Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2020-08-04HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2020CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee held an electronic meetingthis date, commencing at 4:00p.m. Present:A. Reid -Chair Councillors D. Chapman, J. Gazzola, C. Michaud,and Ms. K. Huxted, Ms. S. Hossack, Ms. B. Mueller,and Messrs. J. Baker, P. Ciuciura, D. Gundrum, R. Parnell,S. Strohackand D. Vongphakdy. Staff:L. Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning V. Grohn, Heritage Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator 1.DSD-20-062-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-001 -HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-002 -50-52, 56 WEBER STREET WEST –PROPOSED DEMOLITIONS The Committee considered DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-20-062, dated March 20, 2020recommending approval of Heritage Permit Applications (HPA’s) HPA-2020-V- 001 and HPA-2020-V-002 to permit the demolition of the existing detached buildings located on the properties municipally addressed as 50-52 and 56 Weber Street West within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD).The Committee wasalsoin receipt of written submissions from The Architectural Conservatory Ontario -North Waterloo Region, Mr. G. Pool, Ms. J. Haalboom, Ms. T. Wagner; and, Ms. K. Elgie expressing concernswith the proposed demolitionsof 50-52 and 56 Weber Street West. Mr. L. Bensason presented the Report advising staff are recommending approval of the HPA’s subject to conditionsoutlined in the Report. He provided an overview of the Report, including but not limited to: the current state of the properties; the policies within the CCNHCD Plan; the Phase I Heritage Impact Assessment; the new draft Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan; as well as, staff’s conclusions related to the recommendation. Mr. Bensason further advised while the retention of historic buildings is strongly encouraged, the CCNHCD Plan contemplates the possibility of new higher density development located on Weber Street West andthe potential loss of some earlier lower density buildingspossibly occurring.He advised city staff are of the opinion that the heritage value of 50-52 and 56 Weber Street West has been impacted by the loss of architectural integrity; and, that an appropriate level of heritage conservation will be achieved with the retention of 107 Young Street. He commented that additional important objectives will be addressed through the proposed redevelopment in meeting the City’s density target for intensification on Weber Street West.Mr. Bensason indicated the staff recommendation include conditions to ensure demolition does not occur pre- maturely, that the owner will be required to obtain heritage approval and a Building Permit for the proposed mid-rise building, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Mr. S. Burrows addressed the Committee in support of the staff recommendation. He provided an overview of the proposed development, stating the properties municipally addressed as 50- 52 and 56 Weber Street Westare in disrepairand the owner is seeking to redevelop the site, while respecting the policies of the District Plan. He stated they have hosted their own neighbourhood information meetings,and both times received support from the people that attended. He indicated when they attendedHeritage Kitchener previously withthe Phase I HIA, the feedback related to trying to maintain 107 Young Street was considered, and the development wasreconsidered to retain that dwelling on site. Mr. Burrows noted the building is intended to be a commercial/residential dwelling with anaffordable housing option for seniors. He stated in his opinion,the proposed development is forward thinking and will benefit the neighbourhood and community. Mr. M.Chilanski expressed concerns with the proposed demolition, stating concerns with the potential precedence approving the demolition may setwith the conclusions outlined in the Staff Report. He indicatedconcern with astatementin the report“that the demolition will further the density requirements of other City Policies”.He stated in his opinion,if that statement is accepted by the Committee as justification for approving the HPA’s,it will set a precedence going forward for other properties within Conservation Districts that surround the Light Rail Transit (LRT) stations. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2020-11-CITY OF KITCHENER 1.DSD-20-062-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-001 -HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-002 -50-52, 56 WEBER STREET WEST –PROPOSED DEMOLITIONS (CONT’D) Ms. B. Muellerexpressed concerns with the proposed demolition of the properties municipally addressed as 50-52 and 56 Weber Street West.She noted the Committee has a mandate of conserving heritage resources and the rationale related to Floor Space Ratios, increased densities and Secondary Plans are not items that should be taken into consideration when consideringa demolition application. She indicated the Ontario Heritage Act has a hierarchy that must be taken into consideration when assessing conservation of heritage resources. She commentedwhen there is a conflict between a District Plan or Secondary Plan, theDistrict Plan shall prevail. She stated in her opinion,the Plan should prevail in this instance and protection/retention should be given priority over redevelopment. Ms. Mueller further advised the statement made that the buildings are in disrepair is false.The applicant’s own Engineer confirmed both buildings are structurally sound and in good condition,only requiringroutine maintenance and/or minor restoration efforts.She expressed further concern that since the current owner acquired the properties,no attempt has been made to maintain/improve the quality of the buildings. She advisedwhensomeone purchases a heritage property and chooses not to maintain them, they should not be permitted to demolish the structure for redevelopment. She commented there were numerous written submissions received in opposition to the demolition and redevelopment of the site, stating those submissions should also be taken into consideration when rendering a decision this date. Ms. Mueller requested the Committee refuse the staff recommendation. In response to questions, Mr. Bensasonadvised when making a recommendation,staff take into consideration a broader number of issues, which in some instances include other Planning Policies. He stated the wording within the District Plan does contemplate some demolition and higher densities are acknowledged for the Weber Street corridor. He further advised staff have also made a recommendation based on the fact that the two properties proposed for demolition have not maintainedtheir heritage integrity similar to the property municipally addressed as 107 Young Street. Hecommented since the Phase I HIA,the property owner has now decided to retain 107 Young Street and specifically in regard to Weber Street,the District Plan is clear when referencing Weber Street acknowledging it for higher density. Questionsof clarificationwere raisedregarding the Group “B” and “C” classifications. Mr. Bensasonadvised the CCNHCDidentifies properties within the District by a ranking from “A” to “D” depending on their heritage significance. He noted a “D” ranked property is the lowest having little to no contribution to the District, whereas a Group “A”propertyis highly significant. He noted 56 Weber Street West is identified as a Group “C”buildinglikely due to its contribution to the streetscape and 50-52 Weber Street West is identified as a Group “B”buildinglikely dueto its Ontario Cottage style, beingbuilt between 1853 and 1875. Mr. D. Gundrum stated in his opinion,the language in the District Plan seems to have a hierarchy to follow when considering redevelopment. He stated adaptive reuse is clearly noted to be a first choice when considering site redevelopment. He questioned whether that was contemplated over full demolition. Mr. Burrows stated when considering development options for this site, theDistrict Plan speaks to Weber Street specifically, noting the potential for future redevelopment and taller buildings to be located in the corridor. He indicated the Plan speaks to under utilized properties and the desire to see a commercial/residential development. He questioned whether members had physically driven by the properties intended for demolition, noting significant repairs required to the exterior of the buildings. He stated it is not financiallyviable to repair/rent out the dwellings in the current condition. Mr. Burrows noted he used to be a member of Heritage Kitchener and is a heritage advocate, stating in his opinion, the proposed demolition speaks to the future intentions of Weber Street as outlined in the District Plan. Ms. K. Huxted expressed concerns with considering the proposed demolition prior to the new Secondary Plan being approved by Council, noting there still could be changesmadeto the draft Plan. She expressed further concern regarding the request for demolition without seeing the final proposal for the new development. She stated there is a 4-storey building on the adjacent property that may be impacted by the type ofdevelopment proposed for these properties. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2020-12-CITY OF KITCHENER 1.DSD-20-062-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-001 -HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-002 -50-52, 56 WEBER STREET WEST –PROPOSED DEMOLITIONS (CONT’D) Ms. Huxted commented the District Plan does speak to preservation, noting there are only two properties within the District resembling construction similar to that of the property municipally addressed as 50-52 Weber Street West. She indicated if demolition ispermitted,there will only be one remaining. Councillor D. Chapman noted the dwellingsproposed for demolition were identified as having heritage/cultural significance when the District was establishedas they were included within the District Boundaries. She questioned what would be acceptable for the developer to construct on the subject property,noting the District boundary will not be altered with the demolition of the dwellings. In response to questions, Mr. Bensasonadvised the developer will be required to complete a Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment to considerthe impact of the proposed development on the adjacent properties and surrounding neighbourhood. He stated staff through the recommendation are trying to maintain some control on what isintended to be redeveloped on the site, noting the proposed developmentis currentlylimitedto a height of 8-stories. Several members expressed concern with approving the demolition withoutan approved Secondary Plan, or without some confirmation ofthe final redevelopment plan. In response to questions, Mr. Burrows advised the redevelopment design is similar to what the Committee was presented when considering the Phase I HIA. He stated theintention is still to construct a 2- storey townhouse at the base with the 7-storey building, including roof top terrace, which will th essentially add an 8storey for the elevator. He noted the design has not yet been updated as it is not financial responsible to make additional changes without someassurances ofapproval. Ms. Mueller cautioned the Committee that in her opinion,the language within the District Plan related to demolition was specifically addressing catastrophic events. She stated conservation, and adaptive reuse is the hierarchy of consideration when considering redevelopment within the District. Shestatedthe developer should not be making claims that the buildings are in disrepair, considering the report from the engineerstates they are in good condition. In response to questions, Mr. Burrows advised the property owner has owned the properties for approximately 5 yearsnoting hepurchased the propertieswith the intention of redeveloping the site. Questions were raised regarding the Secondary Plan and when it was anticipated to be considered by Council for final approval. Mr. Bensasonstated staff are currently in the process of responding to commentssubmitted regarding the Draft Plan. He stated there is no anticipated date when the Secondary Plan will be brought back to Council for final approval at this time. Councillor Gazzola requested clarification on the future development process and whether Heritage Kitchener would have a further opportunity to comment on the development. Mr. Bensason indicated the possibledevelopment sequence, depending on various approvals received is anticipated to