Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2019-05-07HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 7, 2019CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:05p.m. Present:A. Reid -Chair Councillors D. Chapman, C. Michaudand Messrs. P. Ciuciura, R. Parnell and S. Strohack. Staff:M. Seiling, Director/Chief Building Official B. Sloan, Manager, Long Range & Policy Planning L. Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning V. Grohn, Heritage Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator 1.DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -149-151 ONTARIO STREET NORTH/21 WEBER STREET WEST The Committee considered a memorandum dated April 18, 2019 regarding a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property municipally addressed as 149-151 Ontario Street North/21 Weber Street West. The HIA addresses the proposal to redevelop the subject properties, 149- 151 Ontario Street North currently containing a circa 1876 brick building, which is listed on the Municipal Heritage Register and 21 Weber containing a commercial dwelling constructed in 1957 located adjacent to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District(CCNHCD). Mr. L. Bensason provided opening remarks regarding the HIA advising Heritage Planning staff will be seeking the Committee’s input and comments,which will be taken into consideration as part of staff’s review of the HIA and the processing of the associated planning application. Ms. A. Barnes, Letourneau HeritageConsulting Inc. and Mr. M. Bolen, Edge Architectswere in attendance in support of the HIA. Ms. Barnes presented the HIA advising the applicant intends on constructing a 24-storey commercial residential development, while retaining the two-storey front portionof 149-151 Ontario Street Northin situ. Shestated the HIA has been prepared to support an active Site Plan application for the proposed development. She indicated 21 Weber Street West is not considered a Section 27 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA)listed property. She stated149-151 Ontario Street Northwas considered under Section 27 of the OHA as a non- designated property of cultural heritage interest. Ms. Barnes provided an overview of the HIA including: the evaluations of the properties; an overview of the proposed development options; the impact assessment; as well as their conclusions and recommendations. Mr. M.Chilanski and Mr. H. Jaegeraddressed the Committee in support of heritage conservation, noting support for the proposed design and conservation of the heritage dwelling. Mr. Jaeger did express some concerns with the proposed height of the building adjacent to the District, stating in his opinion,he would prefer to see less of a transition between building heights. In response to questions, Ms. Barnes advised that through the shadow study,it was determined that any impacts of shadowing from the proposed tower would not adversely impact the CCNHCD. She stated the greatest impacts on the District related to shadowing are impacting open spaces and parking lots, noting there would be noshadow impacts on any residential rear yards.She further advised when evaluating the proposed options, they considered all evaluation criteria outlined by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sportand Option 3 was deemed to be the preferred option. In response to questions, Mr. M. Bolenadvised they have not yet determined what type of structure system will be used in the construction of the tower. Mr.P. Ciuciura expressed concerns with the use of fraction piles noting it could cause structural issues with 149-151 Ontario Street North. Mr. S. Strohack expressed concerns with how the heritage dwelling is proposed to be preserved, questioning whether conservation is really beingachieved through the construction of a dwelling above an existing dwelling. He acknowledgedthe need for intensification, stating in his opinion there are differences between avoidance and incorporation,and questioned whether the design was an adaptive reuse of the heritage dwelling. CouncillorC. Michaud entered the meeting at this time. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 7, 2019-11-CITY OF KITCHENER 1.DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -149-151 ONTARIO STREET NORTH/21 WEBER STREET WEST(CONT’D) In response, Mr. Bolen advised with the increased intensification in the downtown core, it has significantly increased land values that developers are optimizing land to achieve more affordable residential options. He indicated the site would be challenging regardless of the heritage component. In response to further questions, he advised there is no off-street parking proposed for the development. It was noted, Ms. K. Huxted and Ms. S. Hossack sent their regrets for the meeting this date, but provided written submissions related to the HIA. Ms. Huxted indicated she would be interested in considering heritage designation for the property municipally addressed as 149-151 Ontario Street North. She expressed concerns with the maintenance of the roof, the proposed setback between the heritage building and the proposed new construction and shadows on the adjacent District.Ms. Hossack’s comments included questions for clarification on the setback between the heritage building and the proposednew construction and whether it would be directly underneath the new dwelling. She indicated it would be her preference to see a setback between the two structures. She did express some concern with how the buildings will interact, if there was an overhanging balcony,as an example,and possibility for vandalism. Otherwise it was her opinion that Option 3,as proposed,was the most appropriate design for thesite and the design was a well-balanced approach of old and new. In response to questions regarding the setback, Mr. Bolen advised the renderings needed to be updated to better reflect the exact location of the heritage dwelling in relation to the proposed dwelling. He indicated the underside of the tower is intended to have a clear storey, which has not been clearly depicted in the renderings. The Committee recessed at 4:49 p.m. and reconvened at 4:54p.m., Chaired by Ms. A. Reid. 2.REMEDY UNSAFE BUILDING ORDER-152 SHANLEY STREET Mr. L. Bensason advised as this matter is time sensitive,it was requested that the Committee receive a presentation this date from the City’s Chief Building Official regarding the Remedy Unsafe Building Orderthat was issued earlier this date regarding 152 Shanley Street. Ms. D. Saunderson advisedin orderto add the additional item to the agenda this date, the Committee would be required to waive notice toreceive the presentation as it not an item listed onthe agenda. On motion by