Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS 04-07 CiUI c~ REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: CS 04-07 Date: January 22, 2007 {':- ,/' ti \j.1.. From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Heritage Permit Application 001/06 - Submission under the Ontario Heritage Act - 325 Whitevale Road, Pickering Recommendation: Council Direction Required Executive Summary: On July 24, 2006 Council approved a formal application process for alterations, additions or demolitions or erection of a building in a Heritage Conservation District. Cimas Construction submitted Heritage Permit Application #001/06 for property municipally known as 325 Whitevale Road. The purpose of the application is to permit the new construction of a single-family residential dwelling within the Whitevale Heritage District. In accordance with the heritage permit application procedure established under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council is the delegated authority to consent or refuse the application. Financial Implications: Not applicable. Background: On July 10, 2006, Cimas Construction Ltd. submitted a heritage permit application, pending approval of the process by Council on July 24, 2006. A copy of the application is included as Attachment #1 to this report. It should be noted that the Applicant has been in discussions with Heritage Pickering since the beginning of the year, prior to final plans being drawn up. As part of the City's goal for process improvements, the heritage permit application process was implemented in order to facilitate decisions with respect to heritage properties. As part of the heritage permit application process, comments are solicited from the Planning & Development Department and Heritage Pickering. If deemed necessary, at the discretion of the Chief Building Official, Planning & Development will also seek a peer review from a qualified heritage consultant on the subject application. Report CS 04-07 Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06 January 22,2007 Page 2 (~ r....... I.J v (;., Comments Planninq & Development Department: After careful review, the Planning & Development Department is recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06. The proposal generally conforms to established guidelines for new buildings that the applicant can reasonably be expected to comply with, given the background, context and the lot to which this application applies. It is noted by the Planning & ,Development Department that the applicant's architect prepared the final design documents after consultation with Heritage Pickering. The Whitevale Heritage District Guidelines includes some general recommendations for new buildings, and were intended to provide for some flexibility and accommodation in their design. The guidelines state that: new buildings should respect the prevailing character of adjacent buildings, streetscape and district through compatible location, height, setback, orientation, materials, fenestration, scale and proportion. The applicant's proposal is for a two storey detached dwelling of about 3400 square feet on a 2/3 acre vacant corner lot at the western edge of the hamlet. The location, height, setback, orientation, materials and fenestration are in general accordance with the District Guidelines. The dwelling is somewhat larger than some adjacent heritage dwellings. It is probably unreasonable and impractical, however, to mandate that the applicant match the proposed building to the scale of the immediately adjacent dwelling, which is located on a much smaller lot. The proposed building conforms to all zoning requirements and the applicant has incorporated significant setbacks to the neighbouring heritage dwellings that are much in excess of permitted minimums. The June 1, 2006 comments provided by the Chair, Heritage Pickering, are understandably advocating a high level of heritage design compliance. When measured against this new building proposal, they reflect a more particular and restrictive approach to architectural control in the District than has been the case in the past. In considering whether to apply greater heritage obligations in this case, Council should consider that: a uniquely liberal approach to implementing a conservation District was applied by Council in Whitevale. At the time of implementation, any owner wishing to be exempt was allowed to do so. As a result, the District today contains approximately 20 lots whose owners are not obliged to comply with any heritage requirements. Report CS 04-07 Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06 January 22, 2007 Page 3 r r~n" ~_.' u ,~'j the 1990 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Plan, prepared by the City by Unterman McPhail Heritage Resource Consultants, recommended that the introduction of new buildings into Whitevale be accepted as part of the continuing change that all communities experience. It was not intended that the Conservation District limit new building forms to only those that exist. the application of more prescriptive and restrictive architectural criteria has generally been reserved for construction directly associated with existing heritage buildings, in order to protect their integrity. a contemporary new building design using traditional elements is acceptable and consistent with the established District Guidelines. It is considered desirable to apply more prescriptive control to all applications, the current District exemptions and Guidelines should first be re-examined. Prior to City application of these standards, it is essential that more descriptive information and consultation be available for applicants before they proceed with detailed construction plans. If it is decided to move in this direction, it is recommended that: 1. The District Plan Guidelines be reviewed, and more detailed information incorporated, prior to being considered for adoption by Council; 2. Commentary and recommendations be obtained from a qualified heritage consultant on the revised guidelines; and 3. The District boundaries be amended to incorporate currently exempt properties, in order to further District integrity and ensure consistency of heritage control. Heritaqe Pickerinq Comments As requested, the plans submitted for 325 Whitevale Road have been reviewed by the Committee. Heritage Pickering has used section 5.4 New Buildings in the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide to provide guidance for our recommendations. Heritage Pickering is disappointed to see that none of the feedback provided to the owners in our June 2006 memo, during informal consultation, have been incorporated into this formal application. In light of this fact, Heritage Pickering maintains its concerns previously expressed and has listed the recommended changes to the application based on the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide: 5.4. 1 New buildings should be visually compatible with adjacent properties and the streetscape. 5.4.3 Maintain the rural settlement pattern to protect the integrity of this area, and to reinforce the distinct character of the hamlet... The proposed dwelling is significantly larger in size as well as design than any adjacent property. While we do not advocate that the dwelling must match the scale of adjacent Report CS 04-07 Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06 - ('.'. n ;' · \J "1 January 22, 2007 Page 4 properties, it is reasonable to expect that it would be closer in proportion than in the current application. The site of this property is in a very visible location, and therefore, will have a significant impact on the consistency of the settlement pattern. Located on property at the west end gateway of the Hamlet, the proposed dwelling does not maintain the rural settlement pattern. This type of building is more consistent with new subdivisions, not a rural Hamlet that is a designated Heritage Conservation District. 5.4.6 A building form which is proportionately greater in width than depth and of a side gable design is encouraged. Extended rear sections to form the traditional T shape is encouraged where additional floor space. is needed. The owner was encouraged to redesign the plans to fit more closely to the above description instead of the current, very modern, design in order for this dwelling to fit more consistently in with the surrounding neighbourhood. 5.4.7 Roofs of new buildings should - match those of neighbouring buildings in shape and pitch; be a side or end gable design; be tow to medium pitch; utilize cedar or asphalt shingles. Steep pitches, cross-gable, flat and mono-pitch roofs, and polygonal towers should be avoided... It appears from the drawings that the roof lines may not follow some of the above guidelines, namely not being a side or end gable design and the tower-like portion of the west end of the building is not consistent with rural hamlet structures. 5.4.9 Windows and doors in new buildings should - be generally vertical and rectangular; be limited in size so as to be similar to heritage buildings in the proportion of openings to solid wall; avoid the use of snap in muntins, decorative shapes such as bulls-eyes, keystones, quoins and other decorative surrounds. While the majority of windows are vertical and rectangular, there are a large number of windows in proportion to the solid walls. In addition, there are a number of half circle windows and one fully round window that should be removed or replaced. 5.4. 12 Garages should not form a part of the front fac;ade. A less conspicuous location is recommended. Although the garage doors do not face the street, the garage does form a part of the front facade, significantly increasing the overall size of the structure. 5.5.4 recommends garages be located to the rear of the property. The proposed design does follow guidelines 5.4.2 (maximum structure height), 5.4.4 (setbacks), 5.4.5 (street facing walls parallel to the road), 5.4.11 (exterior wall finish). It has been noted that Heritage Pickering's comments represent a shift to a more particular and restrictive approach that has been the case in the past. With the recent passing of the revisions to the Ontario Heritage Act, we now have a better foundation on which to protect heritage assets that was not afforded in the past. While not Report CS 04-07 Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06 January 22,2007 Page 5 "" "'- UUJ necessarily popular, recommendations that preserve the heritage of this area are needed. With respect to the liberal approach to implementing the conservation district, specifically that owners were allowed to be exempt, Heritage Pickering is currently working with the Whitevale and District Residents' Association to remove these exemptions. In addition, it should be noted that the current property in the application is not exempt from the heritage district and subject to the guidelines. In fact, the new legislation affords some protection to those exempted properties in Whitevale though policy 2.6.3 which states that "Development and site alteration may b~ permitted on adjacent lands to protected heritage property where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. Mitigative measurers and/or alternative development approaches may be required in order to conserve the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property affected by the adjacent development or site alteration." Heritage Pickering has attempted to implement and use guidelines available to us in considering this application. The provincial Ministry of Culture refers to Parks Canada - Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada - New Additions to Historic Places recommendations of "Placing a new addition on a non- character-defining portion and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic place (Whitevale Heritage Conservation District)." They do not recommend "constructing a new addition so that the character-defining features of the historic resource (Whitevale Heritage Conservation District) are obscured, damaged or destroyed, or the heritage value is otherwise underminded" and "Designing and constructing new additions that diminish or eliminate the historic character of the resource, including its design, materials, workmanship, location or setting" and "Designing a new addition that obscured, damages or destroys character- defining features of the historic place or undermines its heritage value." Based on the points referred to previously, Heritage Pickering believes that guidelines are not being met. In addition, as noted, a review of the current heritage conservation district guidelines so that they may be provided to applicants before they proceed with detailed plans is needed and Heritage Pickering has identified this as a responsibility. In the absence of this, Heritage Pickering has been involved with informal consultations, including with the applicants, in order to provide comments, suggestions and/or recommendations. In this case, the applicants did not see fit to incorporate any of Heritage Pickering's comments into the final plans. While the position of Heritage Pickering may represent a shift from previous positions, it also represents the opportunity to preserve the heritage assets of the City of Pickering. Property owners are aware of restrictions on heritage property, either in a district or individual designations, when it is purchased and it is incumbent on our committee to uphold the protection that designation affords to properties and districts. Report CS 04-07 Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06 January 22, 2007 Page 6 U" (., '. .." j ... _ }1 U For the reasons stated above, Heritage Pickering cannot support the plans as currently proposed and would, therefore, recommend that Council not approve the application. Should changes be considered based on the recommendations made in our memo, the owners will achieve a better balance of integration of a new structure onto a prime/gateway location within the Heritage Conservation District. Attachments: 1. Heritage Permit Application HPA 001/06 (Correspondence included as part of the application) 2. Location Map for 325 Whitevale Road Prepared By: Approved I Endorsed By: ~~~ Debi A. Bentley City Clerk (;/~~ ~:=~, Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer GAP:db:ks Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer ;'/ ATTACHMENT # I c\,) 'Q'f -0 '7 TO REPORio1lerina C ic Complex Esplanade . . - Pickering, Ontario Canada L1 V 6K7 Direct Access 99905.420.4660 Cityofpickering .com RECEIVED CITY OF PICKERING .JUL 1 02006 :ORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT :Ierk's Division livision 905.420.4611 :ascimile 905.420.9685 lerks@citv.pickerina,on.ca CLERK'S DlVISI0N nn "'J lJ-'J- ( DATER :fl.A-\1 IO,2-0D.6 APPLICATION NO: HPA- 0:)1/010 BH Q6-2c40 The undersigned hereby applies to The Corporation of the City of Pickering pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 1990, c.18 for alteration, addition, demolition or erection of a building in a Heritage Conservation District. 1. NAME OF OWNER Cim'aS Cons'truct,on Ltd. ADDRESS OF OWNER 37 Gr(~n6er AVei '~CQr., Ontario POSTAL CODE "'1 i Ie: 3 K Cf TELEPHONE NO. 4 t b '... 261- b 77 q EMAIL: d.mdlon i si@ bell net .CCl 2. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: ADDRESS: 325 Whltevcde LOT NO. REGISTERED PLAN NO. 3. NAME OF AGENT (IF ANY): ADDRESS: POSTAL CODE TELEPHONE NO. 4. FULL DESCRIPTION OF ALL PROPOSED WORK New oon!;:tructlon of . ~ln9\e .-fdrr)l\j V'e$idc:ntla\ . 12. 13. 14. (~9tyO ~~ Pickering Application for Alteration or Addition to a Designated propert~ Page 2 5. 6. .E)(ISTING.iUliB PROPOSED TOTAL FLOOR AREA: DeliTING USE OF PROPERTY: VaCC\ n t PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: 're~ldet1tlcll 7. CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, SKETCH PLANS, SCALE DRAWINGS: Please attach drawings of the proposed construction. The applicant may also submit a sketch of any alterations made over a photograph. Drawings must be to scale and indicate the existing building and proposed additions, including: a) overall dimensions; b) specific sizes of building elements (signs, windows, awnings etc.) c) . detail information including trim," siding, mouldings, etc. d) materials to be used 8. 10. OTHER INFORMATION: You may provide other written information or documents supporting your proposal for the City's ~onsideration. 11. PHOTOGRAPHS: Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, the facing streetscape, and if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that may be affected by the proposed change or alteration assist the City with the review of the application. PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE: Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, preservation specialist, or others familiar with the unique requirements of designated heritage buildings. BUILDING CODES AND BY-LAWS: This application concerns heritage approval only. It is not a buildinopermit application. It is the applicant's responsibility to apply for and obtain a building permit prior to undertaking any construction. OTHER APPLICATIONS: Do you have any concurrent applications (ie: Committee of Adjustment) YES @ IF YES, PLEASE LIST: ~~ SIGNATURE OWNER(S) I\i). ;J(k , . d/~' D'/'--'-:;> SIGNATURE OF AGENT Please note: Notice of Receipt will be forwarded to you by the City Clerk. Notice of Collection: Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act Personal Information is collected under the authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 as amended, and will be used to assist in making a decision on this matter. All names, addresses, opinions and comments will be made available for public disclosure. Questions regarding this collection should be forwarded to the City Clerk, Civic Complex, One the Esplanade, Pickering, L 1V 6K7, 905.420.4660, ext. 2153. CIMAS CONSTRUCTION LTD. f\.~;" t; V ;:) 37 GRANGER AVE. SCARBOROUGH, ONTARIO MIK 3K9 TEL 416-261-6779 FAX 416-261-8687 July 5,2006 Attention Debbie Bentley, City Clerk's Office, My experience with the Pickering Heritage Committee has been confusing and anything but helpful. At the beginning of the year, before final plans were drawn up and the information for the pennit was collected ie: engineered truss and floor designs, we submitted a preliminary/possible arch. 'dwg to the Heritage Committee for a new residential home at 325 Whitevale Rd. This was circulated to them through Tim Moore of the Planning Department. In February 2006 two e-mails were sent to us with comments about the new structure (again via Tim Moore). At best these comments/ suggestions were vague and unclear and seemed to promote some architect called BarnOwl, which we are not familiar with?? It was clear that very little time or effort went into the feedback given at this time. In any case, in an effort to comply with the comments/ suggestions and work with the committee, we altered various aspects of the design to comply with the few issues pointed out by them. We were quite happy to make the changes that were suggested at this time. We changed the exterior from brick to batten board, we replaced the metal railings to wood, we altered the palladium windows to a more traditional square design,... We believed that the resulting design would be acceptable because, after all, we had already cleared it through Heritage, thinking that they had given it thorough attention. My question to the committee is why did we not get more detailed feedback at this stage???? Confidently, we submitted all our documents for pennit review with the building department at City of Pickering ie: revised architectural drawings, engineered truss and floor designs. . . . We have lined up the well and septic tank contractor who will put in the most modem and space efficient model available. On June 1,2006 when we were told that the Heritage Committee would not support our proposed plan we were quite frankly surprised and shocked. After reading the new, very detailed comments about the design we felt as though we had been misled. _.. . ,,"~ 010 I attempted to contact Pamela Fuselli many times to raise my concerns. She said she would pass my questions along to the committee but I was not allowed to address them myself. We were told that Pickering Heritage would 'be happy to work' with us and I was more than willing to talk to the committee but I was told I could not attend the June 14 meeting as it was called 'ad hoc'(you know, not scheduled). Finally, I e-mailed her to tell her what I had already changed and what could be altered with respect to their comments. No further discussion was initiated. I was tmder the impression that the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide is a document which offers guidelines not dictates laws. Section 5.4 of the New Buildings in Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide uses tenninology such as "should" or "should be avoided" or "is recommended". We have shown a willingness to comply with the suggestions given by the committee and feel that the Heritage Committee has been given too much power in this regard (as to be able to freeze my permit application). They wrote the following in an e-mail, "Their architect should not put any architectural feature on the exterior if they can't find an example of it in the village". Upon travelling through the village, we have found various examples of non-compliance according to these guidelines, such as, brick and stucco exterior fmishes, round and palladium style windows, attached garages, ... At this time it will be costly and structurally difficult to address 5.4.6 and 5.4.7 as altering the roof and floor designs require going through the architect and the engineer again and I have already spent over $ 15,000.00 dollars on architecture revisions and engineering fees. Although, in the spirit to show that we are co-operative and in addition to the changes we have already made, we propose the following: In reference to 5.4.9, we are willing to change the windows size and shape by removing all half circle and rotmd windows. We hope this is agreeable to the council and city clerk's office. Regards, Deborah Dionisi Cimas Construction Ltd. 37 Granger Ave Scarborough, Ontario MIK 3K9 Tel: (416)261-6779 Fax: (416)261-868 u;:.. :.:Ji 200ti THt 10 5 420 i6H PICKERING PLANNING & DEV [4]OO,J Moore, Tim From: Sent: To: .. Subject: . . Pamela Fuselli [heritagepickering@hotmail.com] . February 22. 2006 5:19 PM Moore. Tim Altona/Whitevale 011 ni Tim, One of tha c~~~i::e= merr~ers had an additional sU9gestion ~ could 10U 9ass :hi$ ~lcn; as well? ,. ",' .5U~~:S: t~ c~~ b~ilder that they take a closer look at particular. ~e~:~=e! ~n 6~i5~i~c architecture within Whitevale and draw from those ie. .~;;-:hi..= '.;:':-.d='.:::. :.,:,,~tlines, typical mid-late 1600 architecture. The Shingle .: ::.-'':',:;;::t.:'?~: ~::.! ~dian-style and cape cod windol-ls, metal railing etc, a:a cut of p':'&ce. Thei: architect should not put any architectural feacu:e ~~ t~e ex~erior if they can't find an example of it in the village itself. __ c~ey n~~~ a ~u3gR~tion for an architect who understands a bit better how t~ make S~~6:~!n; leok old check out Barn Owl designs. She still uses a bi~ ~: a m:'::.f1::-.Z!5:-. .:f features but she I s .better than most. There are a rev! ~=c tr~~!:ic~al- l~ke ~he ~Rosseau. House" and ~Oxford House". h:':p; I h,:.:::. t':::-:-l.:.;:l::esigns. com/inde:-:l. htm " d;3.~,:in;s :r.~: ~ :':-~.;:1i:;: :; ~~~ :cn't :;;st. $6%::C::. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default,asp:< The new NS~ Searc~! :hsc~ it out! " 02/2J/2006..JHV' ~.O.; 905:.420..7648 , . "l~'~~'I~~{~~'~~I~ft'~f~;.' Moore,)4m '. '.i/"...'.'.........:./,' '7 PIC~RIN.G,~WNli'iG " pEV . .. ". . :~ 'I;~:' :;,j~~i~',;:::.< _~ ;~,.,>::-' ~...~. ~ ~, From: Sent: To: ". Subj ect: ::;:'<P~rii~;~ F~selli [heritageplckering@hotmail,com] February 21,20069:19 PM Moore, Tim . Heritage Pickering llj)" Z,H Tim . ~;" ~.';./': , . .;::: Gst::,!,nq back'\.;:'YOUabout the Altona/Whitevde Road propo:led house plan - I apologize for .tha:delay in getting feedback to you. 'While th~ corrunittee TfIerr~'ie=s 1 i ked' :'iome.,ofthe .details, there..wet'ti .some ,co,Qcerns: .".,. ~, . '. 1. r;"lis corner is 'the ;qa1:.e~ayi:ti:) the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District ~any ~uildinq ~hould reflect the characteristics ot this' area. Given the majorityo! the homes are, at most 1 1/2 ~toreysl this is what :.:~ I d rac:clT:I!'.end !.:>r thc$e lot:!. 2. So~e ot the materials they are proposing to u~~ar~n't consistent with hed~aqe hotr,QS, e.9."met~1 railings. . . "'. 3. '~ave they:cons1dered that the house would be supported by a well and se?tic: t, Reg:t:ds ?arr: . . Take advantage.ofpo~erful junk e-mail filters built o~ patented Microsoft$. Sm<\rl;Sr.:rAC'lr, Technology," . . M:;:: / /joln ~m$n~ co.ml,?pgmarket-en-cupage;.byoa/prem&xAPID:o:1994&DI=1034 :; SU"'htl.:p: 1 1:.~otmf,iL cOlll/enca&HL-Market..MSlU5_Taglines; S:a;t e~joyi~9 allth~ benefits or MSN~ premium" right now and get the fi r;;t two months .r~EE"".. .... .g2 .... .::. ",' .".. " ,." ". 1 , ~ .. ., i , ,1 il I , 1 I. , ! l' I F j ~ t " I &.~.II ~ i~ J j't' , , ~ 1 , . ~; I ii. ~ ,. . . .. h I , l ! I \JOI \J;JI ~\Jvo lUUi"i ,LU: .U. t.'\.\. ~U;) 4~U ' , 'CUlJ "I ?"\;:~5!Lt .," (\1 r...) L ,-, . ~ " '..\ . . June 1, 2006. .4o II ~. t;~';'; 'j im Moore Chief Building OfficIal . '. City of Pickering , .,' ~: ~..' . /,.~..:.'~ , . ., ,~.. '. - :. .. .. ,..' " .' ~~. '. ~. " ~ . ~, .... .. Subject: 325 Whitevale, Road ", ", AS requested, I've reviewed the plans submitted for 325 Whltevale Road and compared them " 'Nith'sectlon 5.4 New Buildings in the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide. Below are my comments:' " ;"1,. 5.4.1 New buJldings should be vlJuaHy ~ompatible with adjacent properties and the streets cape. Given the significant difference In size and design between the proposed building and any adjacent property, these plans do not meet this guideline. .' 5.4.3 Maintain the rural settlement pattern to protect the Integrity of this area, and to reInforce the dIstinct character of the hamlet.... This structure, located at the west end gateway of the Hamlet, does not maintain the rural settlement pattern, This is the type of building you'd expect to find In new subdivisions, not a rural Hamlet that is a heritage conservation distrIct. ,f 5.4.6 A building form which is proportionately greater In width than depth and of a side '., gable design Is encouraged. Extended rear sectIons to form the traditional T shape is encouraged where additional floor space Is needed. The owner Is' encouraged to redesign the plans to fit the above description instead of the current. very modern, design. ,.., p, , ,5.4.7 Roofs of new buildings should. match those of neighbouring buildings in shape and pitch; be a side or end gable design; be low to medium pitch; utilize cedar or asphalt shingles. Steep pitches, cross-gable, flat and mono-pitch roofs, and polygonal towers should be avoided.... , . . It appears from the drawings that the roof lines may not follow some of the above guidelines, namely not being a side or end gable desIgn and the tower-like portion of the west end of the building. 5.4.9 Windows and doors in new buildings should. be generally vertical and rectangular; be limIted in size so as to be similar to heritage buildings In the proportron of openIngs to solid wall; avoid the use of snap In muntlns, decorative shapes such as bulls-eyes, . . keystones, quoins and other decorative surrounds. ",,' 'Whlle the majority of windows are vertical and rectangular. there are a large number of windows . ..... in proportion to the solid walls. In addition, there are a number of half circle windows and one fully round window. 06 MON 10:32 FAX 905 420 7648 PICKERING PLANNING & DEY ~(I0J ". '..11" t, 't 5.4.12 Garages should not form a part of the front facade. A less conspicuous location is recommended. '. Although the garage doors do not face the street, the garage does form a part of the front '. facade, significantly increasing the overall size of the structure. -5,5.4 recommends garages be located to the rear of the property. ';. . . The proposed desIgn does foll~~ guidelines 5.4.2 (maximum structure height), 5.4.4 (setbacks), 5.4.5 (street facing walls paralrei to the road), 5.4.11 (exterior wall finish). While Heritage Pickering can not support the plans as currently proposed, we would be happy to work with the owner to achieve a better balance of integration of a new structure onto a prime/gateway location with the Heritage Conse/Vation District. Regards I. .-';0 Q~ Pamela ~uselli " Chair, Heritage Pickering Copy: City Clerk ." ~ Read Message Page 1 of2 heme ..'1.""'... I l: : ; rra.fl.;als Inbox .comp..,,,;e C(;~i.e f;1,)kfer's Addl~s~e:$ Pr.efer,en.ces S,e;ztrcl1 Help Read Message Back to: COJlgLI.L~l2n...E9MeI F'rom:"Pamela Fuselli" <heritagepickering@hotmail.com> I~ Date:2006/06/15 Thu PM 03:35:38 GMT.04:00 To: dmd ion isi@bellnet.ca Subject:Re: 325 Whitevale Road Hello Deborah, I'm getting back in touch to let you know that the committee's decision was to uphold our recommendations from June 2006. In response to your request to attend, as the meeting was ad hoc (not a regularly scheduled meeting), it was not open to the public but for committee discussion purposes. Please get in touch with Tim Moore, who 1 have already advised of our decision, for the next steps. Regards Pamela Fuselli Chair, Heritage Pickering >From: <gmQiQ.ni~.@R~Jl[J~L~!p > To: "Pamela Fuselli" <heLiti!K~Qi~~.~rln.g@'hQ.tm~ti1~9m> >Subject: Re: 325 Whitevale Road >Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:54:39.0400 > >Good Afternoon >1 have not heard back from you regarding whether it is possible to attend >the meeting scheduled for tonight. Do you have a time and location for me? >Regards, >Deborah Dionisi >Cimas Construction Ltd. > > >> > > From: "Pamela Fuselli" <!wri.t~g~Q.i.ck~IiJJg@11Qlmg.iLcom> > > Date: 2006/06/12 Mon PM 03:29:21 GMT.04:00 > > To: gmgj.Qnl~I@R~J!!J~t~E!. > > Subject: 325 Whitevale Road >> > > Hello, >> > > I have scheduled an ad hoc meeting of Heritage Pickering for this >Wednesday, > > June 14. If you could send your questions to me via email, we can >discuss > > them at this meeting and then get back to you by the end of the week. >After . > > you've had an opportunity to review the information, we can schedule a > > meeting if needed. >> Read Message DiB > > As I do most of the committee work on evenings and weekends, you can use > > this email address or my home telephone number to reach me. >> > > Regards > > Pamela Fuselli > > Chair, Heritage Pickering >> >> > > Fashion, food, romance in Sympatico / MSN Lifestyle > > .http-i 11.if~s.b@...:~l!JJLtttl~~.m~IJ..:...Ga/H9JJ1e/ >> > Movies, Music & More! Visit Sympatico I MSN Entertainment h tmJ I enl~tqio.m.il.I].L$.Ymp-ati~o. m~:!l~~qL Priv<1!l:\' PoHq Wireless fmail eC3fe Mt~ SCD..[~~(F()lg2 .' Page 2 of2 Back to: .c..Q.!l~tructlcm.. F 01 Q..fll: R~<Mt~.W .. '- !~J/::>6G86 [[GSSav86Za:GLSZS66GaS [vva::> r $P!UO!SsQs$~:nauIIQq'uQ' I~~fdUq iHJ m.g nl'''1 C t fran~aj5 Inbc)( t.:,'mlpOSp. CI'&I~e folders Addresses Prefer'<l~ces Search Help Read Message Back to: Cons t(-'J.!;lLlH\..EQ.kter From:"Pamela Fuselli" <heritagepickering@hotmail.com> Q Date:2006/06/10 Sat AM 09:18:04 GMT.04:00 To:dmdion isi@bellnet.ca Subject:RE: 325 Whitevale Thank you for your email and telephone messages. I have been away on business so was not able to respond to your messages. Some information that may help you understand our role. Heritage Pickering is an advisory committee to the City and our committee members are appointed volunteers. While I am the Chair, committee business is conducted by the entire membership. I have forwarded your request to the committee and will be in touch this coming week to let you know the next steps. Regards, Pamela Fuselli Chair, Heritage Pickering >From: <9mqJ.QJ1i~1@J2_~.L!J~J;".Q.9.> > T 0: <.b~rlt~~Qjfk?ring@hQ.t.!Th![L.fQm> >Subject: 325 Whitevale >Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:31:06.0400 > >Good Afternoon Ms. Fuselli, >1 am one of the officers of Cimas Construction Ltd. who is waiting on a >permit to construct a single family dwelling at the above address. >1 would like to met with you to discuss your comments regarding this >project. I have various questions for you and your attention to this >matter. >Please contact me to set up an appointment ASAP, >we can cannot afford further delay in this matter. >Regards, >Deborah Dionisi >Cimas Construction Ltd. > Auto news & advice -check out Sympatico / MSN Autos htt.g;.LL~!J"jH.l to s,1lymrt9..tif9. rn.~n,J~gL.Qgtill,-ltg.~p'~ Back to: !:;QnsJr..y.(:Jion-E.2lq~r l>',iV<-H;Y Pnlicy V'Jh'e!ess Ern\tli~ eCar:e fAQ. Read Message Page 1 of 1 P1Q -_u homa fr,tln;:ais Inhox Compose Creah: Fo~d>o;r$ Addresses Prefefem:es S@rch Help Read Message Backto:~~eSSqg~~ From: <dmdionisi@bellnet.ca:> G:J Date:2006/06/14 Wed PM 03:54:39 GMT.04:00 To:"Pamela Fuse"i" <heritagepickering@hotmail.com:> Subject:Re: 325 Whitevale Road Good Afternoon I have not heard back from you regarding whether it is possible to attend the meeting scheduled for tonight. Do you have a time and location for me? Regards, Deborah Dionisi Cimas Construction ltd. :> :> From: "Pamela Fuselli" <l1erltM?-PJ.~.!<ering@.b..Qtm~jLcom:> :> Date: 2006/06/12 Moo. PM 03:29:21 GMT.04:00 :> To: Q.mdionis.i@J~.~U!l~L~!l :> Subject: 325 Whitevale Road :> > Hello, > :> I have scheduled an ad hoc meeting of Heritage Pickering for this Wednesday, > June 14. If you could send your questions to me via email, we can discuss :> them at this meeting and then get back to you by the end of the week. After > you've had an opportunity to review the information, we can schedule a :> meeting if needed. > > As I do most of the committee work on evenings and weekends, you can use :> this email address or my home telephone number to reach me. > :> Regards :> Pamela Fuse"i > Chair, Heritage Pickering > :> > Fashion, food, romance in Sympatico 1 MSN Lifestyle > ):lttQ;lllife~tY-!!l.:..$.Y.m[LcUkQ.,msn.C:;fl/t!.Q..m~ > Backto:S~ut]fless~g~~ prhlt'lq. poliqr Wkeless Em,)i! eCmil'('l FAQ Read Message Page 1 of2 home {, 1 ~ f;nm;:i:lls Inbo,tCornpose (r''late Fcl.::k;,s AddreatleS . Prderences Search Help Read Message Back to: ~e.n~illg~ From:<dmdionisi@bellnet.ca> bl Date:2006/06/12 Mon PM 05:48:29 GMT-04:00 To:"Pamela Fuselli" <heritagepickering@hotmail.com> Subject:Re: 325 Whitevale Road 11SD.g9~~E91q~t)g@;.t.~. Good Afternoon, We at Cimas Construction Ltd. have accommodated your previous requests/comments made February 21 & 22,2006 ie we changed metal railings to wood, we changed brick to batten board, we have moved the garage from front facing to side facing.. I think this design has a distinctly heritage feel. In fact, it is compatible with the homes found at the eastern end of the village. r am willing to change the circular and semi.circular windows on the front facade. Conversely I am not willing to change the floor plan or roof design. Is there any way for me and my associate to attend the Wednesday meeting?? Regards, Deborah Dion isi Cimas Construction Ltd. > > From: .Pamela Fuselli" <l1~ritBg.~l?.tc;:1<~rln&.@llQ.tm<!lL~.Qnp > Date: 2006/06/12 Mon PM 03:29:21 GMT.04:00 > To: dr:ngiQ!JisL@Q~JJ.D~.LGg > Subject: 325 Whitevale Road > > Hello, > > I have scheduled an ad hoc meeting of Heritage Pickering for this Wednesday, > June 14. If you could send your questions to me via emaH, we can discuss > them at this meeting and then get back to you by the end of the week. After > you've had an opportunity to review the information, we can schedule a > meeting if needed. > > As I do most of the committee work on evenings and weekends, you can use > this email address or my home telephone number to reach me. > > Regards > Pamela Fuselli > Chair, Heritage Pickering > > > Fashion, food, romance in Sympatico / MSN Lifestyle > !ltlP~{ / I ife ill!.~~?Y.mQ9.tikQ...IJ1!i.l1.J;i1j Hgme / > ..~~J~~&FgJ;fJ Back to: Sen1.1l'lJ1Ssag~ Privacy Policy V-JireterliS EmaH eCan.~ FA!,! IATTACHMENT# Z TO REPORT# C5~O-Ob r'r. >""'. l,l f::'U ~T [ \ \ r11 ,.- "1-1 IIR HWIN WHITEV ALE \ \ ....J \ ....J ::2 WHITEVALE ROAD I WHITEVALE ROAD ~ U I ~ (/) (/) >- i---- Z cc. 0 ~ Q r \ rn w \ ....... ,.- \1 ~ \ I~ PROPERTY /j ~ 0 ~ 0 '--- n::: ~ z 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CON 4, N PT LOT 32, PLAN 21 LOT 1, 2 & PT LOT 3, RP 40R-9543 PART 1,2 l' OWNER CIMAS CONSTRUCTION LTD. DATE OCT 2, 2006 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. HPA 001/06 SCALE 1 :5000 CHECKED BY TM eta ~Durcell: PN-RUR ;t ~cr8ge~p~nJe~;~a~~s '~~"op~~~.:t~,t:r:~~~"sRe-:'~"':~d~taN~e~er;~:~ ~rlS~r~I:.n of survey.