be: HPA for demolition to be considered by Council; followed by Site Plan Approval, which will dictate the requirement for the Phase II HIA; the Phase II HIA would be considered by Heritage Kitchener for feedback/comment; followed by a Heritage Permit Application for the proposed new development that would be considered and voted on by Heritage Kitchener. Several members expressed concerns with the proposed demolition noting the Committee should not be taking into consideration financial arguments to support the demolition of the proposed dwellings. In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised he could not confirm whether the applicant could appeal a refusal to demolish to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. In response to further questions, he advised staff in making their recommendation have been very deliberate with the fact that the owner will be required to obtain a Heritage Permit Application for the new development prior to them being issued their demolition permit. He noted staff would like to ensure the new development complies with the policies and guidelines of the District Plan prior to demolishing the existing dwellings. Councillor Gazzola expressed concerns with the fact that property owners can neglect their properties as a means of receiving demolition approval. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2020-13-CITY OF KITCHENER 1.DSD-20-062-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-001 -HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-002 -50-52, 56 WEBER STREET WEST –PROPOSED DEMOLITIONS (CONT’D) Ms. A. Reid stated she appreciated the developer’sintention to retain 107 Young Street after receiving the feedback from the Committee on the Phase I HIA. She stated that there may be some benefit to considering the demolition at this time as if there are changes to the Secondary Plan, there may be possibility that the property owner could build something larger than what is currently permitted on the site. She indicated the District Plan does speak to higher densities on Weber Street. If the Committee opted to wait for a further development plan,there may be less opportunity for the Committee to comment/shape the design of the future building. Ms. Reid further advised similar to buildings that came before the Committee in the past, such as the development on Queen Street and Ontario Street, she would have preferred to see a design that had an adaptive reuse of the dwellings. She stated as the buildings are structurally sound, it would have been her preferred option to see them integrated in a future development. The following motion was voted on and was LOST. On motion byMr. R. Parnell- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-V-001,as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-20-062, beapprovedto permit the demolition of the existing detached building located at 50-52 Weber Street West, subject to the following conditions: A.That a Demolition Plan in accordance with the measures outlined in Section 10. (Mitigation and Conservation Measures) of the Phase I Heritage Impact Assessment for 50-52 Weber Street West, 56 Weber Street West, and 107 Young Street dated January 17, 2020, revised March 13, 2020 and prepared by MHBC Planning Ltd., be completed to the satisfaction of City Heritage Planning staff prior to the final issuance of this Heritage Permit; and, B.That the owner obtain heritage approval under the Ontario Heritage Act and a Building Permit under the Building Code for the proposed replacement mid-rise building, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. -and- Thatpursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2020-V-002,as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-20-062,be approvedto permit the demolition of the existing detached building located at 56 Weber Street West, subject to the following conditions: A.That a Demolition Plan and a Commemoration Plan in accordance with the measures outlined in Section 10. (Mitigation and Conservation Measures) of the Phase I Heritage Impact Assessment for 50-52 Weber Street West, 56 Weber Street West, and 107 Young Street dated January 17, 2020, revised March 13, 2020 and prepared by MHBC Planning Ltd., be completed to the satisfaction of City Heritage Planning staff prior to the final issuance of this Heritage Permit; and, B.That the owner obtain heritage approval under the Ontario Heritage Act and a Building Permit under the Building Code for the proposed replacement mid-rise building, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.” Ms. D. Saunderson indicated that, as a result of the vote being LOST,Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-V-001and Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-V-002haveeffectively been refused; and accordingly, a motionreflecting this refusalwill be forwardedto Councilfor consideration at the August 24, 2020Council meeting. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2020-14-CITY OF KITCHENER 2.DSD-20-063-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-IV-003 -26 DURHAM STREET -MASONRY AND WOOD TRIM REPAIRS The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-20-063, dated March 20, 2020 recommendingapproval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2020-IV- 003 to permit masonry and wood trim repairs on the property municipally addressed as 26 Durham Street designated under Part IV of theOntario Heritage Actin 1985.Mr. L. Bensason presented the Report, advisingstaff are recommending approval of the HPA,subject to conditions. The following motion was voted on and was Carried Unanimously. On motion by Ms. K. Huxted- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2020-IV-003,as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-20-063,be approved to permit masonry and wood trim repairs on the property municipally addressed as 26 Durham Street, in accordance with the photographs and supplementary information submitted with the application, and subject to the following conditions: i.That a test panel of the proposed masonry work including repointing and crack repair, be undertaken to the satisfaction of City Heritage Planning staff before proceeding with such work on the entire building; and, ii.That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of any required building permit.” 3.DSD-20-055-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-004 -139 QUEEN STREET NORTH -REMOVAL OFA REAR ADDITION The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-20-055, dated March 24, 2020 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2020-V-004 to permit the removal of a rear addition at the property municipally addressed as 139 Queen Street North located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD).Ms. V. Grohn presented the Report, advising staff are recommending approvalof the HPA, subject toone condition. The following motion was voted on and was Carried Unanimously. On motion by Mr. R. Parnell- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-V-004,as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-20-065, be approved to permit the removal of a rear addition at the property municipally addressed as 139 Queen Street North, 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.” HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2020-15-CITY OF KITCHENER 4.DSD-20-076-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-IV-008 -811-831 BLEAMS ROAD -WINDOW REPLACEMENT IN THE WAGON SHED AND FORGE BARN BUILDINGS The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-20-076, dated June 25, 2020 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2020-IV-008to permit the replacement of four windows in the wagon shed and one window in the forge barn with new windows on the property municipally addressed as 811-831 Bleams Road and commonly known as the Steckle Heritage Homestead. The property was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Actin 1983.Mr. L. Bensason presented the Report, advising staff are recommending approvalof the HPA,without conditions. The following motion was voted on and was Carried Unanimously. On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-IV-008,as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-20-076, be approved to permit the replacement of four windows in the Wagon Shed and one window in the Forge Barn with new wood windows, on the property municipally addressed as 811-831 Bleams Road, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application.” 5.DSD-20-077-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-010 -43 SENECA DRIVE -CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STOREY ADDITION The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-20-077, datedJune 25, 2020 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2020-V-010 to permit the construction of a one-storey addition on the property municipally addressed as 43 Seneca Drive and located within the St. Mary’s Heritage Conservation District (SMHCD).Mr. L. Bensason presented the Report, advising staff are recommending approvalof the HPA, subject toone condition. In response to questions, Mr. Bensason could not confirm this date when the additionor deck on the westerly side of the property was constructed. He stated staff do not have a Heritage Permit Application for either additions. He stated due to their materials and the age of the District Plan,they were possibly constructed between 2001/2003. In response to further questions,he advised he had no concerns with the possibility of setting a precedence in the area, as the home is a corner lot property on the edge of the District. Mr. A. Good was in attendance in support of the subject HPA and the staff recommendation. In response to questions, Mr. Good advised he proposed the addition on the easterly side of the property toaccomplish a sizeincrease he was hoping to achieve, noting it was also the most under-utilizedportion of the property. Mr. D. Gundrumstated in his opinion,the home owner was being diligent with the proposed addition, trying to preserve the original dwelling. He questioned how large the addition was in comparison to the original home. In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised the addition was sizeable, although he was not aware this date the actual sq.ft. of the proposed addition. He believed it to be an approximate 40% increase of the original dwelling. In response to the comments regarding the placement of the addition, Mr. Bensason noted the property owner’s architect initially contacted staff with a larger addition in the rear ofthe property. He stated it was at staff’s suggestion to shift the addition the easterly size of the property and lower the ridgeline of the addition to create a mirrored effect, with additions on both sides. He stated the suggestion was to try to minimizethe visual impacts from the front and side yard while preserving the look of the original dwelling. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2020-16-CITY OF KITCHENER 5.DSD-20-077-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2020-V-010 -43 SENECA DRIVE -CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STOREY ADDITION (CONT’D) Ms. A. Reid commentedshe appreciated staff working with the applicantto finding an adaptive reuse of the original dwelling. She stated in her opinion,family needs have changed since these houses were built and she believedthe addition was a modest proposal. The followingmotion was voted on and was Carried Unanimously. On motion by Mr. R. Parnell- it was resolved: “Thatpursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-V-010, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-20-077, be approvedto permit the construction of a one storey addition, on the property municipallyaddressed as 43 Seneca Drive, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application and the following condition: i.That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided by Heritage Planning staff priorto the issuance of any required building permit.” 6.RETIREMENT MR. L. BENSASON Ms. A. Reid noted to the Committee that this was Mr. L. Bensason’s last meeting with the Committee. She noted he was retiring and his last day at the City is August 17, 2020. She thanked him for all his direction/work with the Committee and wished him well in his future endeavours. 7.STATUS UPDATES -HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES UPDATE AND 2020PRIORITIES -HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS Mr. L. Bensason advised he had no status updates for the Committee this date. 8.ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:20p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator