfMonthlYear)
the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agen# has been
identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner
and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the
application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this
application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act
shall 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 requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The
undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the
conditions impaled by the Council of the City of Kitchener ar from the plans or specifications
approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being
imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Signature of Owner/Agen
Signature of Owner/Agen
Autharizatian
gate: ~t~ /~
Date: r
If this application is being made by an agentlsoiicitor on behalf of the property owner, the following
authorization must be completed:
1 I We, ~ ,owner of the land that is subject of this application,
hereby authorize ` to act an my /our behalf in this regard.
Signature of Owner: "_._ Date: / ~~
Signature of Owner: ... +. ~ ,~ Date: ~ l~
~Y~~~`~
The persona! inf maticSn ort t~ ` form is collected under the 1ega1 authority of Section 33(2),
Section 42(2), a d Section 42( .2J of fhe Ontario Nerr`tage Act. The information wit! be used for the
purposes of administering the heritage permit application and ensuring appropriate service of
notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3J of fhe Ontario Heritage Act. If you have
any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of
Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, Cify of Kitchener (519-74 ]-2769).
2-14
Written Descri tiara
The proposed building is a residential duplex, The design of the building is
consistent with the industrial nature of some of the buildings in Upper Doon. This
area has a mixture of farm type dwellings, industrial buildings and Victorian type
homes, Industry in the Doon Village area included a Twine and Cordage company
and a flax mill. The new building is meant to complement the industrial nature of
the village. While this building is meant to emphasize the 150 year old character
of the village, the building wif! have aspects that are more modern in nature to
protect against a false sense of history.,
Height: The height of the new building is 27.6 feet. The new building is
consistent with the height of the existing buildings in the area. The building will
be a two story dwelling however, the basement level remains visible at the front
view because of the slope of the lot.
Roof: The roof of the proposed building does not have a steep pitch similar to
other construction in Doon. The roof is designed to reduce the height appearance
of the building.
Windows: The front windows have a modern design. This modern component
protects against a false sense of heritage and allows for plenty of natural light into
the building, The size and nature of the side windows are consistent with a
historical industrial design,
Color: The colors for the building will be consistent with the Doon Village
Heritage Plan. Colors will be natural and subtle shades of beige, fight brown or
taupe.
Il/laterfals: The front of the building will be brick. The sides and back of the
building will be stucco type material. This material is consistent with other homes
in the Village.
Siting: The new building will be built on the site of the existing home. The new
building will have a larger foot print and a full second level. Presently, the second
level of the home is ahalf-storey. In spite of the size, the new building like the
2-15
existing building will only be partially visible from the nature trail and Doon
Village Road, Consistent with many of the Doon Village dwellings, the existing
dwelling will be nestled into a valley type setting. As owners we will work with
the City of Kitchener planning staff on a tree perseveration plan. 1suture
landscape plans will be consistent with the trees, shrubs, grasses, ferns and
wildflowers found in the Village.
Setback: The home is setback from the nature trail and is not in the flood plain.
The plan has been approved by the Grand River Conservation Authority. A
number of trees line the front of the property and act as a 'barrier between the
property line and the nature trail.
2-16
~~
~_ ~~_.
~ ~4.f:
~:
o ~,„
.~ x}3
v
.o
a
m
J
i31
r~
2-17
f ~~
~Y,
g~i:.,..^~~
W ~~ x:
g+:
~~
V.
~Y'S QQ
~~':i~ ~a
X s ,t~ ~
[y
~£ A
a
S .p.;
~" ~
~ ,~PY
4 c
a
..~ £g #
~
4a
s~ '~ ~ ' '#9v ~ ~~
, U¢ ~ ¢
~
°
L
,,..
~
' ~
~ ~ ~~
4)
~+^IF
~` `
• ~ c`±r1
VJtl
~
l
R~
4 ~ .
m
S ~
~
~ ~~~ l ~
Y°
p
4 i~ ~
~
~ ° _ R
`~ gY y~
f /
A.l...
7
i~~ ~ ~
x
~~ n
'
e
'°J
` s 1
~" .!~~ 1
a
A~, ~~ V "4~' ` ~ a"' ~ ,
AY
~:
r
f ~~
n
4„ ~
,. I ~ ..
9!~
~.
`tr ~} x
..............
,. ~,
- - -- I r~~
i
.i
--l1
~ ~ -_ I
i
I,--.
~ ~~
a ~~'
~_
~ ~,~a
~,}
o ~,,,
~'~<3
c~
O
2-19
~:
t~1
o ~)
~_ ,~~~
~,~~~
a ~q
.~ iii
.~
C,~
2 ~ ~0
{J
~ c~
~ ~~
~_
~z
~ ~~
o ,~,
~ ct~
a.>
.~
0
cr_
2-21
f.)
f
i
li
i
f ~
~ ~ ~ l
i i i ~l
r f
I~' ' ~
,II
--. .__-__il _...__ _
4~
_ _
~~
O ~~
~~.)
:,: a
Ul, ~°;
b ~;`~
~'+.~
cll
O
(~
2 - 22
4J
^ ~ Ipl'' f
IOI' ^I'
Im.~
~ I
~ I
~ I
I
_ I
i
.d;4A,, i i ~.
A
~II' I
'~6
4
~ ~ _ If
E-
f - 1
i, j
i
f
I''
j ~ ~ 1 ' l ,
C
4
i
t~
111
t'
Q
l
0
m,
Lil
w
a]
i.u
~)
o ~~
~~
~ ,~~;
~ f~
6+:j
Q3
.L1
d
2 - 23
~)
cif
° ~~~
~ ~~'~
cn
~~
,~ i`3
4.7
0
G~
2 - 24
S:J
~~
`sue- ?,~7
~ ~,
~ ~1j
gin' ~,-~
~ fA
k ~'
.n
0
a~
2 - 25
HERITAGE. KITCHENER MINUTES
7. GE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -CITY CENTRE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
CENTRE BLOCK)
PROPOSED SITE RE-DEVELOPMENT
CO NT' D
8.
In response to questions, Mr. Bensaso tsed that his initial reaction to the proposal was
favourable, and expressed supporfi for the sug . roportions and massing, He noted that
he has some concerns related to sight. Imes, commemo of the Forsyth buildings, concept
and conservation plan that require further clarification.. He s ted that if members. had
additional. comments those :could be forwarded to him. at leon.bens kitehener.ca and
would be taken into consideration when developing his recommendation to irector of
Plannin on the subject HIA.
PRESENTATION - 21'5 OLO CARRIAGE DRNE
- REVIEW OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
Ms. M. Wade provided an overview of the Committee's :involvement v/ith 21:5 Qld Carriage
Drfue, advising-that the. subject property is located on the south side of Old Carriage Drive
within and at the northern boundary of-the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (HCD);:
accordingly; 'It iS designated under Part. V of the Ontario Heritage Act.- She added that a
Heritage Permit Application to demolish a 1 % storey house on the subject property was
considered by Heritage Kitchener and approved by Council on June 28, 2010. She stated that
at the November 2, 201.0 Heritage Kitchener meeting, Heritage f ermit Application HPA 2010-
V-022 was considered, which. proposed: a new°duplex dwelling located. near the northeasf
corner of the property.. She indicated that. the new dwelling was proposed. as a two storey
building; however, the south elevation facing the community trail in the Upper Doon. HCD
would. have appeared to be a three storey building due. to the grade of the property.. She
commented that Heritage Planing staff were of the opinion that the proposed new dwelling
would not have negatively impacted the Upper Doon HCD;, or the Doon Village Road
treetscape.
Ms. Wade further advised that at November 2, 201.0 meeting, the Committee expressed
coneems regarding the design and height of the proposed dwelling and recommended refusal.
of HPA 2010-V-022. She stated. that this recommendation was deferred by Council to allow
the Applicants time to meet with Heritage Planning staff and a member of Heritage Kitchener,;
Who assisted theme in developing a revised design;. however, this rtew design would have
required the submission of another HPA. Accordingly, the Applicants decided to proceed with
their original application, which was refused by Council on March 28, 2011. She noted that at
'that time, Council offered. the Applicants an opportunity tQ amend the application in order to
comply with the policies. of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan and submit a
revised application for consideration,
Ms. Karen Spencer and Mr. John Czako, Applicants; were in attendance to receive feedback
as to what would be acceptable design features for a new dwellfhg in the Upper Doon HCD.
Ms, Spencer advised that 215 Otd Carriage Drive. backs. onto a community trail, with semi-
detached dwellings fronting onto Old Carriage Drive located on the. opposite side. of the
property. She indicated that the previous proposal. was- granted a minor variance and
approved by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). She then reviewed the revised
plan that was developed following the November 2, 2010 Heritage Kitchener meeting. She
stated that they anticipate submitting a new HPA. in time for the September 6, 20:11 Heritage
Kitchener meeting.
has been. proposed, was originally an old mill that was converted into a residential. dwelling; as
such, it blends ~n with its surroundings.
Ms. A. Oja expressed. concerns regarding the height of the. revised building, noting that it would
block the view of the creek for the neighbouring properties. She added that, in her opinion, the
proposed .building materials were not in keeping with the heritage character of the Upper Doon
HCD. She indicated that ft would be her' preference if the building materials 'were more old
fashioned and in harmony with the area. She stated that given the higher elevation of the
property, any building. larger than what is already there would dominate the landscape. Ms..
Oja suggested thafi a large bungalow design would be preferable to what has been put forward
to date. She commented. thatthe other building in the District that is of a similar design to what
2-26
HERITAGE. KITCHENER MINUTES
S. PRESENTATION - 215 OLD CARRIAGE DRIVE
- REVIEW OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS CONT'D
Mr. Czako clarified that the subject property is approximately ten. feet. lower than the. adjacent
semi-detached buildings on Old Carriage Drive.. He added that as it .has a sloped lot,. the.
suggested design would- only appear to be 2 storeys when viewed from the street.. Ms.
Spencer stated that the view from the street would be similar fo what is there now. She
displayed photographs of 215 Ofd Carriage Drive as seen from Daon Village Road, noting that
a majority of the property is not visible to the rest. of the Upper Doon HCD.
Ms. Wade clarified that: the adjacent semi-detached buildings on Qld Carriage Drive are not
located within the Upper Daon HCD; and accordingly, the Committee should not consider the
impact that the proposed design could. have on the: views from those properties.
Mr. G. Zeilstra questioned if a maximum height was prescribed by the Upper Doon HCD Plan.
Ms. Wade advised that. zoning typically dictates what would be acceptable from a size
perspective,.. noting that. uvhat was originally proposed did comply with the property's zoning.:
Mr. Zeilstra stated that based on the current design, a person walking along the community
trail. would.. see a large brick facade. He suggested that landscaping and possibly rotating the
building could lessen its impact. Mr. Czako commented that the GRCA set. out that. the
driveway =and entrance to the dwelling are to be located in the proposed configuration.
Councillor`. Fernandes indicated that part of the concern with the proposed building relates to
massing. She suggested that the Applicants review what is permitted in the Upper Doon HCD
Plan,, hot(ng that whatever is put forward needs to be in keeping with the heritage character of
the District.
Ms. M.
ohe
1.
2:
mittee was in receipt of the 2011 Mike Wagner Heritage Award applications for the
properties and `individuals;: 151 & 121 Charles Street West (The Lang Tannery);.397
dge Trail (Donnenworth Heritage House); and,. Mr. Nyle Eby and Ms: Audrey 6ecker.
;ed than the Mike Wagner Heritage Awards are given every two years in
;Urban Design. Awards and noted that nominations are put forward under
three ~atego ries:'.
Preservatio projects involve 'protecting, maintaining and stabilizing the existing
form, materia , and integrity of a cultural heritage resource while protec#ing its
heritage attribut and values. Preservation projects generally relate to cultural
heritage resources. at are intact and do not require extensive repair, extensive
replacement, alteratio or additions.
Restoration projects nvol' revealing, recovering or representing the state of a
cultural heritage resource or an individual heritage attribute as it appeared at a
particular-period in its history, as ceurately as possible, while protecting its heritage
value.. .Restoration projects are sed on physical and documentary" or oral
evidence.
Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse projects olve the sensitive adaptation of a
cultural heritage resource or of an individual h 'age attribute for a continuing or
compatible contemporary use, while protecting it eritage value. This may be
achieved through. repairs, replacements, alterations, a or additions.
3. Individual Contributions to the Field of Heritage Conservatio
Awarded to individ~a~s,. businesses, organizations, or institia s who have made
exceptional. and/or tong lasting contributions to the conservation cultural heritage
resources.
Ms. Wade then'presented each. application and reviewed the materials submitted upport of
those properties and individuals nominated for the 2011 Awards.
~~