Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2021-01-05HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 5, 2021CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee held an electronic meetingthis date, commencing at 4:03p.m. Present:S. Hossack-Chair Councillors D. Chapman, J. Gazzola, C. Michaud,and D. Gundrum, D. Vongphakdy, J. Haalboom, J. Baker, M. Asling, M. Abid, P. Ciuciura, R. Schwarz, S. Ahmed, S. Lockwood, T. Geer, V. Mance Staff:V. Grohn, Heritage Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator 1.WELCOME AND COMMITTEE MEMBER INTRODUCTIONS The Committee members were welcomed to Heritage Kitchener’s inaugural meeting of the 2021/2022term. Each member was requested to introduce themselves and state their interest in applying to the Committee. 2.ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR D. Saunderson opened the floor to nominations for the position of Committee Chair. S. Hossack and J. Baker were nominated for appointment and standard voting procedures were used with S. Hossack being appointed the Chair. On motion by Councillor D. Chapman- it was resolved: “That S. Hossackbe appointed as Chair of Heritage Kitchener for a term expiring November 30, 2022.” J. Haalboom was nominated for Vice-Chair and agreed to stand for appointment. No further nominations were forthcoming. On motion by Councillor D. Chapman- it was resolved: “That J. Haalboom be appointed as Vice-Chair of Heritage Kitchener for a term expiring November 30, 2022.” 3.DSD-21-001-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONHPA-2021-IV-001 -38SHIRK PLACE -REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWSAND ROOF, CONSTRUCTION OF DORMERS, AND CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND STOREY REAR YARD ADDITION The Committee considered DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-21-001, dated December 22, 2020recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021- IV-001to permit the replacement of the roof; replacement of windows; restoration of roof dormers; and construction of a second storeyrear addition on the property municipally addressed as 38 Shirk Place designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1984. The Committee was also in receipt of written submissions from the Architectural Conservancy Ontario -North Waterloo Region, Marg Rowell; the Architectural Conservancy Ontario -Hamilton Region Branch, Shannon Kyles; and, J. Haalboomrelated to HPA-2021-IV-001.Victoria Grohn presented the Report, advising staff are recommending approval of the HPA, subject to one condition. BrodieBarthand Emily Schuurmanswere in attendance in support of the staff recommendation as outlined in Report DSD-21-001.B. Barth provided an overview of the property, noting it was currently a multi-residential dwelling containing four units. It was noted the property has been neglected over time and they purchased it with the intent to renovate, stating they have an appreciation for heritage buildings and would like it to be a landmark in the City. Marg Rowell, Architectural Conservancy Ontario(ACO)-North Waterloo Region, addressed the Committee in opposition to the staff recommendation outlined in Report DSD-21-001. M. Rowell HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 5, 2021-2-CITY OF KITCHENER 3.DSD-21-001-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONHPA-2021-IV-001 -38SHIRK PLACE -REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS AND ROOF, CONSTRUCTION OF DORMERS, AND CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND STOREY REAR YARD ADDITION (CONT’D) referred to the written submission that was prepared and circulated to the Committee, and requested further consideration be given to replacing the windows with wooden window frames, rather than the proposed vinyl; to consider cedar shingles in a lighter brown-grey colour rather than the proposed black metal shingles; to consider horizontal boarding rather than board and batten material;for replacement of the dormers to be closerto the original, asthe proposed dormers appear to be more elaborate than theones demonstrated in the Report; and, the change to the additionat the rear, as it seems to eliminate the ground floor porch. M. Rowell requested possible deferral of the HPA to allow further opportunity to consider their proposed changes to the dwelling. In response to questions, B. Barth advised with regards to the written submissions, he reviewed the list of recommended heritagecontractorson the ACO website and contacted three of them to discuss the replacement of the windows. They noted restoration was currently not financially viable as there are 45 windows that need to be addressed. B. Barth stated the cost to replace the windows was anticipated at $60,000. Following conversation with the heritage contractors, they provided a cost estimate of approximately $199,000. J. Haalboom referenced the written submission she provided to the Committee, noting the documented photos are of the property from inception. She provided an overview on the history of the property, statingshe was a member of the Heritage Committee when the property was designated in 1984. J. Haalboom indicated there isan identical dwelling in the City of Waterloo that has been restored back to its original architecture. She expressed concerns with the subject HPA and the proposed renovations, including: the dormers not being reflective of what previously existed; the proposed board and batten,stating materials of this nature would not have existed when the dwelling was constructed and the original cladding on the property was horizontal; thecolour of the proposed roof, indicating grey would be preferred over black; as well as, the proposed use of vinyl windows. J. Haalboom questioned whether it would be beneficial to defer consideration of the HPA to allow the property owner additional time to speak with local Mennonite suppliers to source wood-framed windows that would be financially viable. J. Haalboom further advised there is photo documentation of the dwelling that is available to assist the property owners in renovating the property similar to its original features. She commented the designation referencesthe windows as a significant feature of the dwelling, noting in her opinion the replacement of wood-framed windows to the proposed vinyl will have a noticeable impact on the exterior. In response to questions, B. Barthadvised the proposed dormers are not intended to be ornamental, noting they would like to provide additional light into the attic of the dwelling. He further advised they were also intended to bring back a feature that was previously on the dwelling, noting it would also expose some of the timber structure in the attic. P. Ciuciura questioned withregards tothe proposed metal roofing, whether it was anticipated that the existing roof would be removed or whether the applicant was intending to strap the existing roof and apply the new roof on top of what currently exists this date. B. Barth stated he was provided both options for the installation. P. Ciuciura stated it would be his preference to see the existing roof removed, noting while itmay bemore economical to strap and go over what currently exists this date, it would be a good value and extend/improvethe life of the roof if the existing roof is removed andanew one is installed. B. Barth stated he had no objections to removing the roof that is currently in existence to install the new metal roof. Questions were raised regarding the intentions of thedwelling units. B. Barth stated currently the property is a four-plex. He indicated they initially considered converting it into a single- detacheddwelling and have since reconsidered. He noted they have spoken with a structural engineer and there are a number of concerning issues that need to be addressed, noting with three units having existing tenants the goal is to complete necessary exterior repairs prior to addressing interior repairs. E. Schuurmans indicated the windows and roof are currently leaking. In response to further questions, B. Barth stated currently he intended to purchase the windows HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 5, 2021-3-CITY OF KITCHENER 3.DSD-21-001-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONHPA-2021-IV-001 -38SHIRK PLACE -REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS AND ROOF, CONSTRUCTION OF DORMERS, AND CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND STOREY REAR YARD ADDITION (CONT’D) from Smart Homes Windows and Doors at a cost of just over $60,000. to replace 45 windows. B. Barth provided an image of the proposed window in comparison to an existing window, stating the goal is to mimic what is currently existing with the appropriate muntin grids. P. Ciuciura stated in his opinion, he is in support of the Heritage Permit Application as proposed by the application, noting he was not opposed to vinyl windows. He indicated he does not believe a vinyl window is inferior to a wood-framed window and what the applicant is proposing does mimic what is currently in existence this date. P. Ciuciura further advised the width of the frame and muntin are key elements to him and what the applicant has proposed is acceptable.In response to further questions,B. Barthnoted the proposed windows do not currently have patina included on the window, adding although it is an additional cost,itwould make the window look close to awood finish. D. Gundrum indicated after reviewing J. Haalboom’s photos and reading the staff report,it was his understanding the proposed dormers were not in place at the time of designation, questioning the location of the dormers and what was originally installed. B. Barth stated their ultimate goal is to renovate the property,so it is more reflective of the black and white image that was circulated by J. Haalboom, to the best of their ability.In response to further comments from the Committee, B. Barthindicated with regards to the comments about board and batten, they have no objections installinghorizontal boards rather than vertical. B. Barth statedheevaluatedpurchasing unfinished windows rather than having them painted. B. Barth stated painting costs were estimated at upwards to $800. per window and the painter indicated maintenance requirements for wood-framed windows wouldincrease,noting approximately every 7 years they would require maintenance at an anticipated cost of $37,000, rather than 25 to 30 years withvinyl windows. In response to questions, B. Barth stated they have an appreciation for history and architecture, indicatinghe works intheconstructionindustryand has previously worked for a custom home builder. B. Barth statedhe has assisted in heritage projects such as the Sim Estate and did have anunderstandingof what the property may require when they acquired it. He further advised they do have cost constraints that also need to betakeninto consideration, noting he would potentially appeal the Committee’s decisions if vinyl windows were not ultimately approved. Questions were raised regarding the number of properties within the City that were similar in nature to the subject dwelling. V. Grohn advised that the subject dwellingis a rare vintage, stating she could not confirm whether there were similar properties of this nature inthe City. M. Abid stated in her opinion she would rather see more properties that are imperfect than less heritage propertiesas a whole. A motion was brought forward by P. Ciuciurato approve the recommendation as outlined in Report DSD-21-001. A motion was brought forward by J. Haalboom to defer the portion of the Heritage Permit application related to the replacement of the wood-framed windows to the February Heritage Kitchener meeting to allow additional time for the property ownerto further investigate the window replacements. Councillor J. Gazzola questioned the applicant regarding the recommended deferralandwhat impacts the deferral may have. B. Barth stated a deferringthe windows would cause financial hardship as the property would continue to deteriorate,increasing the need for necessary repairs. J. Haalboom’s motion to defer was voted on and was LOST. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 5, 2021-4-CITY OF KITCHENER 3.DSD-21-001-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONHPA-2021-IV-001 -38SHIRK PLACE -REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS AND ROOF, CONSTRUCTION OF DORMERS, AND CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND STOREY REAR YARD ADDITION (CONT’D) The following motion was then voted on and was Carried. It was noted any recommendation arising from this matter would be consideredby Council on January 25, 2021. On motion byP.Ciuciura- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-001 be approved, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-21-001, to permit the replacement of the roof; replacement of windows; restoration of roof dormers; and construction of a second story rear addition on the property municipally addressed as 38 Shirk Place, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following condition: i.That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staffprior to the issuance of a building permit.” 4.DSD-21-002-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS HPA-2021-V-002 & HPA-2021-V-003 -172 QUEEN STREET NORTH -DEMOLITION OF DETACHED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF DETACHED GARAGE The Committee considered DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-21-002, dated December 22, 2020recommendingapproval of Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2021-V-002 and HPA-2021-V-003 to permit the demolition of an existing detached garage and the construction of a detached garageon the property municipally addressed as 172 Queen Street North located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD). Victoria Grohn presented the Report, advising staff are recommending approval of the HPA, subject to one condition. Carter El addressed the Committee in support of the staff recommendation. In response to questions,C. El noted the proposed garage is slightly wider to accommodate a car in the garage, stating he intends to maintain the same side yard setback. It was noted any recommendation arising from this matter would be consideredby Council on January 25, 2021. On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-V-002 be approved, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-21-002, to permit the demolition of an existing detached garage on the property municipally addressedas 172 Queen Street North; and further, That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2021-V-003 be approved to permit the construction of a detached garage on the property municipally addressed as 172 Queen Street North, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application, and subject to the following condition: i.That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff priorto the issuance of a building permit.” HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 5, 2021-5-CITY OF KITCHENER 5.DSD-21-003-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-004 -68 SADDLEBROOK COURT -CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAND REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS The Committee considered DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-21-003, dated December 22, 2020recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-004 to permit the construction of an addition and the replacement of windows on the property municipally addressed as 68 Saddlebrook Court designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Victoria Grohn presented the Report, advising staff are recommending approval of the HPA, subject to one condition. Michael Luscombe, Freure Homes, was inattendancein support of the staff recommendation. In response to questions, he stated the proposed windows are vinyland the roof is intended to match what is existing.M. Luscombeadvised the proposed addition will include a garage and living space that will be added to the dwelling where an existing entryway currently exists. The following motion was voted on and Carried unanimously. On motion by J.Baker- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-004 be approved to permit the construction of an addition and the replacement of windows on the property municipally addressed as 68 Saddlebrook Court, 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.” 6.STATUS UPDATES -HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES UPDATE AND 2021PRIORITIES -HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS V. Grohn advised there were no status updates this date. 7.ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:40p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator