Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2018-08-14HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2018CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:02p.m. Present:S. Miladinovic-ActingChair Councillors J. Gazzolaand B. Ioannidis,Ms.A. Reid, Ms. K. Huxtedand Messrs. P. Ciuciura, R. Parnell, S. Thomson, S. Burrows and S. Strohack. Staff:B. Sloan, Manager, Long Range and Policy Planning L. Bensason, Coordinator of Cultural Heritage Resources M. Drake,Senior Heritage &PolicyPlanner D. Saunderson,Committee Administrator 1.DSD-18-078-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2018-V-025 -28 WEBER STREET WEST -PROPOSED TEXTURED PAINT AND WHITE WASH PAINT REMOVAL The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-18-078, dated July 19, 2018recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-V-025 topermit removal of the textured paint and the white wash paint from the brick exterior of the building at the property municipally addressed as 28 Weber Street West.Ms. M. Drake was in attendance to respond to questions to from the Committee. The following motion was voted on and CarriedUnanimously. On motion by Councillor B. Ioannidis - it was resolved: “Thatpursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-V-025 be approved to permit the removal of the textured paint and the white wash paint from the brick exterior of the building at the property municipally addressed as 28 Weber Street West,as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-18- 078,in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: 1.That each method of textured paint and white wash paint removal be tested on an approximate 1 foot by 1 foot inconspicuous area of the building and that the results of each test be reviewed and approved by Heritage Planning staff prior to proceeding with any method on the remainder of the building; 2.That a mason familiar with historic masonry, AgeRestoration or another heritage contractor with relevant experience confirms in writing to Heritage Planning staff that a.all mortar joints have been made sound and the building is watertight prior to proceeding with a removal or cleaning method that uses water; b.that following removal and/or cleaning, if required, deteriorated masonry has been repaired using appropriate methods and materials (e.g. lime based mortar); 3.That the details of the final products (e.g. detergents, paint, sealers) be submitted for review and approval by Heritage Planning staff prior to using the products; and further; 4.That, if required, the details of alternative methods of paint removal be submitted for review and approval by Heritage Planning staff prior to testing andprior to proceeding with work on the remainder of the building.” 2.HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA)-242-262 QUEEN STREET SOUTH The Committee considered a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared for 242-262 Queen Street Southregarding the proposed demolition and redevelopment of 242, 254 and 262 Queen Street South.Mr. L. Bensason advised Heritage Planning staff are seeking the Committee’s feedback on the HIA, which will be taken into consideration as part of staff’s review prior to recommending whether the Director of Planning will accept it.He indicated the applicant will be presenting the HIA for the Committee’s consideration and Heritage Planning staff will be making a presentation on the staff position as of this date. He further advised the applicant will be HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2018-25-CITY OF KITCHENER 2.HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -242-262 QUEEN STREET SOUTH required to submit a HeritagePermit Application (HPA) for the proposed demolition, which is anticipated to be considered at the September 4, 2018 Heritage Kitchener Committeemeeting. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of a copy of the Section 10 Conclusions and Recommendations, as outlined in the HeritageImpact Assessmentcompleted by MHBC Planning. Ms. A. Reid entered the meeting at this time. Mr. D. Currie, MHBC Planning, Ms. H. Campbell and Mr. S. Litt,Vive Development Corp.and Mr. L. Robertson, NEOArchitectureInc., were in attendance in support of the HIA. Mr. Currie provided an overview of the HIA. Mr. Currie advised the HIA speaks to three properties municipally addressed as 242, 254 and 262 Queen Street South. He indicated the properties are located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) and are designated Part V under the Ontario Heritage Act.He stated the property owner is proposing to demolish the three existing buildings and constructan 8-storey mixed-use development that includes 125 residential units and underground parking. He further advised the proposal complies with the existing Zoning of the site, noting the development would require Site Plan Approval. Mr. Currie indicated the HIA will be completed in two phases;the first phase, which is being presented to the Committee this date assessesthe impact of the proposed demolition;the second phase which is still to be completedwill assessthe impact related to the proposed new building. Mr. Currie provided an overview of the relevant planning policies, as well as the policies within the VPAHCDPlanrelated to the proposed demolition and provided an overview of the cultural assessment of each of the three buildings.He advised of the three buildings,254 Queen Street South and 262 Queen Street South would warrant designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. He stated taking thisinto consideration;the developer did review alternative development concepts that would allow for the retention of both 254 Queen Street South and 262 Queen Street South, which were not deemed viable options to achieve a more affordable rentalmarket. Mr. Currie presented the HIA’s conclusions, advising in his opinion, the demolition of 254 and 262 Queen Street South would be a minor negative impact providing the new building complies with other applicable policies of the VPAHCDPlan. Mr. Bensasonprovided an overview of the staff position as of this date, statingthat receiving the Committee’s feedback is part of the process when making a recommendation to the Director of Planning on whether the HIA should be deemed accepted. He reviewed the conclusions and recommendations paragraph-by-paragraph, stating staff are in agreement with a number of the points outlined by the applicant. He specifically addressed paragraph 3 and the comments that the building has been subject to considerable alterations. He stated staff are not in full support of that statement in the fact that theVPAHCDStudydemonstrates photos of 254 and 262 Queen Street South and both properties are relatively unchanged from those photographs. He addressed paragraph 5 related to the Queen Street corridor and although the VPAHCDPlan does speak to achieving higher densities in the Queen Street corridor, property owners are encouraged to work with existing buildings, altering, and adding to and integrating them into new developments rather than demolishing them. Mr. Bensason spoke to paragraph 8 where the HIA speaks to the retention of the two buildings on Queen Street and the inability to maximize the density on site. He stated the architect for the project has demonstrated three potential development options that would see the retention of 254 and 262 Queen Street South. Mr. Bensasonstated,in summary,the staff position this date recognizes 254 & 262 Queen St. S. are cultural heritage resources which are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and as demonstrated in the HIA, meet the criteria for individual designation. He indicated the VPAHCD Study references both properties as good examples of conservation, whichcontribute to the character of the VPAHCD. He advised there are fewer examples of historic development on Queen St. S. today than when the HCD was approved in 1996 andcontinued demolition of th historic building stock would further reduce physical evidenceof 19c. development along Queen Street South.Mr. Bensasonfurther advised whilethe Study and Plan acknowledge that zoning for higher density development may result in the loss of some buildings, itspecifically references that innovative infill and backyard development can achieve higher densities together with conservation, and that this would result in a more varied, interesting and attractive Queen Street streetscape. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2018-26-CITY OF KITCHENER 2.HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -242-262 QUEEN STREET SOUTH Ms. K. Elgie provided a historical narrative regarding the property municipally addressed as 262 Queen Street South. She stated Heritage Kitchener’s mandate is to conserve and protect the City’s heritage features. She indicated in her opinion,262 Queen Street South is worth conservation, similarly conservation should be considered for 254 and 242 Queen Street South where possible. She encouraged the Committee to provide feedback to the developer and the City that would meet their conservation obligations. Ms. M.Rowell, North Waterloo Region, Architectural ConservancyOntario, addressed the Committee in opposition to the demolition of 242-262 Queen Street South. She stated the properties are located within a Heritage Conservation District and the boundaries of the District have been carefully identified and deemed worthy of protection. She indicated in her opinion, if the demolitions were approved,it would create an instability within the District, where residents within the area may begin to question how many more demolitions would be permitted. Mr. M.Chilanski addressed the Committee in opposition to the demolition of 242-262 Queen Street South. He referenced two other properties on Queen Street that were previously approved for demolishing stating Council had agreed to the demolition with the caveat that approval was not setting precedence for future demolition within the VPAHCD. He stated in his opinion,the only way a development of this nature should be approved is if it adds to the District rather than detractsfrom it. Mr. Chilanski further advised that he had additional concerns with the increased density and the increased traffic onto Queen Street South. Questions were raised on the possible development alternatives that were presented that proposed retaining the two buildings on Queen Street South. Ms. Campbell advised they have no objections with a design alternative that would require variancesto the Zoning By-law, such as a reduction in off-street parking if required. She indicated theirgoal is to achieve a market rental rate that is more affordable to address market demand and to achieve that price point there has to be a greater Floor Space Ratio in the subject property.Mr. Robertson advised the alternative development options were within the current Zoning By-law parameters. In response to further questions, Ms. Campbell stated actual subsidized affordable housing options was not being proposed through this project; however, they would not be opposed to providing some affordable options for thetenants currently residing at ONEroof. In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised staff have not formally made a position this date on the HIA. The intention is to receive feedback from the Committee this date and provide amore formal position at the September meeting on the HeritagePermit Application. Several members expressed support for conserving the properties municipally addressedas 254 Queen Street South and 262 Queen Street South. Councillor B. Ioannidis stated in his opinion, there is a balanced approachthat may include variances to the Zoning By-law such as a reduction in parking that would allow the developer to achieve the desired Floor Space Ratio, but would also conserve the heritage buildings. Mr. P. Ciuciura stated there may be development incentives that would assist in finding a preferred development for the subject properties that would assist in conserving the heritage dwellings. 3.HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -50-52 WEBER STREET WEST -56 WEBER STREET WEST -107YOUNG STREET The Committee considered a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) regarding the proposed demolition and redevelopment of 50-52 Weber Street West, 56 Weber Street West, and 107 Young Streetwithin the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD). In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of a written submission prepared by Ms. R. Genova, dated August 13, 2018. Ms. M. Drake advised Heritage Planning staff are seeking the Committee’s feedback on the HIA, which will be taken into consideration as part of staff’s review prior to recommending whether the Director of Planning will accept it.She indicated the applicant will be presenting the HIA for the Committee’s consideration and Heritage Planning staff will be making a presentation on the staff position as of this date. She further advised the applicant will be required to submit a HeritagePermit Application (HPA) for the proposed demolition. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2018-27-CITY OF KITCHENER 3.HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -50-52 WEBER STREET WEST -56 WEBER STREET WEST -107 YOUNG STREET Mr. D. Currie, MHBC Planning, provided an overview of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), stating the subject propertiesmunicipally addressed as 50-52Weber Street West, 56 Weber Street West and 107 Young Street are locatedare within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. He advised the HIAbeing presented this date is Phase I of an HIA that is intended to assessthe impacts of the proposed demolition of 50-52Weber Street West, 56 Weber Street West and 107 Young Street for the redevelopment/construction of a 6- storey42-unitmulti-residential development. He stated Phase IIwouldbe completed to assess the impacts of the new construction in relation to the applicable policies for the CCNHCDPlan. He provided an overview of the general policies of the CCNHCDPlan, as well as the relevant Official Plan and Zoning By-law currently in affect.Mr. Currie gave anoverview of the historical value of the subject properties indicating,although demolition can be considered a negative impact, it can be supported, provided the new building complies withother applicable policies within the CCNHCDPlan. He further advised should demolition be approved, elements of the buildings on the subject lands be considered for re-use in any further new building on-site, where feasible and that prior to demolition a Cultural Heritage Documentation and Salvage Report be completed. Ms. M. Drake provided an overview of the staff position as of this date, noting receiving the Committee’s feedback is part of the process when making a recommendation to the Director of Planning on whether the HIA should be deemed accepted. She advised staff received a draft HIA in April 2018 and at that time staff hadexpressed a number of concerns related to the methodology used to prepare conclusions and recommendations, the vague languageand unknownsand the emphasis on integrity without adequate consideration of alternative development options, the value of alterations and the reversibility/legibility of alterations. She indicated staff at that time did not agree with the conclusions of the HIA and would not be able to recommend approval of an application requesting permission to demolish the buildings. Ms. Drake advised since that time staff have requested theHIA be divided into two phases;the first to address the proposed demolitions and the second phase to address the proposed new development.She stated staff were in receipt of a second draft of the HIA in June 2018, indicating there continue to be concerns with: the evaluation of heritage value,the emphasis on integrity without adequate consideration of alternative development options, the value of alterations and the reversibility/legibility of alterations,development options that consider a high level of density based on the conclusion that demolition is required to achieve otherCity policies related to density despite the range of density that is permittedand the lack of evidence/proof for statements and conclusions. Ms. Drake stated,in summary,the staff position this date recognizes50-52 Weber St. W., 56 Weber St. W. & 107Young St. are cultural heritage resources that are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (CCNHCD) and as demonstrated in the HIA, meet the criteria for individual designation. She indicated the CCNHCD Plan specifically references the rationale for the district boundary, indicating that:it includes the majority of Weber Street which has a high proportion of the oldest, most unique and significant buildings in the neighbourhood;excluded areas from the district boundary are generally less architecturally significant than on Weber Street; and,excluded areas do not serve as a gateway to the stable residential neighbourhood in the same manner that the streets intersecting with Victoria and Weber Street do. Mr. H. Jaeger and Ms. M. Rowell addressed the Committee in support of the preservation of the 107 Young Street. Mr. S. Pederson addressed the Committee in support of the proposed redevelopment of 50-52 Weber Street West, 56 Weber Street West and 107 Young Street, stating although the Committee has a mandate to preserve heritage features, consideration also needs to be given to intensification within the City to protect and preserve surrounding farmland as well. Ms. D. Kehl addressed the Committee in opposition to the demolition of 50-52 Weber Street West, 56 Weber Street West and 107 Young Street. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2018-28-CITY OF KITCHENER 3.HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -50-52 WEBER STREET WEST -56 WEBER STREET WEST -107 YOUNG STREET Mr. S. Burrows declared a pecuniary interest as his firm has been retained for the design work related to the proposed development and did not participate in any voting or discussion on this matter. Mr. Burrows addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant, providing an overview of the proposed design,as well as a summary on thecommunity engagementand a few comments that were received from the neighbourhood on the potential design. Several members expressed concerns with the proposed demolition of107 Young Street. Mr. P. Ciuciura stated he was surprised to see that 107 Young Street was ranked as a “C” priority of properties within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HeritageConservationDistrict, nothing in his opinion the property’s priority should be re-evaluated. Ms. A. Reid stated in her opinion,she was not convinced that redevelopment of the site would require demolition. She indicated there are not a large stock of heritage dwellings within the City and where redevelopment is being proposed,consideration should be given to gentrification. 4.STATUS UPDATES -SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATES -OPEN FORUM/HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES -HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS Mr. L. Bensason advised there were no statusupdates this date. 5.ANTICIPATED HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION -1380 DOON VILLAGE ROAD -PROPOSED ADDITION, REAR YARD DECK AND DETACHED GARAGE The Committee considered an Internal Memo, dated July 26, 2018 regarding the anticipated heritage permit application to permit construction for the proposed addition, rear yard deck and detached garage for the property municipally addressed as 1380 Doon Village Road. Ms. M. Drake advised the applicant applied for a Building Permitin February 2018 and it was identified that the applicant would also require a Heritage Permit Application. She indicated the initial proposal the property owner had proposed did not comply with the heritage conservation district planand staffsincethatdate havebeen working with the property owner to identify a preferred design. She commented the property owner also requires approval on the proposed design from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) as the propertyis located within a regulated area. She stated the Doon Heritage Committee representatives have been active in the dialogue with the applicant regarding the proposal, the most recent drawings, which she shared with the Committee were submitted at the beginning of July 2018. She indicated and staff have made the suggestion to change the proposed roofline to a gable roof rather thanwhat is demonstrated in the drawing. Ms. Drake further advised since reviewing those documents,a revised set of drawings were received July 30, 2018, which was shared with the Committee, noting there were minor changes to the windows and doors. She stated the Committee will consider the HPA at thenext month’s committeemeeting, but requested any feedback the Committee may have on the elevation drawings to date, commenting that she would share any feedback the Committee has on the proposal this date. Ms. K. Huxted stated itwould be her preference to see the front entry way lowered, that the proposed stone is not typical for the character of the neighbourhood, stating brick was a more common material. She further advised she could not comment on the proposed colour of the dwelling,as that has not been demonstrated in the elevation drawings as of this date. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2018-29-CITY OF KITCHENER 6.ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:37p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator