You need to be signed in to add your comment.

Heritage Areas

11 months ago

Feel free to discuss what you like and don't like about the proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in this forum. Remember to complete the feedback form that will run from Jan. 31 through to Feb. 15 on The feedback form will also be available at the library and city hall.

Consultation has concluded

  • David Schumack 10 months ago
    This is a quote from the city of Penticton “The “K Streets” includes the Kilwinning, Kensington, Killarney and Queen Streets and feature primarily post- war houses”. PRIMARILY does not fit when you look at the numbers of post war houses on Queen Street. Six post war houses does not total even 1/3 of the 19 properties on Queen street. ALL the houses on the EAST side of Queen street have a driveway into the properties which does not fit in with the heritage zoning plan. The north east property which is a modular has a very vast large area that is rock landscaping. Please exclude Queen street from the heritage zone. Thank you
  • Jacquie Kay 10 months ago
    I live on Killarney Street and strongly agree with Jill Moreton's comments. In particular, mention of restrictions relating to size, density and setbacks being achieved through zoning. At the public presentation I attended, one of 3 options was put forward by Mr. Johnson which was to work toward creating a new “Zoning Type”. It would address height and setback restrictions, cannot regulate form and character, but it has been designated as a future work item post OCP. This sounds like a very worthwhile option to explore before deciding to implement the HCA into the OCP.
  • Jill Moreton 10 months ago
    I attended one of the presentations at the library and found it informative and also helpful to hear how other area residents felt about their neighbourhoods and this proposal. I live on Kilwinning St and fully appreciate the qualities of size,scale and friendliness of this area. As others have commented there are many other parts of Penticton possessing the small town charm that attracts people here. Preserving that will be a balance of development control and future vision so that we don't ruin what we have. I think restrictions relating to size, setbacks and density could provide the protection many people (including me) are in agreement with and possibly be achieved with zoning. It is difficult to legislate taste. I would like to see a focus on quality of life as opposed to money guiding development here. Look at the James Bay area of Victoria as an example of thoughtful development and densification. It can be done.
  • PT Gayler 11 months ago
    Why single-out the K-streets and Windsor Avenue areas for special consideration ? Shouldn't all mature residential areas of the city -- and the citizens who live there -- be treated with respect when it comes to property development ? Why shouldn't someone living on Ellis St, Conklin Ave, Edmonton Ave, Dynes Ave or Roy Avenue be treated with the same consideration by city council and staff as their fellow citizens in The Uplands, the Wiltse neighbourhood, or the K-streets ?To do otherwise is discriminatory.
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton 11 months ago
      Thank you for your comment. Property development - the form of what is built - is regulated by zoning, and any changes to zoning require a public hearing at Council. Zoning is the best tool to control what is built where, and as such works well for much of the city. The reason these two neighbourhoods are being proposed as Heritage Conservation Areas is that 1) we heard in the community engagement that they were unique, and 2) in our assessment, they both have an intact, cohesive character (streetscape, era of development, architecture) that other neighbourhoods do not. This is not suggest there aren't great examples of character houses or streets in other parts of the city - there are - but these are larger areas of heritage character worth considering.
      • PT Gayler 11 months ago
        I respectfully disagree with your statement that "Zoning is the best tool to control what is built where, and as such works well for much of the city." Drive -- or, better still, walk -- through any of our mature neighbourhoods and you will almost certainly see examples of recently-built residential properties that add nothing to the streetscape or, more likely, significantly detract from it. Decades of development and design neglect in these neighbourhoods is what has created the absence of "an intact, cohesive character" and, IMO, during the 7 years I have lived here it has only gotten worse.
        • christopherkrause 11 months ago
          I think what Mr. Johnson is saying is that it is impractical, as well as unwise, to try to micro-manage the appearance of every new home built anywhere in Penticton to suit the tastes of a vocal minority. Rather the question is whether any single area has a character which is exceptionally cohesive, as well as exceptionally valued by the community at large for its aesthetics, history, etc., in order to take the extraordinary step of restricting its appearance and ongoing development. I think the K streets do have that character and the neighborhood is worthy of protection especially from more "eyesores" like the few that have already cropped up. However we must be careful not to tread too much on a homeowner's autonomy. The houses are not new, and many are not in great shape. A homebuyer seeking to purchase and modernize a home here may be deterred by excessive restrictions. The neighborhood may suffer as the homes get bought up by absentee landlords and needed renovations are not performed.
        • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton 11 months ago
          Hello Patrick. Under the Local Government Act, the City cannot regulate the form and character of single family homes through Development Permits. DP's can only be used for Intensive Residential (duplexes, rowhouses, etc) and Multifamily residential development (plus industrial, commercial, environmentally sensitive, etc). The only tool at our disposal that can regulate the 'feel' of character neighbourhoods is the designation of Heritage Conservation Areas, which requires a clear rationale of heritage character across an area. While there are some great examples of heritage and character houses in many parts of Penticton, there are only a couple of areas where one could make the case there is a coherent, consistent heritage character in place today. I hear your concerns that character has been lost in the past; the intention here is to explore protecting the areas that are left.
          • PT Gayler 11 months ago
            As recently as February 2016 city council approved Development Variance Permit PL2015-7581 which approved deviations for minimum lot width (from 13m to 9.1m), minimum lot area(from 390 m2 to 221m2) and minimum interior yard setback (from 1.5m to 1.2m) for a vacant lot at 1182 Queen St. It is extremely disappointing and disheartening to read that city planners -- employees in the Planning Department -- have recently advised the owner to apply for additional variances so that he can build an 1800 square foot 2-story in-fill home with an attached garage. It is this type of over-development that is ruining the character of our mature neighbourhoods ... and city staff are STILL actively encouraging it !
        • Riley Devlin 10 months ago
          If you want to live in a neighbourhood where everything looks the same and has the same feel then move to one of the many 'newer' neighbourhoods where they have restrictive covenants in place to protect the look and feel. Imposing these covenants on all existing property owners is ludicrous.
  • David Schumack 11 months ago
    Hello. I first want to mention that I live on Queen street. I see that Queen street is included to be in the heritage Conservation Area. On Queen street, there is a total of 19 homes. Out of the 19 homes; only 6 are houses that are post war houses. These post war houses are not an a majority, but less than 1/3 of the houses present. The rest of the houses are built around the 1990 to present day. There is one modular home as well as a two story house that have been built within the last two years on this street. In the last two years I have subdivided my property and have had the new lot up for sale for the last two years at 1182 Queen street. I have had a hard time selling this, and now I have been looking into building a house on this vacant lot. I have approached the city with questions around building; and the two city planners mentioned to apply for variances to build a house that would necessitate a 2 story house and possibly make the set back closer by 1 meter to Queen street and possibly being able to have a garage off the back side to the ally and have it connected to the house. If Queen street is included in this Heritage zone; this would extremely restrict the the size of house to be built on this very small lot. What i'm asking is for the city of Penticton not to include Queen street in the Heritage Conservation Area. Thank you , David
    • PT Gayler 11 months ago
      I assume you are referring to the vacant lot at 1182 Queen St which, according to MLS is only 2178 sq ft and listed for the princely sum of $215,000. In February 2016 city council approved Development Variance Permit PL2015-7581 which approved deviations for minimum lot width from 13m to 9.1m, minimum lot areafrom 390 m2 to 221m2 and minimum interior yard setback from 1.5m to 1.2m. It is extremely disappointing and disheartening to read that city planners -- employees in the Planning Department -- have advised you to apply for additional variances so that you can build an 1800 square foot 2-story infill home with an attached garage. It is this type of over-development that is ruining the character of our mature neighbourhoods ... and city staff are actively encouraging it !
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton 11 months ago
      Hi David. Thank you for sharing your perspective on why Queen Street should not be included in the Heritage Conservation Area. Your input is noted. We hope to see you at our public meetings later this week.
  • mars34 11 months ago
    As a resident of a K street I say YES! do something to keep the character of our neighbourhood. I live near two houses that have had extensive renovations. One very un-sympathetically, and while it is a nice house, it looks completely out of place and does affect the whole view of the street. The other was done to keep the character of the house intact and it fits in with the neighbourhood, but was still modernized and adapted to the needs of the new owner.A lot of us live in this neighbourhood because we like the little chocolate box houses. I don't want to have condos and multi family homes, or giant multi-storey houses built up to the property line looming over my back yard. If that is what you want, there are new neighbourhoods where those are the home styles available.To those of you who think this will devalue: only if you were buying in this area to flip the house and sell to a developer who wants to build a condo on the lot. The property prices here are quite high, both because it is desirable because people love the character of the neightbourhood and because developers see large lots that they can buy up and densify the area. Which will make the people who bought for the first reason sell cheap to get away from and then your property value will go down anyway.
    • PT Gayler 11 months ago
      Here's a reason NOT to support retaining the status quo -- large single-family-home lots -- in the K streets and the Windsor Ave areas: in order to achieve the targets the City has set for increasing the number of multi-family residential properties, they have to actively promote double, triple, quadruple or higher density in the remaining mature residential areas. How is that fair ? We get all the new 2 and 3-story duplexes, four-plexes, etc -- typically with woefully inadequate off-street parking provisions and questionable aesthetic appeal -- crammed onto the lots in our neighbourhood ... while you get to enjoy the benefits of low-density in perpetuity. Furthermore, those of us who own homes in medium-density neighbourhoods subsidize the cost of providing city services to homeowners in low-density neighbourhoods because the tax revenue per acre is higher and the City's cost-to-serve is the same or lower.
  • Art 11 months ago
    Regarding the designation of K-Streets and Windsor Ave as heritage conservation areas. First off I would suggest everyone take a look at the West side of Ontario Street. If this street is any example of what could happen to the K-streets and Windsor Ave without this new designation then something definitely needs to be done ASAP.West side of Ontario Street is a good example of what should never happen in any area of Penticton. But it will happen if we leave development up to realtors and most developers, and maybe even city hall. No yards, no privacy, no green space, overflow parking into Riparian Area on East Side of Ontario... Why has it developed like this? Now regarding the proposed Heritage Conservation Areas:These war time homes can be fixed up into descent homes, but let's face it they are not really “heritage homes” they were originally built on a budget to get housing for the baby boomers.I would suggest the best designation for this area would be to keep the yard sizes as they are -approximately 50 foot frontage 120 feet deep. Single family homes with a suite or minimal sized carriage house -could work. However if there is no restriction on size of carriage home, say a maximum of 700 sq feet, I would say no to carriage homes as well. No duplexes.I feel this would keep the “character” of these areas and allow them to remain a desirable place to live in community.
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton 11 months ago
      Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective, Art.
    • buggsy_45 11 months ago
      my concern is that it will devalue the property if it is blanket area.from what i read in here it was supposed to have been discussed with home owners.this is the first i have heard of suggestion is the city or whoever is behind this ask each home owner if they want to be included in this.and for the planers i should like to remind them not everyone has a computer and the net .some older people don't want them or know how to turn one one.oh and i see this plan is from our last mayor and council who was tossed out.
      • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement 11 months ago
        Hi Buggsy,The idea of creating heritage conservation areas has been discussed with the broader community as part of the Official Community Plan work. Recognizing the unique impact to residents, the City is exploring the idea with homeowners through a targeted consultation. While there has been general communication about the direction through local media, this is the first time we have specifically reached out to residents. We mailed out notices to residents, have advertised in the newspapers and are offering in-person information sessions as well as all of the web-based opportunities. All of these efforts are to determine if there is interest in pursuing the idea before a decision is made.
      • Art 11 months ago
        As I say, if something is not done to protect specific areas, We could have areas like the West side of Ontario popping up all over the city.
  • buggsy_45 11 months ago
    i live on kensigton st. ti start with.i do not agree with any proposal to designate any large area as a heritage area.the news letter i got says this first started in 2016..its the first we have heard of it.most of these older homes have already been modified at one time or very few are heritage homes.i suggest if the planners want to save some older homes they do it on a city wide scale.and let the home owner of the day decide if we want to be involved.this idea will cause values to decrees over time by limiting our options to update.i know because the home T 1301 KENSIGTON IS ONE ALREADY AND HE WAS TOLD NO TO ADDING A CARPORT TO HIS HOME.IF I AS AN OWNER WANT TO HAVE MINE SET ASIDE FOR THIS I SHOULD HAVE THE SAY,NOT SOMEONE WHO HAS NO INVESTMENT IN IT.if the city wants to do this they should buy our homes at fair market value when we sell and do as they want as owners then. SO I RECOMEND TO TO THIS HAIRBRAIN PROPOSEL BROUT FORTH BY THE LAST CITY MAYOR WE TOSSED OUT.THIS WILL LEAD TO A LAWSUIT I CAN BET.
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton 11 months ago
      Thank you for your input on this proposal. I will note that it is not being proposed because "planners want to save some older homes, " but rather because it was suggested by some members of the community during the public consultation on the OCP that more should be done by the City to do more to protect our character neighbourhoods. The creation of Heritage Conservation Areas is one of the few tools available to do so. Whether or not this approach is taken depends a great deal on what we hear from the community.
      • buggsy_45 11 months ago
        why do you need to change the way it is now for density.all areas will eventfully need to be rebuilt,i agree with holding the line on how many homes and people be controlled in any given area.we have bylaws already to do that i believe but the city allows variances to be changed and the developers take advantage of it.i still think every homeowner should be given the choice to opt out of this.
  • Bill Allen 11 months ago
    The preservation of the shoulder streets, or one block over, should not be overlooked for the integrity of Windsor Ave. Having 3 or 4 story living accommodations across the alley will also change the feel of the street, for our yards is where many of us recreate.
  • Tina Brant 11 months ago
    Too many of the houses in this area have been renovated, remember the originals were cheaply build post war housing, always thought heritage designation means the home has been untouched externally, think that it is too late for this neighbourhood to be designated as heritage.
  • Wayne 11 months ago
    Stronger controls are needed to ensure that planners do not negotiate away the existing density in Penticton whenever a developer wants to build. Solutions include application fees for amending the OCP that should be a minimum of $30,000 so the issue can be put to a referendum asking for support of the community, not just the current property owner or a developer that has a purchase on condition of redevelopment.
    • PT Gayler 11 months ago
      An interesting suggestion Wayne. Unfortunately, rather than put these "pesky" issues to a referendum, the City would no doubt seek public approval using the Alternative Approval Process (which, IMO, failed citizens when used for the Skaha Bluffs Area Boundary Extension). I do, however, support making the minimum fee for OCP amendment applications sufficiently large enough to permit city council to engage the services of a qualified independent third-party to conduct a thorough assessment of costs and benefits to the City before being put to council for a vote.
  • Wayne 11 months ago
    The comment on singling out the K streets as heritage areas is valid. In many ways the current concepts for “gentle densification“ are not reflective of wanting to preserve not only the unique characteristics of the K streets but the unique character of Penticton as a whole. If land supply is limited for increasing density, pressure will be put on the existing brownfield sites and the delapidated properties. At a maximum, only those properties along major thoroughfares should be allowed for increased density by building up on those to a maximum of double the density of the current use. All areas off the thoroughfares should have no increase, or at best, a minimal increase in density that requires 90% approval of residents within a 1 kilometre radius.
    • PT Gayler 11 months ago
      The quirky heritage character of Penticton's mature neighbourhoods is one of the things that drew us to move here in the first place. Sure there were a number of properties that were (or are) run-down and in need of renewal but this rush to replace them with 2, 4, 6 or 8 residences crammed onto the same lot -- often by developers with no apparent sense of community or aesthetics -- is ruining the character of those very neighbourhoods. The negative effects will be felt for generations. I support Wayne's position of retaining density in these areas and only, where appropriate, focus on densification along major thoroughfares.
  • bananapeel 11 months ago
    PT Gayler who offers comments on several issues and I am acquainted with, is a very wise man, and I think the Shape Your City, Council, City Staff Planners would do well to listen to him ! We are very fortunate to have him in this community and offering his good advice!
  • robin robertson 11 months ago
    You have included the neighbourhood of the K streets. Windsor Ave is part of a neighbourhood as well and the surrounding streets should be included in some way.The rapid development happening on Conklin and Douglas, due to the size of the lots is having a profound unplanned effect on the area. We are not against laneway homes but the cramming of 4 plex's on lots that used to house a lovely small historical bungalow is changing the steetscape in an undesirable way.
    • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement 11 months ago
      Hello Robin (and Bill). The boundaries of the heritage areas are not set in stone, but if the issue is the scale or type of development, there may be other tools, like zoning controls, to regulate those. We hope you'll join us at our engagement events to discuss your concerns further.
  • ChrisL 11 months ago
    The document distributed to citizens of the K-streets is much too vague. "Simple materials", "traditional grass" and "light plantings"are very much open to interpretation. Personally, I don't think the city should tell a home owner what colour palette is appropriate. I see no mention anywhere of changes to property tax.
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton 11 months ago
      Thank you for your input, Chris. The guidelines are intended to allow some flexibility rather than be prescriptive, as there may be different ways to achieve the same outcome. It is possible to be more precise in the requirements (for example, specifying what kind of cladding or roofing materials are allowed), and if we hear there is interest in a tighter approach, we can explore it. I note your statement about colour - thanks for the suggestion.In terms of property tax implications - we can't forsee much impact one way or the other and it's unlikely assessments will change and the City is not proposing a different tax approach in these areas.
  • PT Gayler 11 months ago
    A similar concept was tried before and appears to have been a dismal failure. Development Permit guidelines documented in OCP Plan Bylaw 2002-20 for the CPR Heritage Multiple Family Development Permit Area (on Hastings Ave) were ignored by Development Department staff and council members-of-the day when approving the exterior design of both 'The Ellis' strata development and The Village by the Station.As long as the City continues to approve OCP Amendments, subdivision applications, and Variance Permits at the rate they have been over the past 5 years, adherence to any guidelines documented in the new OCP will be questionable.
  • cnfouchard 11 months ago
    I think that you may consider having building regulations to keep the essence of the neighborhood however, I don’t think that it should be designated as a Heritage Conservation area.