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