Hughes Downey Architects Tel.: Rideau Street. Kingston, ON K7K 3A4 Fax:

Transcription

1 Date: May 30th, 2018 To: Alex Rowse-Thompson From: Bruce Downey Re: Response to Proposed Development for 81 King St Kingston specifically related to the proposed garage extension structure Company: Heritage Planner CC: Stephen Sorensen, Mark Peabody Bob Clark Bob Tchegus Greg Newman Alex, I have been engaged by Stephen Sorenson, the owner of 85 King Street to examine the impact of the proposed garage extension to 81 King Street on the subject property, 85 King Street and the streetscape along King Street. I have worked as part of Mr. Sorensen s consultant team for the past 3 years on the restoration and alterations of 85 King Street. It has been a rare occurrence for me to work with a property owner, such as Mr. Sorenson, who carries a desire to learn the myriad of elements of design and construction that make up the historic property he owns. Thank you for the time you and Greg Newman took to meet with us. I think in hearing Mr. Sorensen s comments you can appreciate the passion he feels for what he has taken on as owner of 85 King St. I offer the following for your consideration: Proposal for 81 King Street The proposed alterations include a variety of elements. This submission is directed at only the garage extension, site alterations related to it, and the impact of those changes to the 81 King street property, the adjacent historic property at 85 King and the streetscape along King. I have been presented by City Heritage Staff with the following: - Proposed Site Plan dated May 11, 2018 prepared by Alexander Wilson Architect Inc. - Existing East Elevation dated May 11, 2018 prepared by Alexander Wilson - Proposed East Elevation dated May 11, 2018 prepared by Alexander Wilson - Proposed Garage Massing dated May 11, 2018 prepared by Alexander Wilson - Heritage Impact Statement dated May 10, 2018 prepared by Andre Scheinman 354

2 I am aware there are alterations included in the owners of 81 King s submission to the City that are not depicted in detail on the drawings (such as the perimeter fencing) and that there is an application for a Minor Variance in place. In this response I am focusing on the form of the addition and have not addressed materials or detailing. 81 King Street The HIS provides many worthwhile pieces of information related to the history and important elements of this property which I appreciated reading. Site Building Form Configuration The existing configuration of building forms on the 81 King St. property is one found along the extent of King Street facing the park and throughout the Sydenham Ward District. The primary structure takes a leading position in the front yard with ancillary buildings at the side or in the rear. There are no instances, I am aware of, where an ancillary use, such as a garage, extends into the front yard beyond the chief façade making the proposed configuration an anomaly. It can be argued that such estate residences can have groupings of structures that create an enclosure or courtyard. These I have found are more common in rural settings. In Sydenham Ward and other historic areas of Kingston, such enclosures or groupings of structures are commonly if not always- found at the side or rear of the primary façade. It is what distinguishes properties constructed in the times of horse and carriage from those constructed in a time of automobiles. An automotive vehicle garage in the front yard is more often prevalent in modern residential settings. This property s early development, when there was much land around it, shows no evidence of such a front yard courtyard configuration. Streetscape Along King Facing the Park A stroll from Emily Street to West Street and continuing towards Kingston s downtown offers a display of large homes having ancillary uses in the side or rear yards as does 81 King Street. The built form suggested would be unique and out of place along this stretch of King and diminish the physical impact offered by the existing façade stepping out towards King and rising in height to the main entrance bay. That configuration is an exceptional component of this site layout and consistent in site plans along this street. It has been suggested that vegetation will be added to mitigate the physical impact of what is proposed. Documents submitted show a thick cover of trees concealing the view of the front elevation. It initially reminds me of the well-known rational for vines being applied to conceal bad design. More seriously it must be appreciated that we do not want to support the employment of vegetation to conceal our historic structures or the designated properties that hold them. 355

3 This property has a building placement set back from the street thus offering an open view from the corner across the site. The reorientation of the garage only removes the view of that garage for a direct front elevation. There is something inherently false about the need to conceal a building element (garage or carriage house) in an urban fabric where such components are honestly depicted and often appreciated for their contribution to an understanding of the architectural, technological and social period during which such structures were erected. Hiding, to whatever degree, an ill placed element does not conceal it from people knowing it is there. It must also be considered that vegetation changes during winter months. 85 King Street 85 and 81 King Street share the block frontage facing the park. The development of these properties has been carried out with the chief facades dominant to King Street. Both properties have their ancillary uses in the side or rear yards. The structures are both quite tall and handsome and neighbourly in that they offer a side view to one another. This feature is an important characteristic indicative of a time when built form communication was prevalent on an urban streetscape. Extending the garage into the front yard along the adjoining property line will effectively conceal these properties from one another. It is true as well that the expansion within two feet of the property line will be a substantial structure having a ridge height taller than the existing carriage house, regrettably enclosing a large portion of the west yard of 85 King. It forms a dividing line between properties that has not existed and if altered in this way will never be returned. Alternatives I understand and appreciate the great benefit offered in the ability to retain this fine building with the potential of it rehabilitation and restoration in serving this new owner. HIS submissions are often developed after design has been created. I am not aware of the design process employed that lead to this submission. I have seen no alternatives or design evolution that incorporated the Heritage Consultants parameters for site development. The HIS makes no mention of the design team being provided, along with the client s space needs, with an understanding of the elements of the site layout indicative of a property of this sort. I must assume that one of the design criteria, requested of the present owners, is for there to be a garage of the size indicated. The design rational presented for the present configuration is to remove the presentation of the garage doors from King St. by extending the garage or essentially repositioning the garage component in the front yard so the doors might face west toward Maitland Street. As I have noted above this only removes the view of these doors from a direct view along King. The house being on a corner lot provides a view of the doors from Maitland and along King until the passerby is directly in front of the new 1 ½ storey addition. 356

4 An alternative that might have been considered would be to leave the garage where it is but enlarge it to accommodate modern vehicles, as noted in the HIS, and even extend the façade of the garage into the front yard but only by 10 to 15 feet, retaining a position behind the principle façade. It would also be necessary to provide this new addition with a street facing elevation and stature that left no doubt as to this portion of the home providing a support service. It is true the doors would face King Street, but they have faced King Street for a very long time. Their presence can be limited through use of colour and lack of ornamental detailing. Both garage configurations seem to require the driver to back into the turnaround parking area to leave the site unless they had backed into the garage when parking. Conclusion The present site layout, placing the new garage in the front yard, is an anomaly and I would be surprised if it was not stated as undesirable by Heritage Planners. The solution is also not consistent with the understanding of site layout offered to me during the 30 years I spent serving this City through the Heritage Committee and its predecessors as well as with my work on historic properties in this and other communities. I know the decision of City Staff on this matter is not an easy one. Alterations to heritage properties is not as simple or mathematical as zoning regulations. It requires an understanding of what is essential in the layout, configuration, and detail of a property which communicates that property s history, the life style it held, technical abilities of the period and the social setting during which it was constructed. There have been attempts to simplify this task to bring consistency in this decision making with the use of guidelines and policies -like the principle the ridge line should not be altered or what happens in the rear of a property does not mean as much as what happens on a street façade. Often how that decision leans depends on the personal preferences and experience of who is making that decision, in addition to economics, and political will. There are property owners who have wished changes to their property and been denied. There are property owners to come who will request alterations and wish to understand the rational for how their matter will be evaluated. Whether or not applicants come with a level of experience in heritage matters they will examine how a municipality has treated its historic properties and seek consistency in a decision on their issue. Property owners want to understand the rational for decision making related to alterations and/or additions to their property. The decision on this garage sets the bar and informs a climate of consistency. Denials are upsetting and when significant alterations are permitted, and smaller changes denied it creates confusion and conflict. Is altering a ridgeline all that important when a request for a 1 ½ storey 3 car garage the size of a small home in the front yard of an historic property is approved? Owners, politicians, designers, contractors, and planners want an understanding of what is important. 357

5 Setting the criteria for evaluating the import of alterations is established with every decision. This is not a new window or dormer or paint colour This proposal is setting a different kind of bar. I think the designers have done what they can to address a solution that is, as their heritage consultant states, not ideal. The author of the HIS recognizes the importance of letting the primary structure remain prominent in the front yard by stating that ideally the addition would not be beyond the front porch. I would suggest it should rest behind the frontmost façade. I believe the owner has options that need to be investigated. I know there are as series of approvals this property is seeking, one being Heritage Approval in June I am aware that City Staff will impose a series of conditions for the development of 81 King St. I understand from the Owner and their Architect there is much work to be done in the suggested conversion. The garage space the Owner has requested can be accommodated as outline above without extending into the front yard beyond the present structure. As the garage is a new component to the site and there is so much to be done to the existing garages and the rest of the house, perhaps approval might be given to the rest of the conversion with a provision to permit a limited garage extension as suggested above until options have been developed for consideration. In this way the owners can proceed with work. Respectfully submitted, R. Bruce Downey 358