Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 21, 2013 � o� � Minutes i�i Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee - i i March 21, 2013 PICKERING 7:00 pm Main Committee Room Attendees: Councillor Rodrigues T. Besso S. lyer W. Jamadar E. Mason M. Sawchuck S. Sheehan C. Sopher J. Van Huss D. Shields, City Clerk C. Rose, (Acting) Chief Planner C. Celebre, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage L. Roberts, Recording Secretary Absent: D. Rundle � M. Munawar Also Present: Carl Bray Gordon Willson � Lloyd Thomas Item / Details 8� Discussion 8� Conclusion Action Items / Status Ref# (summary of discussion) (include deadline as appropriate) 1.0 Welcome ' � D. Shields welcomed members and guests to the meeting. 2.0 Approval of Minutes Councillor Rodrigues noted clarification with respect to the delegation listed, noting inclusion of the word Pride for the program to read'as The Whitevale Heritage Pride Program. � Moved by W. Jamadar Seconded by T. Besso ' That the minutes of the February 28, 2013 meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be approved as ' amended. Carried _ �- -- - 3?0 Delegation Page 1 Item / Details � Discussion 8� Conclusion Action Items / Status Ref# (summary of discussion) (include deadline as � appropriate) C. Celebre introduced Carl Bray, the City of Pickering's heritage consultant for Seaton, as well as Catherine Rose, (Acting) Chief Planner. Carl Bray appeared before the Committee to provide guidance in reviewing the draft plans of subdivision for the Seaton development. Mr. Bray provided a review of the specific guidelines and policies under OPA 22 with respect to the Whitevale Corridor and properties on the adjoining lots. He noted that this particular development is very rare, as you have a rural road with heritage properties adjacent to new development. He provided an overview of the general principals and how they affect heritage lots as well as the Whitevale Corridor. He stated that normally the heritage houses and surrounding vegetation would be retained, while few outbuildings would be. He explained that under the policies they would go on a case by case basis with respect to lot sizes, setbacks, built form and would complement and respect the existing area. Design cues would be taken from existing homes. He also noted that existing farms could be incorporated into parkland for possible commercial or recreational uses and stated that changes in elevations would need detailed scrutiny. He also explained how using lower densities could provide buffer zones. Discussion took place with respect to direct access, rear lanes and shared driveways. , Mr. Bray explained how to interpret the more detailed stage of the plans. He used draft plan for Sideline 28 as an example, . outlining the location of the Khan property and the existing heavy vegetation surrounding a majority of the property. He outlined what is being proposed and explained how due to the orientation of the house, there may be a need for specific guidelines, where they may not develop the lot in the site lines, but due to the extensive vegetation at the back, development there may be OK. C. Sopher questioned the protection of vegetation. It was also noted that in some cases a fence may be required as a solid barrier between the lots and existing building as opposed to having existing vegetation act as the barrier. Discussion also ensued with respect to street locations, and how the Herita e Conservation District Guidelines are bein Page 2 Item/ Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items/Status R@f# (summary of discussion) � � (include deadline�as appropriate) accounted for. . E. Mason questioned the use of street lighting, noting how this would change the character of the area at night. She also noted the importance of incorporating details at this point. Discussion ensued with respect to using existing vegetation by using up lighting, relying solely on headlights or on lighting from surrounding homes. She also questioned control with respect � to the design of the houses. Mr. Bray noted that under the OPA guidelines, the use of materials and styles found within the existing neighbourhood would be used, noting the many varying styles currently existing. C. Rose noted the City of Pickering will require sub-developers to be subject to architectural control and identify a theme such as was done in Duffin Heights. She noted the City's desire to have some control, while at the same time allowing flexibility to developers. � G. Willson commented on the style aspect of the homes, stating he was opposed to attempts to duplicate heritage homes, noting you can tell the difference. He noted the current trends toward sustainability and with new technologies on the market today, stating that styles should be ruled more by the need for sustainable development as opposed to a modern � expression, which is climatically appropriate and fits into the neighbourhood. C. Sopher noted he would like to see higher densities with more open space surrounding it, commenting on the heritage development in Markham, stating he felt this to be very unappealing. C. Bray suggested the members research examples of communities that could be applied to Seaton. He noted that All traditional ways were to have schools and churches as the centre of the community, but questioned how to attain this in a secular community. C. Mason questioned the timelines for the beginning of this development as well as the committee's timeline to forward comments. The following timelines were noted: • Report to Executive Committee in April with draft plans of subdivision � Page 3 Item / Details & Discussion 8� Conclusipn Action Items / Status Ref# (summary of discussion) (include deadline as appropriate) • Comments —to be considered with report • Revisions � OMB hearing May 27 Carl Bray noted the CPDP supersedes the Heritage Conservation District Plan from 1990. He explained the legal opinion which was to take as much of the intent into consideration and incorporate into the OPA and draft plans. The Hamlet of Whitevale is still considered Part V designated with the same boundaries as originally passed by Council, which potentially provides a control stronger than a typical subdivision. Discussion ensued with respect to Whitevale Road. It was noted that the preferred alignment was set by the Region of Durham, with safety being their main concern. Members expressed their disappointment in the plans for Whitevale Road. They also noted concerns with the timelines for comments, stating they felt rushed given inadequate information and time to make appropriate comments. Mr. Bray noted the importance of providing comments, which can be taken to Council and assist them when reporting to the OMB. He noted the importance of concentrating on the key areas and issues. C. Rose provided an explanation on the types of comments to put forward for consideration. Carl Bray summarized the categories the Committee should look at for commenting; • Heritage Conservation District to the east side of Sideline 26 • Whitevale Road Corridor transition areas • Relationship of draft plans to existing heritage lots C. Rose explained that no draft plans of subdivision are proposed immediately adjacent to the Hamlet of Whitevale and suggested that members concentrate on the heritage lots surrounded by the plans of subdivision for now. She noted the area being opposed could be flagged at this point. Carl Bray suggested members do a walking tour of Sideline 26, noting he could attend as well. He stated he would provide guidance to the members as to the importance of specific issues. It was the consensus of the Committee to attend a walking tour on Tuesda , March 26th at 5:30 m, meetin at the Church. Page 4 Item/ Details &Discussion 8� Conclusion Action Items / Status R@f# (summary of discussion) � _ (include deadline as appropriate) C. Celebre will prepare packages of the plans and forward to members electronically prior to the walk. She also noted she C. Celebre to action would provide a copy for Councillor Rodrigues to bring with him . on the walking tour. After the walk, Carl Bray noted he would compile notes of the members comments and summarize in plain language in order to get the issues on the table for April 15th. It was suggested they could meet in the Community Centre for this purpose. The comments would then be forwarded to C. Rose directly. Members questioned how many of the Seaton plans affect heritage. It was suggested that copies of these plans be provided for the next meeting in order for members to go over C. Celebre to action them and provide comments. Moved by T. Besso Seconded by J. Van Huss That the next meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be changed from April 25th to April 17tn ' Carried D. Shields noted this meeting would be for the sole purpose of reviewing plans. C. Bray also noted he could attend this meeting as well. 8.0 Next Meeting/Adjournment Next Meeting: April 17, 2013 The meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm. Copy: City Clerk Page 5