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