Mr. S. Strohack - it was resolved: “That in accordance with Section 27.7.14 of the City’s Procedural By-law, Heritage Kitchener Committee agreed to dispense with the requirements to provide notice to receive a presentation from the City’s Chief Building Official regarding the Remedy Unsafe Building Order that was issued earlier this date regarding 152 Shanley Street.” Carried. The Committee considered the Statement of Significance for the property municipally addressed as 152 Shanley Street, as well as a Statement and Design vision,which was considered and approved by Council in 2018 that was intended to provide a vision and set direction for a desired future for the property. Mr. M. Seiling provided a presentation containing a number of photographs of the current state of the property municipally addressed as 152 Shanley Street,the former Electrohomesite. He commentedthe property waspreviously subject to tax sales, which have since been cancelled. He advised inJanuary 2019, falling bricks and other debris were observed atthe property, noting orders were issuedrequiring a structural assessment of the property. He indicated the Building Division was unable to gain access to the property until April 23, 2019 to complete a full structural rd assessment. He advised on April 23,two city building inspectors and an independent engineer from Tacoma Engineers Inc. with designation from the Canadian Association of Heritage HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 7, 2019-12-CITY OF KITCHENER 2.REMEDY UNSAFE BUILDING ORDER -152 SHANLEY STREET (CONT’D) Professionals (CAHP),gained access to the building to conduct an inspection of the property. Mr. Seiling concludedthat the building is in poor condition and significant structural deterioration has occurred. He stated thebuilding is unsound and is at significant risk of collapsingwithout substantial repair.He further advisedas a result, hehas issued a Remedy Unsafe Building Order, requiring the owner of the property to take action immediately to remedy the unsafe conditions. He indicatedoptions includeeither repairingthe building to a safe condition or to begin planning for demolition. In response to questions, Mr. Bensasonadvised the property is on the City’s heritage inventory. He stated within the City’s 4-step listing process, one step involves Heritage Planning staff making contact with the property owner. He indicated that was never achieved so the property remained on the inventory. He stated the property has no heritage protection, stating if the property owner applies for a demolition permit, they would be eligible to obtainit in 15 to20 business days. Mr. R. Parnell stated in his opinion,with the state of the dwelling,it may be more cost effective to demolish the building. Mr. Bensasonadvised remediation efforts for the site may be unlikely as the site is also contaminated directly in the centre of the 4-storey building that alsoneedsto betakeninto consideration. Mr. Seiling stated in speaking with the engineer,the structural repairs are anticipated at 1.5M. He noted if the property owner takes no action, the City will be required to take action to address the unsafe conditionby the end of May. Mr. S. Strohack questioned whether it would be possibleto save the façade of the structure. Mr. Seiling advised due tothe contamination of the site,a significant amount of soil will need to be removed so there would be no way to reinforce/maintain the façade. In response further questions, Mr. Bensason advised the only real option before the Committee this date would be to pursueheritagedesignation if it was the Committee’s wish. He stated in his opinion,it is unlikely in the current state that the building will be salvageable. 3.HERITAGE KITCHENER 2019-2020 WORK PLAN The Committee considered an internal memo entitled “Heritage Kitchener Draft 2019/2020 Work Plan” dated April 18, 2019. Mr.L. Bensasonadvised the draft has been updated to remove any redundantdataand reflects the discussions of the Committee from the April 2, 2019 meeting. He indicated the Work Plan as outlined in the agenda also addresses the core business of the Committee. In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised the timelines proposed in the agenda more reflect target dates, specifically the walking tours noteda timeline of May/September to reflect the dates of the Jane’s Walk and Open Doors. On motion by Mr. S. Strohack - it was resolved: “That the Heritage Kitchener 2019-2020Work Plan, as circulated with the May 7, 2019 Heritage Kitchener Agenda, be approved.” 4.STATUS UPDATES -SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATES -OPEN FORUM/HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES -HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS The Committee was in receipt this date of information materials entitled “Bill 108 -(Schedule 11) –the proposed More Homes, more Choice Act: Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act” dated May 2, 2019 regarding proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) intended to streamline development approvals, improve transparency and support the Housing Supply Action Plan. Mr. L. Bensason presented the information materials, advising the Provincial government is looking at ways to streamline development approvals. He stated,in additionto proposing HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 7, 2019-13-CITY OF KITCHENER 4.STATUS UPDATES -SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATES -OPEN FORUM/HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES -HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS(CONT’D) changes to the OHA, the government is also proposing changes to the Planning Act. He commented the document is a snapshot of the proposed changes to the OHA, noting the proposals have not yet fully been explained, further details are intended to be brought forward in the coming weeks. He provided an overview of the bullets indicating the City already does a number of actions that are being proposed.He further advised in regardto some of the suggested timeline changes,staff have no objections to date with those proposals. Mr. Bensason indicated in regardto appealing heritage designations and alterations, currently those appeals go to the Conservation Review Board, where Bill 108 would change the appeal process so they would go before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). He stated the full scope of the changes is still to be determined as more information is released on the draft Bill. He indicated the Bill is currently in a consultation phase due to be concluded on June 1, 2019. 5.ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 5:40p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator