Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2019-06-04HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JUNE 4. 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:03 p.m. Present: A. Reid - Chair Councillors D. Chapman and J. Gazzola, and Ms. K. Huxted, Ms. S. Hossack, Messrs. P. Ciuciura, D. Gundrum, R. Parnell and S. Strohack. Staff: B. Sloan, Manager, Long Range & Policy Planning L. Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning V. Grohn, Heritage Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator DSD -19-139 - HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS HPA-2019-V-006 & HPA-2019-V-007 - 33 MANSION STREET - DEMOLITION & BUILDING ADDITION The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD -19-139, dated May 6, 2019 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Applications (HPA's) HPA-2019-V-006 & HPA-2019-V-007 to permit demolition of an existing accessory structure and construction of an addition on an existing single detached dwelling municipally addressed as 33 Mansion Street. Ms. V. Grohn presented the report, noting staff are recommending approval of the subject HPA's as outlined in the Report. Mr. R. Dyck, Robert J Dyck Architect & Engineering Inc., addressed the Committee in support of the subject applications and staff recommendations. In response to questions, Ms. V. Grohn advised the proposed addition complies with the Zoning By-law. Ms. K. Huxted advised that while the proposed cement siding is not as conventional for heritage dwellings, she expressed no objections with it being used. On motion by Mr. S. Strohack - it was resolved: "That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-V-006 be approved to permit demolition of an existing accessory structure located on the property municipally addressed as 33 Mansion Street, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD -19-139; and further, That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2019-V-007 be approved to permit construction of an addition to the single detached dwelling municipally addressed as 33 Mansion Street, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following condition: i. That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit." DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 45 DUKE STREET WEST The Committee considered a memorandum dated May 21, 2019 regarding a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property municipally addressed as 45 Duke Street West. The HIA addresses the proposal to redevelop the property municipally addressed as 45 Duke Street West, which is located adjacent to 48 Ontario Street North (former Royal Canadian Legion building), a building which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of a written submission from the property owner of 48 Ontario Street North dated June 3, 2019, providing feedback on the proposed development and conclusions outlined in the HIA. Mr. L. Bensason advised the consultants representing the applicant were in attendance this date to present the draft HIA and answer questions. He further advised the Committee will not be making any recommendation on the subject matter; rather Heritage Planning staff will be seeking the Committee's feedback, which will be taken into consideration as part of staff's review of the HIA and the processing of the associated planning application. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JUNE 4. 2019 -15- CITY OF KITCHE 2. DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 45 DUKE STREET WEST (CONT'D Mr. D. Currie, MHBC Planning, and Mr. A. Bousfield, ABA Architects Inc., presented the HIA, advising the HIA has been completed to support a development proposed for the property municipally addressed as 45 Duke Street West, located adjacent to 48 Ontario Street North, which is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Mr. Currie provided an overview of the proposed development at 45 Duke Street and outlined the proposed impacts of the new construction on the designated property. He stated the only impact the proposed development may have on the Former Royal Canadian Legion would be related to possible land disturbance from the property line, due to construction. Mr. Currie advised the Zoning in the Downtown Core permits Om setbacks and the property owner is proposing setbacks of 11 00m to 1250mm between the rear of their building and the heritage dwelling. He indicated the setbacks have increased from what was initially outlined in the HIA. He further advised the development should be able to proceed providing the three recommendations as outlined in the HIA are adhered to. In response to questions, Mr. Bousfield addressed the setbacks between the two buildings and stated he can confirm after speaking with a reputable masonry company, a minimum setback of 25 inches is required for masonry repairs and maintenance. He further advised there has also been some benefits expressed for a minimal setback distance related to protection/preservation and durability of the brick over time. Ms. K. Elgie expressed concerns regarding the conclusions outlined in the HIA prepared by MHBC Planning in support of the proposed development at 45 Duke Street West. She indicated she had concerns with the impacts of construction, future maintenance, and concerns related to drainage in relation to the proposed setbacks between the buildings. Questions were raised regarding the written submission of a neighbouring property owner and whether the comments related to the window openings had been considered. Mr. Currie advised the windows on the second storey of the rear fapade are newer than those on the first floor. He stated the first floor windows are more original to the structure. He indicated the rear fapade is not one that primarily would be seen from the public realm, indicating although it is visible this date from the public realm, that expectation is not required to be maintained. He indicated the proposed setbacks between the two dwellings are greater than a common residential setback that would exist within a suburb development. He stated in his opinion, the new building will not block the light through the rear windows, indicating both the north and west facades get significant sunlight. Mr. Currie further advised a Shadow Study has been completed in support of the conclusions outlined in the HIA, which indicates there should be no impact to 48 Ontario Street North. Mr. Bousfield indicated with 48 Ontario Street North having a Om rear yard setback, he was still unclear how the property owner received approval to install the second storey windows in the rear due to requirements under the Ontario Building Code Act. He further advised there is currently no easement between the two properties, adding for any required maintenance or construction at the rear of 48 Ontario Street North, the property owner would currently access the building through 45 Duke Street West, with the amicable agreement of that property owner. In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised the property owner of 48 Ontario Street North received approval of a Heritage Permit Application to install the second story windows at the rear of the property. He further advised 48 Ontario Street North was purchased from the City in 2016 and the current Zoning was in place when the property was purchased. Mr. Bensason questioned whether there was a sweet spot whereby the distance between the facades of 48 Ontario Street North and 45 Duke Street West would allowed for adequate solar radiation as well as protection from driving rain. Mr. Bousfield replied that he was unsure of an exact measurement this date, stating that may be something Dr. Straub, who provided preliminary information regarding the solar radiation could examine further. In response to further questions, Mr. Bousfield stated if the proposed development decreased in Floor Space Ratio it would require less off-street parking, but that would not change the podium design required for the parking garage. Ms. S. Hossack questioned whether the parking garage structure would be open adjacent to 48 Ontario Street North, expressing concerns for possible vandalism. Mr. Currie noted the garage structure would have a solid cement wall on that portion. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JUNE 4. 2019 -16- CITY OF KITCHE 2. DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 45 DUKE STREET WEST (CONT'D Questions were raised regarding windows at 48 Ontario Street North and their inclusion in the designation By-law. Mr. Bensason advised staff would address additional non -historic openings as requested, but likely would not consider amending the designation By-law to remove any attributes. Mr. M. Brisson addressed the Committee in opposition to the conclusions outlined in the HIA. He stated in his opinion, the Committee cannot have an informed discussion without adequate drawings and imagery related to the proposed development in relation to 48 Ontario Street North. Ms. K. Huxted stated in her opinion, the proposed development will be an obstruction to the windows at the rear of 48 Ontario Street North, which are heritage attributes and should be protected. She stated it would be her preference to see less impacts on those windows from the proposed development. In response to questions, Mr. Currie advised the proposed development will also require a Committee of Adjustment application to request a minor variance related to the proposed parking rate. e� .� :zee � � : I a :�: rez� � i ►�i I rez� re��y ��y ►�i I a �: � � : ve�> �i�a ��> t ►�i reg :zHe� :� � revs a � ��� � The Committee considered a memorandum dated May 21, 2019 regarding a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property municipally addressed as 30-40 Margaret Avenue. The HIA addresses the proposal to construct two 6 -storey multiple residential buildings connected by a central atrium on the subject property at 30-40 Margaret Avenue. The property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD), and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Committee was also in receipt this date of a written submission from neighbouring property owners on Ellen Street West, including their feedback on the proposed HIA. Mr. L. Bensason advised the consultants representing the applicant were in attendance this date to present the draft HIA and answer questions. He further advised the Committee will not be making any recommendation on the subject matter; rather Heritage Planning staff will be seeking the Committee's feedback, which will be taken into consideration as part of staff's review of the HIA and the processing of the associated planning application. He provided background on the subject property, noting in 2010 a Zone Change Application and Official Plan Amendment were approved, which established the current Zoning on the property. He indicated in 2007 the CCNHCD was approved by Council, which resulted in an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). He stated from that appeal, staff were directed to meet with the residents to further inform of the policies of the CCNHCD related to the subject property. Mr. Bensason advised staff were able to mediate a resolution, which included establishing site-specific policies for the subject property and the appeal was to be withdrawn. He stated for the development did not proceed at that time. Mr. D. Currie, MHBC Planning, and P. Simmons, Martin Simmons Architects Inc., presented the HIA, advising the subject property is located within the CCNHCD and the property owner is intending to construct a six -storey apartment complex containing 234 -units. He indicated the purpose of the HIA was to review potential impacts on the CCNHCD and assess the compliance of the proposed development related to the applicable policies of the CCNHCD Plan. He provided an overview of the impacts outlined in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit that were evaluated and the level of impact (unknown, negligible, minor, moderate or major). Mr. Currie presented proposed mitigation measures that are recommended to address where impacts were identified, specifically related to trees and land disturbances. He concluded by stating the proposed development conforms to the policies and guidelines of the CCNHCD Plan, adding there are limited adverse impacts on-site and to adjacent buildings. Additionally, the limited adverse impacts are in the form of the removal of some existing trees on-site. Ms. S. Parks, ACO North Waterloo Region Branch, expressed concerns related to the proposed design, stating in her opinion the development should adhere more closely to the policies of the CCNHCD. She indicated it would be her preference to see greater stepbacks beyond the third story of the development to improve the pedestrian feel. She indicated concerns with the HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JUNE 4. 