Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 23, 2013..................... ON Minutes Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee May 23, 2013 7:00 pm Main Committee Room Attendees: Councillor Rodrigues S. lyer W. Jamadar R. Lattouf E. Mason T. Reimer D. Rundle C. Sopher J. Van Huss C. Celebre, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage D: Selsky, Supervisor of Engineering L. Roberts, Recording Secretary Absent: T. Besso M. Sawchuck S. Sheehan Guests: John Semjan, Bridge Manager, GHD Lynn Collins, Senior Environmental Project Coordinator, GHD Wayne Cassidy, Cassidy &Company Architectural Technologist Jessie & Jodie Gray Lloyd Thomas Don Anderson Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Ref # (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1.0 Welcome C. Celebre welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the delegations who were in attendance. 2.0 Minutes Moved by W. Jamadar Seconded by R. Lattouf That the minutes of the April 17, 2013 meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be approved as amended. Carried Page 1 Item / Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items / Status (include deadline as a ro riate 3.0 Delegations 1. 699 Front Road C. Celebre provided an overview of the minor variance application submitted by Jessie & Jodie Gray for 699 Front Road. She informed members that consultation is not required by the Committee as the property is not listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. It is however, identified on the City of Pickering Inventory of Heritage Properties prepared by Unterman McPhail Associates dated February 2002 and due to the age of the building, significant alterations and addition being proposed, it was recommended that the Committee of Adjustment defer the application to allow the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to review and comment on the application. C. Celebre noted that the applicants Jessie & Jodie Gray as well as their architect, Wayne Cassidy were present. Mr. Cassidy appeared before the Committee to provide an overview of the design details for the proposed application. He noted it was important to the owners to showcase their copperworks business, and were planning to incorporate this into the design. He also noted their need to expand on the current square footage to accommodate their growing family. A question and answer period ensued with respect to the materials being used, garage access, windows and trim being reflective of the 1St storey. Jessie Gray, the applicant, provided clarification to questions raised. He also noted he is trying to complement the area, and he has family members currently residing on the street. Members comments were noted as follows; • Should be kept in the style in which it was identified • If using the benefit of the minor variance, it should be in the cottage style • The latest drawings provided were more in keeping with the existing cottage style • Better to add onto an existing structure rather than tear down The following questions were raised; • proposed height of the structure • Are there similar houses in the neighbourhood Page Item / Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items / Status (include deadline as appropriate) adjacent to this property identified as heritage • current and proposed square footage • was a circulation notification to adjacent property owners done • Will the posts in the archway be incorporated into the garage C. Celebre questioned the applicant whether there would be an opportunity to make alterations to the most recent design details which would be more compatible with the original structure such as including changing the side addition roof to a front gable roof, change the archway to a square rectangular shape, consider the use of columns in the archway and consider the addition of vertical railings. E. Mason noted that at a previous meeting, the Committee had determined there should be more time allowed for the members to visit sites. prior to making any recommendations or commenting on applications. Moved by E. Mason Seconded by Councillor Rodrigues That any comments or recommendations be deferred for a C. Celebre to period of one week to allow members to conduct a site visit. action This would allow the applicant to go forward as planned to the next Committee of Adjustment meeting. Carried C. Celebre noted that all comments from the Committee could be forwarded to her and she would summarize the comments and provide her comments which would be forwarded to the members as well as the applicant for their consideration. 2. Whitevale Bridge Heritage Permit C. Celebre introduced the City of Pickering's consultants from the Sernas Group Inc. as well as Darrell Selsky, Supervisor, Engineering, City of Pickering, who were in attendance to provide an overview of the bridge replacement project and heritage permit application for the Whitevale Bridge. She advised that under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council shall consult with the Heritage Advisory Committee prior to considering the Heritage Permit application. John Sem'an, Bridge Manager, The Sernas Groups Inc. Page 3 Item / Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items / Status .(include deadline as appropriate) (GHD) and Lynn Collins, Senior Environmental Project Coordinator, appeared before the Committee. Through the aid of a power point presentation and a handout of the plans for the bridge replacement, Mr. Semjan outlined the proposed bridge design elements and materials to be used. He noted the existing bridge width is 8.6 metres and the proposed width is 11.6 metres. Mr. Semjan noted the bridge span is currently 32 metres with 36 metres being proposed. TRCA had requested a 112 metre span. He noted that the Environmental Assessment had been completed and the recommendations contained in the report had been accepted. He stated that a public open houses had been held and that ongoing meetings were being conducted with the public as well as the Whitevale Bridge Committee. He provided background information and outlined mitigation strategies including the following; • Erection of plaque to commemorate the site • Incorporate elements of the existing bridge into the community park • Salvage of remnants from the old bridge and railings with location to be determined by the City in consultation with the Whitevale Bridge Committee • ensure design of new bridge will respect the character of the hamlet of Whitevale Mr. Semjan outlined the modifications of the design considerations which have been made as a result of the consultation process. He explained the design elements considered to address the visual character of the site, as well as the materials to be used. He also explained the safety standards in place to protect all users of the road. A detailed question and answer period ensued with Mr. Semjan and Ms. Collins providing clarification as required. C. Sopher questioned whether there were any design alternatives for the guardrails that would meet safety requirements and requested that pictures of alternatives be forwarded to him. He noted the importance of being . complimentary to the community. He also questioned the construction of a separate pedestrian bridge. Discussion ensued with respect to a pedestrian bridge and the importance of this to help minimize the impact from construction as well as allowing a safe crossing for hikers. Page 4 Item / Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items Status (include deadline as appropriate) E. Mason questioned whether there was any recourse now that the EA has been completed. Lloyd Thomas noted that the concerns from the Whitevale and Distrcit Residents' Association were mainly with respect to the width of -the bridge and length of the guardrails. He noted that TRCA would like hikers to walk up and not climb over the guardrails for safety reasons. D. Selsky, Supervisor of Engineering, noted that the pedestrian bridge is an entirely separate project. He also explained that the current extent of deterioration of the bridge which presents significant safety concerns, and the need to move ahead with the project. Ms. Collins noted that TRCA has confirmed they support the EA as approved. Comments and recommendations are noted as follows: Members were in support of the Texas classic railing, green rock protection planted with native shrubs proposed and filling in of precast beam webs. Suggestions and comments included;. • Alternatives to steel guide rails • Construct new bridge to match the scale of existing bridge • Remove the north sidewalk • Reduce width of bridge • Reduce length of guiderails • Use alternate material to concrete for curbs • Construct a pedestrian bridge • Concerns with guiderail adjacent to the trail • Reduce speed on bridge • Work with City to erect a plaque to commemorate the site • Work with future Whitevale Plaque Program • Work with City to install flower planters • Investigate the salvage of remnant materials from former bridge and incorporate into community park Moved by R. lyer Seconded by R. Lattouf That the recommendations noted above be forwarded to Page 5 Item / Details &Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Ref # (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as appropriate) Council for consideration of the Heritage Permit application. Carried C. Celebre explained the process involved with the heritage permit application. She advised that she would summarize the Committee's recommendations in a report for Council's consideration of the Heritaae Permit application.. 4.1) C. Sopher questioned whether the legal opinion requested at a previous meeting regarding the Heritage District had been received. C. Celebre clarified that this was determined in the Board's decision during the Phase 2 OMB hearings which was presented to the Committee at the April 17, 2013 Heritage Committee meeting. 4.2) C. Sopher questioned whether a demolition permit had C. Celebre to been issued for Mulbery Lane and why this was taken down if action no permit was issued. He stated the building was from 1860 and was on a heritage lot. 4.3) E. Mason questioned the procedures for presenting at the OMB hearing. C. Celebre noted the hearing is in its third phase and suggested that this was handled through the OMB racy wnrkar 5.0 Next Meetinc Next Meeting The meeting Copy: City Clerk