Minutes of Built Heritage Experts Panel

-
Virtual
Present:
  • Glenn Barnes, Chairperson
  • Bruce Blackwood, Contractor
  • Dawn Boutilier, Planner
  • Rachel Fitkowski, Landscape Architect
  • Mark Whalen, Architecture
Regrets:
  • Garnet Kindervater, Contractor
Staff:
  • Ken O'Brien, Chief Municipal Planner
  • Ann Marie Cashin, Heritage and Urban Planner
  • Rob Schamper, Technical Advisor
  • Maureen Harvey, Legislative Assistant

​​


  • Recommendation
    Moved ByBruce Blackwood
    Seconded ByRachel Fitkowski

    That the agenda be adopted as presented.

    CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4 to 0)
  • Recommendation
    Moved ByBruce Blackwood
    Seconded ByMark Whalen

    That the minutes of May 13, 2020 be adopted as presented.

    CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Karl Kenny, Eddi Kenny and Stratford Barrett were in attendance

The City has received an application to subdivide the property at 36 Cabot Avenue into three lots. The subdivision would add two building lots with single detached dwellings fronting Battery Road. The subject property is within Heritage Area 3, the Residential Medium Density District of the St. John’s Municipal Plan and is zoned Residential Battery (RB).

Each dwelling is proposed to be three storeys in height with a garage. The proposed height would be in keeping with the adjacent buildings at 38-42 Battery Road.  The applicants are currently undergoing the LUAR process for development approval.

The delegation was welcomed to the meeting at 12:17 pm and proceeded to provide an overview of the application.

Discussion took place with comments on the following:

  • building height and massing
  • maintenance of varying heights and broken-up massing
  • roofline
  • windows
  • cladding
  • garage setback
  • trees at the rear of the lot
  • landscaping at the front

Concerns were also raised about the setback of the buildings near the intersection of Cabot Avenue and Battery Road. These concerns have been forwarded to the Development Officer.

  • Recommendation
    Moved ByBruce Blackwood
    Seconded ByRachel Fitkowski

    1. That Council approve the building height and massing at 36 Cabot Avenue as proposed.


    2. That the applicant include the following design considerations when completing detailed design:
    • That the dwellings maintain the varying heights and broken-up massing;
    • That the roofline be in keeping with the Battery area. For example, a shed roof that slopes from front to back;
    • That the windows be a single-hung style;
    • That the cladding be clapboard, or a similar style;
    • If possible, that the garages be set back from the main building;
    • If possible, that the trees at the rear of the lot be maintained;
    • That the landscaping at the front of the building be in keeping with the Battery area.


    3. That the design be brought back to the Built Heritage Experts Panel prior to issuance of building permits.

    CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Rodney Marsh, and Sarah Parker-Charles were in attendance

Prior to the commencement of discussion on this matter Mark Whalen declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the meeting. 

The City received an application for exterior façade renovations at 69 Patrick Street. The subject property is located within Heritage Area 2, is in the Residential Medium Density District of the St. John’s Municipal Plan and is zoned Residential High Density (RHD). The building is not designated by Council as a Heritage Building.

The existing dwelling is a two-and-a-half storey semi-detached dwelling. According to the applicant, the existing floor structures are substandard with reduced headroom on the upper two floors. As a result, the applicant is proposing to install a new floor structure throughout and reduce the dwelling to two storeys. This can be completed as an interior renovation that will not alter the height or roofline of the dwelling, however the renovation will change the window placement on the front façade. In addition to this, the applicant is also proposing a number of exterior renovations:
• As part of an energy upgrade, the applicant is proposed to use a ‘tilt and turn’ Kohler window rather than single-hung windows. The applicant recognizes that large un-interrupted glass may not be appropriate in this neighbourhood and have proposed single-pane windows with superficial divisions.
• The proposed siding will be a combination of wood horizontal clapboard with wood shingles on the mansard roof. The proposed trims will maintain the traditional arrangement.
• The porch will be removed from the front of the structure. The porch was not original to the building.
• The addition of two round porthole-style windows on the side and rear elevation.

The delegation was welcomed to the meeting and provided an overview of the application.

Discussion took place with comments about the following:

  • view of the structure (front and side) from the street
  • height to width ratio of the windows as it relates to the adjacent structure
  • as the existing building is symmetrical, any changes will deter from a uniform design that is in keeping with townhouses.
  • windows in mansard roof are not proportionate

Following the departure of the delegation at 1:17 pm the Panel made a recommendation to reject the application with the design proposed as it doesn't fit with the heritage character and the deviation in design is too extreme to make it more aesthetically pleasing.  However, subsequent to the meeting, the applicant advised of the intent to undertake a redesign of the structure.  This will come back to the Panel at a later date. 

Mark Whalen returned to the meeting.

Revised Drawing based on discussion at May 13, 2020 meeting.

The Panel reviewed the revised design for 150 New Gower Street and offered the following comments:
• The Panel thanks the applicant for being cooperative throughout this process and including the BHEP recommendations into the revised design;
• It is recommend that the first storey upper moulding be slightly thicker to place emphasis on the first storey. This could include a sign band similar to the Johnny Ruth sign band for the proposed commercial areas.

The Panel confirmed an earlier recommendation when completing the LUAR:
• Landscaping - enhance the pedestrian experience throughout and surrounding the site by creating landscaped walkways that lead to surrounding streets. One area where this could be achieved is via the walkway adjacent to Tamarack Construction on Hamilton Avenue. The entryway from New Gower St. should also be reviewed to determine if any accommodations can be made to provide access to the bank (formerly Andrews’ Range), without compromising the required easement.

At this stage, revised drawings do not have to go back to the BHEP until the LUAR is submitted. 

The Panel agreed that the next meetings would be held as follows:

  • June 24, 2020
  • July 22, 2020
  • August 19, 2020

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:35 pm.