2019 -17- CITY OF KITCHENE 3. DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 30-40 MARGARET AVENUE (CONT'D impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent property municipally addressed as 54 Margaret Avenue. She further advised the property is pronounced in its location within the District, and it was her opinion the policies within the Conservation By-law should be given greater consideration. Mr. H. Jaeger expressed concerns with the proposed building design for the subject property, stating in his opinion the proposed development does not comply with all of the policies outlined in the CCNHCD Plan. He indicated the policies of the District Plan require stepbacks and the fapades of both dwellings extend without a stepback from the ground floor to the top of the fifth floor. He further advised in his opinion, as stepbacks are intended to enhance the pedestrian environment, the 45 degree angle measurement should be addressed at the sidewalk level on the same side as the street, rather than the opposite side of the roadway. Mr. Jaeger further advised as per the Terms of Reference of the HIA, only the Ellen Street West properties to the rear of the development were considered in the context of the HIA. He indicated at minimum, the properties along Margaret Avenue should have been included in the contact scope. Mr. D. Papastergiou addressed the Committee on behalf of several property owners on Ellen Street West. He advised the residents he represents provided a written submission for the Committee's consideration, stating they are generally satisfied with the proposed design of the development. He stated their primary concern was related to any development on the subject property related to rear yard setbacks and preserving the enjoyments of their backyard spaces. He indicated the proposed rear yard does seem appropriate and the developer seems committed to providing landscaping to screen the building from view. Mr. Papastergiou further advised the neighbours would be greatly concerned with any changes to the buildings that would affect the proposed rear yard setback. He advised he appreciated the historical design and aesthetics of the building. Ms. V. Van Cappellen advised she owns an adjacent property on Ellen Street West, noting her concerns with the proposed development are related to preserving and maintaining the enjoyment of their rear yard. She indicated the grading between Ellen Street and Margaret Avenue slopes towards Ellen Street West, and has concerns if the rear of the building increased in height or the rear yard setback was reduced from what is currently proposed. She further advised in her opinion the development proposals fulfill the policies of the CCNHCD Plan. Ms. J. Parmley and Mr. C Mulligan advised the Committee that they own the property municipally addressed as 54 Margaret Avenue directly adjacent to the proposed development. Mr. Mulligan indicated their property is defined as a Group A property within the CCNHCD Plan, and they intend to reside at the property indefinitely. Ms. Parmley stated they have three specific concerns with the proposed development: shadowing of their property; isolation and separation from the surrounding neighbours; and, obstruction of the view of their property. She indicated in her opinion, these impacts are not negligible. She offered possible solutions to improve their identified concerns, including: moving the proposed building back 2-3m; adding side stepbacks; daylight corners, making the building feel less imposing; or, rearranging the blocks to move the larger block to the middle and the smaller block to the end of the development. Ms. Parmley finally advised they believe the proposed changes would meet the standards and guidelines of the CCNHCD Plan. Ms. D. Kuehl, Chair of the Olde Berlin Town Neighbourhood Association, addressed the Committee on behalf of the policies outlined in the CCNHCD Plan. She indicated in her opinion, there is a tipping point to preserving the heritage, and unique features of the District. She stated newdevelopment should be sensitive to the historic scale and features of the surrounding streets and nearby homes. In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised the property became vacant in the late 1980's and there was no expectation for the site to stay vacant at that time. Questions were raised regarding the Zoning on the subject property, and whether the property complies with the minimum setback requirements. Mr. Currie advised the development does comply with the required zoning setbacks. He further advised the ability to increase the stepbacks is limited due to the central corridor within the building. Mr. Simmons advised a great HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JUNE 4. 2019 -18- CITY OF KITCHENE 3. DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 30-40 MARGARET AVENUE (CONT'D deal of consideration has gone into the design of the building, stating they took the policies of the District Plan seriously when proposing the current design. He indicated the property owner wanted a design that respected the neighbourhood through a range of strategies. He stated their first goal with the development was to thin the building as much as possible to create less sense of a mass building. He commented balconies are being proposed to recede into the building to create a textured fapade that reaches up toward the mansard roof. Mr. Simmons further advised the intentions of the design was to include projections and recesses as a means of articulating the fapade, stating in his opinion those were responsive solutions rather than providing stepbacks. Mr. P. Ciuciura requested clarification on the parking podium in the front yard and the proposed wrought iron fence. Mr. Simmons advised there is a grade change in the front yard related to a podium for the proposed parking garage. He indicated a small wrought iron fence, anticipated to be approximately 2" in height, is also intended to be installed to create a semi -private space in the front yard for the residents of the building, intended as an outdoor amenity space with niches and benches, dividing the public from private space. Ms. S. Hossak expressed concerns with the proposed front yard, and whether the change in grade and fence would act more as a wall between the public and private realms. She indicated in her opinion, it is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, as most of the homes on Margaret Avenue have open yards with mature trees. In response, Mr. Currie advised the proposed development is subject to Site Plan approval, and landscaping and fencing will be discussed further through that process. He stated that while the proposed development is intended to be compatible with the neighbourhood and the policies of the District Plan, it may not be exactly the same as other properties within the vicinity. Councillor D. Chapman questioned whether it was a possibility to alter the location of the small and larger blocks within the building as suggested by the property owners at 54 Margaret Avenue. Mr. Currie advised he was not able to comment on the proposed suggestion this date, adding they would take the comment into consideration. In response to further questions, he advised the comments related to 54 Margaret Avenue and the Shadow Study demonstrate that there is only shadowing on the property around March from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. He stated there are no shadows cast on the property in the summer as the sun is higher in the sky. He indicated the shadowing was assessed through the HIA, and in his opinion does not adversely impact that property. Mr. Ciuciura stated in his opinion, there are a lot of good design features to the proposal. He stated his concerns are regarding the relationship of the building to Margaret Avenue and the front door relationship to the street. He indicated homes within the neighbourhood have formal entrances and in this instance the back doors are going to be facing the street. He stated the change in grade exacerbates that lack of front door feel. He stated if the property had multiple addresses along the street, it may assist with providing a more "front door feel" in keeping with the street. Ms. A. Reid indicated in her opinion, she appreciated when developers put significant amount of thought into their designs, stating she is not convinced there is a solution that would satisfy everyone's requests. She expressed concerns with the possible impacts on 54 Margaret Avenue, indicating they are not negligible. She commented that although a Shadow Study has been completed, it is likely there will be shade on that property in the hours when people are travelling past the property to and from work. She indicated if there was a possibility to switch the blocks, that may address those issues and eliminate the concern. 4. MIKE AND PAT WAGNER HERITAGE AWARDS Mr. R. Parnell declared a pecuniary interest related to this matter as his firm has completed work at one of the properties that received a 2019 Mike & Pat Wagner Heritage Award nomination, and did not participate in any voting or discussion on this matter. Mr. R. Parnell left the meeting at this time HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MIKE AND PAT WAGNER HERITAGE AWARDS (CONT'D The Committee considered an internal memo entitled "2019 Mike & Pat Wagner Heritage Award (Kitchener's Great Places Awards)" dated May 15, 2019 regarding the Kitchener's Great Places Awards - 2019 Mike & Pat Wagner Heritage Award program. The Committee was in receipt this date of information materials containing all of the nominations received for consideration for the 2019 Mike & Pat Wagner Heritage Awards. Mr. L. Bensason provided an overview of the 2019 Mike & Pat Wagner Heritage Award, advising that the Committee may make a recommendation to grant four (4) heritage awards. He provided an overview of the nominees, noting applications five (5) were received as follows: In the category of Preservation/Restoration, the following properties were nominated: • 110 Water Street South; • 48 Weber Street West; and, • 920 Orr Court. In the category of Rehabilitation/Adaptive Re -use, the following properties were nominated: • 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent; and, • 195 Joseph Street. In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised this is one of the strongest lists of heritage properties, stating he is of the opinion that nothing would prohibit any property not receiving an award this year from being nominated again in future years. The Committee members had a brief discussion on the eligibility criteria and which projects should be recognized for 2019. On motion by Ms. S. Hossack - it was resolved: "That the 2019 Kitchener's Great Places - Mike and Pat Wagner Heritage awards be awarded as follows: In the category of Preservation/Restoration: • 110 Water Street South; and, • 920 Orr Court; and further, In the category of Rehabilitation/Adaptive Re -use: • 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent; and, • 195 Joseph Street." INTRODUCTION NEW COMMITTEE MEMBER On behalf of the Committee, Ms. A. Reid welcomed Mr. D. Gundrum who was recently appointed to Heritage Kitchener. STATUS UPDATES - HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES UPDATE AND 2019 PRIORITIES - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS Ms. A. Reid addressed the Committee that there were no status updates this date. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:37 p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator