Project Details
2.5 The proposed development
The Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, Stantec, August 2007) notes with respect to the property: A large parcel of land on the east side of Margaret Avenue is currently vacant, except for a number of mature trees. .... .... Because it is such a large site and is located on one of the more highly travelled streets in the District, it has pronounced visibility with the potential to significantly enhance or detract from the overall character of the neighbourhood depending on the ultimate appearance of development on the site.
Figure 4 illustrates how the proposed development reflects the streetscape and scale of Margaret Avenue opposite and how it creates a rhythm that reflects the original lot configuration. Driveways at either end of the development lead to an underground garage. Setbacks reflect those in the
neighbourhood. Landscape plantings are consistent with historic patterns. Placement of buildings perpendicular to the street in the established pattern of the neighbourhood, step backs of the upper floors, and rear yard setbacks are designed to prevent shading issues associated with the structures. The proposed development respects the historic context of both the property and the neighbourhood.
2.6 Conservation - principles and mitigation
Heritage features on the property are limited to the mature trees as no structures or remnants of structures remain.
Guidance to conservation is provided in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, (Stantec, August 2007) as outlined in section “2.0 Heritage and Design Considerations
- the Heritage Impact Assessment” of this report. The principles are re-stated here, with commentson how they are to be implemented.
• New development on the vacant lot on Margaret Avenue should establish a strong relationship to the street similar to that which exists on the south side of the street, by having a maximum front yard setback of 10 metres
Residences on the opposite side of the street have setbacks that range from 0 to 10 metres. These setbacks are a guide for 30 - 40 Margaret Avenue, assuming that the proposed buildings are in scale with those that exist opposite.
The residential units proposed for the property are four storeys set back 4.5 m from the street, with the 5th and 6th storeys set back another 3 m. The scale of the buildings at the 4.5 metre setback is consistent with the existing streetscape and well within the maximum front yard setback of 10 metres recommended.
• A minimum rear yard setback of 10 to 15 metres is encouraged to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street West, given that the topography slopes downwards from Margaret Avenue to Ellen Street. This rear yard setback is also more consistent with that of existing development on Ellen Street.
Proposed rear yard setbacks range from 8.3 to almost 30 metres. The stepped-backed configuration at the rear of the buildings, in concert with the generous rear yard setbacks, prevents shadows from encroaching on the neighbouring Ellen Street properties.
• Building stepbacks are encouraged for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. Stepbacks should be a minimum of 2 metres to provide for useable outdoor terraces on the upper levels.
See first bullet point above.
• Street level architecture of any new development on Margaret Avenue should incorporate a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and compatibility with existing buildings across the street. Details could include cornices, pilasters, varied roof lines, pitched roofs, gables and dormers, decorative door and window details, turrets, porches, bays and other similar features.
Figures 5 and 6 show how the first floor is separated from the next three floors with a strong, stone cornice, breaking the verticality of the building. As well, the fifth floor is set back from the floors below and the mansard roof contains the sixth floor. French windows, balconies and metal railings add interest unlike the apartment buildings across the street.
• Create transitions in building width and massing by dividing the building visually into smaller units or sections that are more representative of the predominantly single family nature of the neighbourhood.
Although much of the neighbourhood is single family housing, the property on Margaret Avenue is anchored at one end by a church and at the other by a large late 19th / early 20th century residence, while across the street are five 2 ½ storey residences flanked by an 18 storey apartment building and a four storey apartment.
The proposal reflects the original lot configuration with a varied setback resembling individual buildings providing a transition from the scale of development on the other side of the street to the residences to the east.
• The use of brick and / or stone is strongly encouraged for the front façade of any new development, to establish consistency with other heritage buildings in proximity to this parcel of land.
The façade materials and colours of the development are selected from a pallette reminiscent of adjacent neighbourhood historic building materials, namely brick fields with stone accents and metal railing details. (See figure 7)
• Parking for new development will not be permitted in the front yard. Underground parking is strongly encouraged, or appropriately landscaped and screened surface parking at the rear or side of the development.
Surface parking is limited to the rear yard. Approximately thirty-two spaces are provided at grade in the rear yard, with the remainder in a two level underground structure. Two driveways enter on Margaret Avenue, one at either end of the development. The remainder of the streetscape is automobile-free.
• Retention and incorporation of healthy trees currently located on the vacant land parcel is strongly encouraged to provide the new development with an ‘instant’ amenity and to help it blend into the heritage landscape that exists in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Design new buildings around the existing trees to the extent possible. Where trees must be removed, they should be replaced with new ones at appropriate locations in the landscape.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to preserve the existing, mature trees on this property. In order to accommodate the principles noted above, i.e. reduce the height of the buildings; divide the building visually into smaller units or sections; encourage underground parking; etc., a parking garage footprint that encompasses most of the site is required. With the extent of the excavation required for the garage, trees within 10 metres of the foundation walls would be affected negatively.
A survey of the existing trees was conducted in July 2008 and the results can be found in appendix 3. Many of the trees are in fair to very poor condition and are not worthy of conservation. New trees of appropriate species will be planted to replace those being removed. There is ample opportunity to re-plant in the landscaped areas which comprise approximately 27% of the property.
Unlike the illustrations in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, the proposal locates the new buildings in the same orientation as the original residences and those in the neighbourhood. This arrangement not only respects and mimics the historic patterns of the property, but also avoids shadowing its neighbours.
Recapping:
Hearing delayed for apartment building in heritage district
March 17, 2009
Terry Pender, RECORD STAFF - KITCHENER
http://news.therecord.com/article/504579
The long-planned move to protect the city's oldest neighbourhood from unsightly new buildings is stuck in bureaucratic limbo.
And it could be another six months before it's known if the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District will become a reality or get struck down by a provincial board.
In an effort to block the heritage designation of the area, Community Expansion Inc., the developer that wants to put up a five-storey apartment building on Margaret Avenue, has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, the provincial tribunal that rules on land-use disputes.
A meeting of the board was scheduled for March 17, but after a request for a delay from Community Expansion, that meeting has been pushed back to Sept. 1.
"We have a concern in terms that we don't want this to go on indefinitely," Leon Bensason, the city's heritage planner, said.
"Because of this appeal the implementation of this bylaw is put on hold for the rest of the district while we deal with the issues of one appellant," Bensason said.
Next month, the developer is expected to formally apply for approval of the development with an application for site plan approval.
Once that happens, Community Expansion will hold a public meeting on its proposal for 30-40 Margaret Ave., that includes six buildings with up to five storeys each.
"There is a considerable amount of community interest in this development," Bensason said. Community Expansion and the city are close to an agreement on the design of the five-storey buildings slated for Margaret Avenue that meets the city's conservation objectives, he said.
If the two parties can reach an agreement before the municipal board hearing in September, Bensason said he expects the developer to withdraw the appeal.
And that would clear the way for the final step in the creation of the city's fourth heritage conservation district.
"If it isn't at a point where it can be approved then we will use the Sept. 1 date to scope the issues with the board and deal with those issues at a full hearing shortly after September," Bensason said.
After years of study and public meetings, city councillors voted to create the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District about a year ago.
Bounded by Weber, parts of Victoria, Lancaster, Ellen and Queen streets the district contains about 340 properties, mostly residential.
Characterized by tree-shaded streets and lanes, the area has some of the city's most outstanding examples of Victorian-era architecture. Some of the city's leading citizens and industrialists lived in the neighbourhood in the 1800s and early 1900s.
Kerry Kirby, who chairs Heritage Kitchener, is puzzled by the developer's opposition to the Heritage Conservation District.
When Heritage Kitchener was briefed on the proposed development, it liked the plans.
"They worked with the city and with Heritage Kitchener and the plans that they brought we agreed to," Kirby said.
Developer opposes plans for new heritage district
June 05, 2008
Terry Pender, RECORD STAFF - KITCHENER
http://news.therecord.com/article/361800
The owners of long-vacant lots on Margaret Avenue are trying to scuttle the city's move to preserve the historic character of the Civic Centre neighbourhood.
Community Expansion Inc., a Kitchener-based company, objects to the height restrictions on new buildings proposed for the Civic Centre heritage conservation district.
"They are the only ones who have a complaint," Kerry Kirby, the chair of Heritage Kitchener, said in an interview.
"I hope the majority rules. The majority of people in that area want the heritage conservation district," Kirby said.
After about two years of study and public meetings, city councillors voted a few months ago to create the Civic Centre heritage conservation district.
Community Expansion Inc. did not respond to requests for an interview.
This is the oldest neighbourhood in Kitchener. Tree-shaded streets are lined with homes dating back to the 1800s. This neighbourhood was home to some of the city's early industrialists and community leaders.
"There are lots of old homes there that need to be saved," Kirby said.
The Kaufman family, who became famous for making boots and lumber, built mansions at 22 and 32 Margaret Ave. The Kaufman family offered to sell the buildings to the city to ensure the historic homes remained, but the city didn't want to purchase the properties.
The Kaufman mansions were sold to financier Heinz Kraushaar, who secured the permission of city council in 1988 to demolish the historic mansions and other nearby properties on Margaret Avenue. Kraushaar wanted to build condo- miniums.
After paying $1.9 million for the properties, Kraushaar razed six houses along Margaret Street to make way for two seven-storey buildings. One building would have 68 units. The second would contain 123 units.
About nine years later the city seized and sold the properties to recover unpaid taxes. The new owners of the Margaret Avenue properties, Community Expansion Inc., talked about a residential development for the site eight years ago, but nothing has happened since.
Twenty years after the landmark buildings were destroyed, the current owner is asking the Ontario Municipal Board -- a provincial tribunal that rules on land-use disputes -- to exempt a stretch of Margaret Avenue from the city's proposal for the fourth heritage conservation district.
"We only received one appeal," Leon Bensason, the city's heritage planner, said in an interview.
The creation of the district means the exterior of all the buildings, the old trees and streetscape are all protected under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Any changes to the buildings in the district that can be seen from the street must be approved by Heritage Kitchener, a committee that advises city councillors on heritage issues.
"I am disappointed we have to go through the process of preparing for an OMB hearing, but I am confident we can defend the principles and reasons behind the heritage conservation district," Bensason said.
This conservation district contains about 340 properties, mostly residential, but with some commercial retail and office uses, primarily along Victoria and Weber streets. Under the zoning changes that come with the conservation district, new buildings along Margaret Avenue cannot be higher than five floors.
On Lancaster and Queen streets new buildings are restricted to three floors.
Along Weber Street, a new building higher than three floors must be at least 15 metres from the rear property line. That rule aims to protect the old homes along Roy Street.
But it is the height restrictions for Margaret Avenue that sparked the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
"I think the developer will get thrown out on his ear," Robert Shipley, a University of Waterloo professor of urban planning, said of the appeal.
"The city did an excellent study for this heritage conservation district, and the developer had lots of time before this to raise objections."
Kitchener’s fourth heritage district establishment faces delays
December 20, 2009
By Terry Pender, Record staff
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/647561
KITCHENER — The establishment of the city’s fourth heritage conservation district is mired in a complicated mix of development applications, appeals and contingent opposition.
On Friday a provincial tribunal that rules on land use disputes, the Ontario Municipal Board, held a meeting at Kitchener City Hall to hear from different parties associated with the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District.
The municipal board has scheduled a hearing for September 2010 for the appeal filed by Community Expansion Inc., a local developer that opposes — sort of — the creation of the conservation district.
“I think there is a sense of frustration, perhaps, that one property is holding up the heritage conservation district,” Donna Kuehl, of Ahrens Street, said.
Kuehl is a former member of Heritage Kitchener, the proud owner of a beautiful old house and a strong supporter of Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District.
The district, which is bounded by Weber, Victoria, Lancaster, Ellen and Queen streets, aims to preserve the streetscape and buildings of the city’s oldest neighbourhood that contains many properties of historic and architectural significance.
“It is in limbo,” Kuehl said. “It is difficult to comprehend, it is so convoluted it is difficult to explain to people.”
Public meetings started in 2005. Consultants were retained in 2006. A plan for the conservation district was produced in 2007. More public meetings were held. City council passed a bylaw creating the district in February 2008.
Then hurdles started appearing.
Community Expansion Inc. wants to build a six-storey residential building at 30-40 Margaret Ave. with underground parking.
The proposed building will occupy most of the lot and come to within four and six metres of the property lines. The developer needs special permission from the city to do this — an amendment to the city’s official plan and a change in zoning.
If the city agrees, the developer will drop the municipal board appeal that opposes the creation of the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District, Eric Kraushaar, the lawyer for Community Expansion, said at the meeting.
He said the current bylaws allow the developer to build a narrower, eight storey apartment building with bare facades. Rather than do that the developer worked with staff to design a six storey building with architectural features better suited to a heritage conservation district, Kraushaar said.
But some neighbours, including Tyson Reiser, are vehemently opposed to the development.
The old mansions along that stretch of Margaret Avenue were demolished in 1988—a move that still rankles among heritage preservationists. Since then the property has been a green space shaded by 100-year-old trees.
Reiser said the proposed building comes too close to the backyards of homes on Ellen Street, will destroy too many mature trees, come too close to the property line at the front, will cast too much shade in the winter, raise the temperature of nearby houses in the summer and will have too many people living in one place.
Reiser and his supporters will closely watch how the city handles the zoning and planning applications from the developer. If the city approves the developer’s requests then the residents could appeal those decisions to the municipal board.
“If they appeal that then everything goes to this board hearing next September,” Leon Bensason, the city’s head heritage planning, said in an interview. “We will have to find out if in the end everyone will be satisfied or not,” he said.
Last edited by Spokes; 07-15-2010 at 06:54 PM.
You've got to assume that if it goes to the OMB, the development will go forward. Shouldn't the city just approve this one?
Now, had the buildings not been torn down in the first place, that'd be a whole other story, but they were, so this development seems to fit quite well.
Excited to see what happens here. It should fit in the Civic District quite well.
PLANNING MATTERS | Friday, May 28, 2010
PROPERTY OWNERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED TO ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION, PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENTS UNDER THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS 17, 22, 34 AND 51 OF THE PLANNING ACT
3. 30-40 Margaret Avenue
The subject lands are currently designated Medium Density Multiple Residential in the Civic Centre Secondary Plan and are zoned Residential Eight (R8). The owner is proposing to add a Special Policy to the Official Plan designation and a Special Regulation Provision to the zoning by-law to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.5 for a multiple dwelling. The proposed Special Regulation Provision to the zoning by-law would also permit a reduced front yard setback, and a reduced side yard setback where the subject property abuts the rear yard of 37 Ellen Street West. Elizabeth Brown, Planner - elizabeth.brown@kitchener.ca
The public meeting will be held by the City’s Development and Technical Services Committee, a Committee of Council which deals with planning matters on:
MONDAY, June 21 at 7:00 P.M.Any person may attend the Public Meeting and make written and/or verbal representation either in support of, or in opposition to, any of the above noted proposals. If a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision, does not make oral submissions at this public meeting or make a written submission prior to approval/refusal of these proposals, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of a subsequent appeal. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION is available by contacting the appropriate staff person noted above, viewing the report contained in the meeting agenda (available on the Friday afternoon prior to the meeting, in the calendar section of the website http://www.kitchener.ca/calendar/calendarEvent.aspx), or in person at the Development and Technical Services Department - Planning Division, 6th Floor, City Hall, 200 King Street West, Kitchener between 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday to Friday).
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2nd FLOOR, CITY HALL
200 KING STREET WEST, KITCHENER
This one's going to face a ton of opposition. Hopefully there's some good support too though. I like the project and am in favour of it. If the city doesn't change the zoning, the OMB will.
Is there likely to be any opposition on Council?
Hard to say. With that much opposition in the public, there could be. Not sure if anyone has come out speaking one way or another though.
I hope not. This could be a great development for Margaret Street. It has a "luxury" look to it, and I think it would fit in well with the surrounding area.
It is also mid-rise at 6 floors so it's not like it will tower over everything like a high rise.
Exactly! The developer did a good job designing it to the neighbourhood. He didn't have to either. He could have gone with a narrower 8 storey plain building which wouldn't have looked nearly as good and not had to change the zoning.
This proposal is hideous--very North Toronto c.1995. Surely a building like this one by Peter Clewes would be more appropriate?
I've been reading WW for a while and like the site a lot, but this example of a good design does not fit in the neighbourhood at all.Originally Posted by urbandreamer
I would consider it a considerable improvement. Certainly better esthetically than the highrise boxes across the street. The intensification would represent an big plus for the neighbourhood. Exactly the kind of thing that Downtown needs.
Are you kidding me? That doesn't fit into this HERITAGE district at all. This project as designed does.
Really? This looks a great fit for Harbourfront, but why do you think this scale/style suits the Queen & Margaret heritage area better than the proposal?
Last edited by garthdanlor; 05-31-2010 at 09:03 AM. Reason: spelling
A better location for such a building would be the barrel yards, too late for that though, or spanning across the two UW parking lots on either side of Seagram Drive.
I own a condo just around the corner and agree with urbandreamer 100%. The idea is brilliant.
We tend to take heritage districts to literally. Unless the builder is willing to put the same craftsmanship (materials, design and attention to details) that the surrounding buildings have, the proposed plan, as it stands now, is contrived and uninspiring.
I would love to see us step out of the box and integrate modern architecture into these neighborhoods. The contradictions would be more interesting and more appealing (eventually) then trying to just blend in.
Yeah, I think a development like that (in a smaller market like KW at least) would demand a prominent location where it could be seen, not tucked away and hidden in a fairly quiet residential area.
While I agree with you that I'd love to see more projects that have out of the box designs, I just feel like the civic district might not be the place for it. I love the design that urbandreamer posted, just not for that particular lot.
I bet there are alot of home owners on Ellen St who are sad their back yard "wilderness" area is being developed.
Not digging the suburban faux-heritage design or the loss of mature trees. Either reduce the setback and give it a nice street-facing design with front steps for the ground floor units (rowhouse-style?), or leave the setback and keep the trees. All of them.
Reply
