HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2021-06-01HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
JUNE 1, 2021CITY OF KITCHENER
The Heritage Kitchener Committee metelectronicallythis date, commencing at 4:01p.m.
Present:S. Hossack-Chair
Councillors D. Chapman, J. Gazzola, C. Michaud,and D. Gundrum, J. Haalboom, J. Baker,
M. Asling, M. Abid, P. Ciuciura,I.BodendorferandR. Schwarz
Staff:J. Readman,General Manager, Development Services Department
D. McGoldrick, General Manager, Infrastructure Services Department
R.Bustamante, Director,Planning
N.Lobley, Director,Parks and Cemeteries
J.Oosterveld,Manager,CustomerExperience& ProjectManagement
J. Joseph, Manager,Neighourhood Development Office
M. Drake, Senior Heritage & Project Planner
V. Grohn, Heritage Planner
A. Pinnell,Senior Planner
S. Goldrup,Committee Administrator
D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator
1.COMMENCEMENT
The electronic meeting began with a Land Acknowledgement given by Councillor D. Chapman
to honour National Indigenous History Month in Canada.
2.WELCOME -ILONA BODENDORFER
Michelle Drake introduced and welcomed Ilona Bodendorferwho was appointed to the
Committee as the Civic Centre Heritage District Representative. Ilona provided a brief
introduction about herself and interest in volunteering on the Committee.
3.ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Michelle Drake congratulated Jean Haalboom for being inducted into the Waterloo Region
Architectural Conservancy Ontario(ACO)Hall of Famefor significant contribution topreserving
the community’s heritage.
4.DSD-2021-65-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-016
-883 DOON VILLAGE ROAD
-WINDOW REPLACEMENT, ROOF REPLACEMENT, ATTIC DOOR
REPLACEMENT, WOOD REPAIRS, AND DOOR INSTALLATION ON
FORMER HOG AND HEN HOUSE
The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-2021-65, dated May
18, 2021 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021-IV-016to
permitthe replacement of windows,roofandattic door; as well as,wood repairs, and the
installation of new doors on the former Hog and Hen House located on the property municipally
addressed as 883 Doon Village Road.The subject property is designated under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act. VictoriaGrohn presented the Report, advising staffare recommending
approval of the HPA, subject to the conditions as outlined in the report.
Ali Lafrance, property owner,was in attendance to respond to questions from the Committee. In
response to questions, A. LaFranceindicated she was unsure at this moment how long it would
take to fully restore the building, noting at this time the only work being proposed related to the
preservation of the exteriorof the building, noting nothing was being completed to the interior of
the building at this time.
The following motion was voted on and was Carried unanimously.
On motion by Councillor C. Michaud-
it was resolved:
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
JUNE 1, 2021-28-CITY OF KITCHENER
4.DSD-2021-65-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-016
-883 DOON VILLAGE ROAD
-WINDOW REPLACEMENT, ROOF REPLACEMENT, ATTIC DOOR
REPLACEMENT, WOOD REPAIRS, AND DOOR INSTALLATION ON
FORMER HOG AND HEN HOUSE(CONT’D)
“That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2021-IV-016 be approved, as outlined in Development Services Department report
DSD-2021-65,to permit the replacement of windows, replacement of the roof,
replacement of the attic door, wood repairs, and the installation of new doors on the
former Hog and Hen House located on the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon
Village Road, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the
application, subject to the following condition:
1.That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearanceprovided
by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of any required building permit(s).”
5.DSD-2021-88-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-018
-59 MARIANNE DORN TRAIL
-CONSTRUCTION OF FENCE AND STONE WALL
The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-2021-88, dated May
18, 2021 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021-IV-018to
permitthe construction of a fence and stone wall on the property municipally addressed as 59
Marianne Dorn Trail. The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act and was formerly addressed as 324 Old Huron Road. VictoriaGrohn presented the Report,
advising staff are recommending approval of the HPA.
Sebastian Prins, property owner, was in attendance in support of the HPA and to respond to
questions from the Committee.S. Prins provided a brief overview of the location of the proposed
fence and its impacts of the heritage views on the property. In response to questions,V. Grohn
advised the property owner would only be permitted to construct a fence as outlined in the HPA,
which is proposed at 6 feet in height.
M.Abidleft the meeting at this time.
The following motion was voted on and was Carried unanimously.
On motion by Councillor C. Michaud -
it was resolved:
“That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2021-IV-018 be approved, as outlined Development Services Department report
DSD-2021-88, to permit the construction of a fence and stone wall on the property
municipally addressed as 59 Marianne Dorn Trail, in accordance with the supplementary
information submitted with the application.”
6.DSD-2021-87-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-019
-300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRESCENT
-RELOCATION OF A MAPLE TREE
The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-2021-87, dated June
1, 2021 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021-IV-019to
permitthe relocation of a maple tree at the property municipally addressed as 300 Joseph
Schoerg Crescent. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and
subject to a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement. MichelleDrake presented the Report,
advising staff are recommending approval of the HPA.
Beth Hanson, property owner, was in attendance in support of the HPA and the staff
recommendation.
The following motion was voted on and was Carried unanimously.
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
JUNE 1, 2021-29-CITY OF KITCHENER
6.DSD-2021-87-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-019
-300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRESCENT
-RELOCATION OF A MAPLE TREE(CONT’D)
On motion byCouncillor J Gazzola-
it was resolved:
“That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2021-IV-019 be approved, as outlined in Development Services Department report
DSD-2021-87,to permit the relocation of a maple tree at the property municipally
addressed as 300 JosephSchoerg Crescent in accordance with the application and
supporting materials.”
7.DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -16-20 QUEEN STREET NORTH
-PROPOSED 34-STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
J. Baker declared aconflict with respect to the Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the
property municipally addressed as 16-20 Queen Street North, noting his employer has received
sponsorship from the developer and did not participate in any voting or discussion relatedtothis
matter.
The Committee considered a memorandum dated May 19, 2021 regarding a Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) for the property municipally addressed as 16-20 Queen StreetNorth. The
subject property is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register(MHR)as a non-designated
property of heritage interest.The Committee was also in receipt of written submissions from the
North Waterloo Region branch, Architectural Conservancy Ontario;Jean HaalboomandRobert
Wildemanrelated to the HIA.
VictoriaGrohn provided opening remarks, stating adraft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has
been prepared by MHBC Planning Ltd., regarding the property municipally addressed as 16-20
Queen Street Northand its proposedredevelopmentof the propertywith a 34-storey tower. V.
Grohn advised the proposed development includes the retention and incorporation ofthefront
façade of the existing building, which is currently listed on the City’s MHR,into the proposed
condominium building. V. Grohn indicatedstaff are seeking the Committee’s feedback on the
HIA, which will be taken into consideration as part thestaff review.
Rachel Redshaw,MHBC Planning,Brian PrudhamandTyler Ulmer, Momentum Developments,
Nadine Nandi, ABA Architects Inc. and Paul Kalbfleisch, PAUL Consulting Inc., were in
attendance in support of the proposed development and the draft HIA. R. Redshaw presented
the draft HIA, noting 16-20 Queen Street North is a ‘listed’ property on the MHR, islocatedwithin
the ‘Downtown’ cultural heritage landscape identified in Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL)
Study and was included in the City’s Queen Street Placemaking Plan.R. Redshawprovided
information on the following: abrief historical background on the property; the existing elevations
of the building; the evaluation of the property under Ontario Regulation 9/06; the physical,
historical and contextual value of the property; theexisting heritage attributes; as well as,an
overview of the proposed redevelopment plan.
R. Redshawadvised the developer obtained a Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA), which discovered mercury contaminationbelow theexisting building. Toaddress the
contaminated soil,it was determined that removalthe of the majority of the rear of the building
would be requiredto accommodate the development. R. Redshaw statedthe front façade of the
building is proposed to be retained which would allowfor the building to be presented as it has
historically along the streetscape.R. Redshawfurther advised the interior heritage attributes are
proposed to be salvaged and incorporated into a Community Benefit space that is publicly
accessible within theproposeddevelopment.R. Redshawprovided an overview of the
development alternativesthat wereconsidered, as well as the mitigation measures being
proposed with the preferred alternative.Finally, R. Redshaw provided an overview of the
conservation recommendations, and demonstrated what the existing dwelling would look like
incorporated within the proposed development.
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
JUNE 1, 2021-30-CITY OF KITCHENER
7.DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -16-20 QUEEN STREET NORTH
-PROPOSED 34-STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (CONT’D)
Karl Kessler and Sandra Parks,ACO North Waterloo Region,addressed the Committee in
opposition to the demolition of 16-20 Queen Street North. A brief history of the building was
provided, including additional information on the heritage attributes contained within the interior
of the building. K. Kessler indicated the HIA indicates through the evaluation under Ontario
Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act the building has significant cultural heritage value or
interest and is worthy of designation. S. Parks stated Council approved a Heritage Best Practices
report in 2015 which noted consideration should be given to being more active in designating
culturalheritage resources. S. Parks requested the Committee pass a motion requesting Council
to begin the intent to designate the process, recognizing 16-20 Queen Street North as being of
cultural heritage value.
Silke Force, Isabella Stefaescu,Martin DeGroot andErnest Daetwyleraddressed theCommittee
in opposition to the demolition of 16-20 Queen Street North, noting both the exterior and interior
of the property should be preserved.
Kevin White, Waterloo Region Yes in my Back Yard (WRYIMYB)addressed the Committee in
support of the development, noting housing is an identified need withinthe community.K. White
stated Waterloo Region is experiencing a housing shortage, indicatingthe proposal is a means
of achieving additional housing units while taking into consideration heritage conservation. K.
White further advised the added community space within the development should also continue
to be a focus of the development.
R. Schwarzacknowledged comments about affordable housing and the need within the
community, stating the proposed development does not appear to be targeted to address
affordable housing shortages.R. Schwarzindicated the building should be preserved in its
entirety, noting it is a heritage attribute for the community.
In response to questions, T.Ulmerstated there has beenmercury identified under the building
that will need to be extracted, noting the only way to address thesite remediation is to remove
the rear part of the building, indicating site remediation is arequirement of the Ministry of the
Environment. T. Ulmer stated the contamination is located under load bearing walls and cannot
be adequately addressed without removal of the rear of the building.
Councillor C. Michaud stated there is a junction in the downtown when it comes to preserving
heritage and the demand for housing. Councillor Michaud noted there have been other heritage
buildings that have been redevelopedwhile addressing heritage conservation, noting this
building should be preserved beyond what is being proposed.
Councillor D. Chapman stated the buildinghas heritage significance internally and externally.
Councillor Chapman further advised the building is also significant to the arts and culture
community and questioned whether thedelegations that addressed the Committee could identify
compromises related to the proposed redevelopment.
The delegations noted the following for consideration: leaving the building in its current condition;
additional concerns were raised regarding the construction of a new tower and the impacts of
the existing corridor and whether an additional tower building would create a wind tunnel
impacting walkability; and, further concessionson the part of the developer to increase the
number ofaffordable housing units.
Councillor J. Gazzola questioned whether the site could be remediated without the demolition of
the entire building. T. Ulmer stated they could speak further with their engineer related to
additionalremediation options.
In response to questions, V. Grohn provided an overview of the designationprocess, noting if
the Committee wished to pursue designation,they would need to pass a motion which would be
forwarded to Council for consideration. V. Grohn advised if Council chose to pursue the
designation,the property owner would have an opportunity to appeal Council’s decision to a
Provincial Tribunal.
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
JUNE 1, 2021-31-CITY OF KITCHENER
7.DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -16-20 QUEEN STREET NORTH
-PROPOSED 34-STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (CONT’D)
D. Gundrumcommented about the Places to Grow Act, noting the Province hasencouragedthis
type ofintensification.D. Gundrumquestioned whether any additional studies were completed
to support the development, or if any additional planning act applications would be required.
T. Ulmer stated thedevelopment is permitted as of right, noting no on-site parking is being
providedwith the development so a transportation study was not required.
In response to questions, V. Grohn advised the property isonlylisted on the Municipal Heritage
Register.
Councillor J. Gazzola statedhe was not aware after reviewing the materials circulated to the
Committee that the entire building was proposed to be demolished, indicatinghe thought the
tower was being constructed on top of the existing dwelling.Councillor Gazzola further advised
the interior features of the building are significant and need to be preserved, noting although
development is encouraged in the downtown care, not every development needs to be
approved, stating in his opinion the City is meeting the commitments of the Places to Grow Act.
Councillor J. Gazzola broughtforward a motion to recommend designation of the property
municipally addressed as 16-20 Queen Street North, the attributes of heritage significance
including both interior and exterior features as identified in the Heritage Impact Assessment
prepared by MHBC Planning, dated May 19, 2021.
Questions were raised on the length of time it could take to complete the designation process.
V. Grohn noted if the Committee passed a motion,it would go to Council on June 28, 2021 for
their consideration. A notice would then be published in the newspaper, which would have a 30-
day appeal period. Following the appeal period,Council would then need to pass the By-law to
designate the property. If the property owner did appeal the designation,she could not confirm
this date how long it would take for a hearing to be scheduled by the Provincial Tribunal.
In response to questions regarding alternative development options, T. Ulmer advised theonly
development proposal being considered is the one that is before the Committee this date, noting
there are no alternative options currently being considered.
P. Ciuciurastated the building is historically significant andthe community space withinthe
building should not permit the developer from demolishing the back half of the building. P.
Ciuciuracommented the Committee only has so many options to encourage the preservation of
the building and in this instance requesting Council to begin the designation process.
M. Asling stated the building is aesthetically pleasing, adding he would be willing to support the
designation if it did not have any impacts on the development of housing supply. M. Asling stated
as mentioned by one of the delegations,the population is growing faster than housingsupply.
M. Aslingstated in his opinion,the Committee needs to take into consideration the impacts of
any decision that is made that may prohibit the increase of housing.
Councillor Chapman commented although there are concerns in the community related to
affordable housing, designation of the property would not prohibit future development, noting a
34-storey tower could be constructed on stilts above the existing building.
B.Prudhamadvised currently over 20% of the proposed units in the development are affordable
units.B.Prudhamindicated a building design on stilts could impact the ability to achieve 20% of
the units being affordable.
A recorded vote was requested.
The following motion was voted on and was Carried,on a recorded vote, with CouncillorsJ.
Gazzola, C. Michaud, D. Chapman and R.Schwarz, J. Haalboom, S. Hossack, P.Ciuciura,D.
Gundrum,I.Bodendorfer; and, M. Aslingvoting in opposition. J. Bakerpreviously declared a
conflict of interest and accordingly did not vote.
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
JUNE 1, 2021-32-CITY OF KITCHENER
7.DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -16-20 QUEEN STREET NORTH
-PROPOSED 34-STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (CONT’D)
On motion by Councillor J Gazzola -
it was resolved:
“That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish
a Notice of Intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 16-20 Queen St
N as being of cultural heritage value or interest, as outlined in the draft Cultural Heritage
Impact Assessmentreport prepared by MHBC, dated May 19, 2021, including:
•the exterior, and
•select interior attributes.”
8.PERMANENT INDIGENOUS SPACE IN VICTORIA PARK
The Committee considered a memorandum dated May 27, 2021, entitled “Permanent
Indigenous Space in Victoria Park” regarding an identifiedneed for permanent
Indigenous spaces on public lands for gathering and ceremonial purposeswithin Victoria Park.
JoshJoseph provided background on the initiative, noting a Reconciliation Action Plan Working
Group has been formed to explore how local municipalities can support Indigenous-led place
keepingon lands within Waterloo Region for the purpose of cultural ceremonies, land-based
education, exploration, and other community-based needs. J. Joseph indicated the permanent
Indigenous space initiativeproposed for Victoria Parkis an Indigenous-centred and Indigenous-
led project with the goal of delivering a physical space for these communities to better reflect the
history and heritage of its original caretakers.Through extensive engagement with local
Indigenous communities, Victoria Park was identified as the venue that would send the strongest
message that this community is committed to advancing actions of reconciliation.J. Joseph
commentedthis initiativewill haveextensive engagement with Indigenous communities, allowing
them to offer feedback, ideas and their vision for the permanent space.J. Joseph provided an
overview of the next steps related to the project including: working alongside the Indigenous
Parks Engagement Associate, the team will continue to dialogue with local Indigenous leaders
and organizations to form a foundation for how these spaces will look, feel and operate;develop
a shared communications platform; and, further engage members of the Indigenous community
in a series of meetings in Summer 2021, where any member of the Indigenous community within
the Region of Waterloo will have an opportunity to share feedback, thoughts, concerns and
ideas.
Several members spoke in support of the initiative, noting the importance of the space for the
community.
In response to questions, J. Joseph advised the matter before the Committee is a first step for
keeping the Committee informed on the establishment of the space. J. Joseph commented
updates couldbe provided to the Committee as work continues to progress on the project, noting
the updates are anticipated to be more for information, as the project will be primarilyIndigenous
led.
Questions were raised regarding the Victoria Park Area HeritageConservation District and
whether there was a means for updating the plan to include the process/approach for similar
types of initiatives as a means of expanding heritage inclusiveness. M. Drake commented the
Ontario Heritage Act does not have a mechanism to update a District Plan. To update the Plan,
it would require a full-scale process necessary to establisha newHeritage Conservation District
and would be subject to appeal. M. Drake suggested as a possible option,staff couldformalize
the process by writing a report to Councilon the process that was undertakenas a means of
documenting theinitiative related to the District.
J. Baker stated he did think a formal process should be undertaken from the process that can
be used as a model for heritage planning in the future. J. Baker commented the Reconciliation
Action Plan Working Groupwill be a valuable network to assist in identifying other opportunities
such as this for the community.
HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES
JUNE 1, 2021-33-CITY OF KITCHENER
9.INTRODUCTION TO MIKE & PAT WAGNER HERITAGE AWARDS
MichelleDrakeprovide information on 2021 Kitchener’s Great Places -Mike and Pat Wagner
Heritage awards. M. Drake advised the Mike & Pat Wagner Heritage Award was established in
1997 to pay tribute to property owners and businesses who have contributed to the conservation
of the City’s cultural heritage resources.The City’s heritage award forms part of Kitchener’s
Great Places Awardsand help to recognize heritageconservation in the following three
categories: Preservation / Restoration of Cultural Heritage Resources,Rehabilitation / Adaptive
Reuse of Cultural Heritage Resourcesand Individual Contributions to the Field of Heritage
Conservation. M. Drake indicated the award nominations were anticipated to open in July 2021
and the item is anticipated to beincluded on the Committee’s August agendafor consideration.
M. Drake encouraged all members to consider possible people or projects worthyof nomination.
10.HERITAGE KITCHENER 2021-2022 WORK PLAN& STATUS UPDATES
-HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES UPDATE AND 2021PRIORITIES
-HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS
The Committee considered the Heritage Kitchener 2019-2020 Work Plan, which includes the
activities intended to be completed by Heritage Planning staff and the Committee for the 2021-
2022 Advisory Committee term.
Michelle Drake noted due to time constraints, it was suggestedconsideration could be given to
deferring this matterto ensure the Committee has a fulsome opportunity to discuss the workplan.
M. Drake questioned if the discussion should be deferred to the August meeting, noting she
could circulate information to the Committee that staff had prepared for the meeting this date
which may help to inform the August meeting and further that dialogue.
R. Schwarzindicated from the previous meeting and the comments raised regarding
decolonizing heritage, she did have additional information that could be shared with the
Committee prior to the next meeting to help inform the discussion.
R. Schwarzleft the meeting at this time.
Several membersspoke in support of deferring the discussion to the August Committee meeting.
J. Haalboom noted the Terms of Reference for the Committee are based on requirements
outlined in Section 28 of the Ontario Heritage Act and questioned how decolonizing heritage
would address thoserequirementsand how it could be included into the workplan. M. Drake
indicated staff have given it some consideration and can circulate the information that was
prepared for the Committee this date to allow members to review the information in advance of
the next Committee meeting.
J. Haalboom further requested consideration for storyboards at Willow Lake and in Upper Doon
to recognize Homer Watson’s birth place that were raised as part of the previous workplan
discussion and whether she could begin work on those two initiatives over the summer months
in advance of the work plan discussion at the August meeting.
S. Hossack indicated if the Committee was agreeing to defer the work plan to August, any and
all initiatives should wait to be pursued until the Committee has come to an agreement on the
final work plan. M. Drake advised staff would ensure materials are circulated to the Committee
for consideration over the summer to ensure afulsome discussion at the August Committee
meeting.
11.STATUS UPDATES -HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES UPDATE AND 2021 PRIORITIES
-HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS
V. Grohn and M. Drakeadvised there were no status updates this date.
12.ADJOURNMENT
On motion, this meeting adjourned at 7:15p.m.
D. Saunderson
Committee Administrator