Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage - 2010-08-31HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 31.2010 CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:00 p. m. Present: Mr. K. Kirby -Chair Councillor J. Gazzola, Ms. E. Gallaher, Ms. L. Brohman and Messrs. Z. Janecki, L. Robertson, G. Zeilstra and J. Rice. Staff: B. Sloan, Interim Manager of Long Range and Policy Planning L. Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning M. Wade, Heritage Planner G. Stevenson, Planning Technician C. Goodeve, Committee Administrator HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2010-IV-017 - 115 WOODSIDE AVENUE (HARRY CLASS POOL) -PROPOSED RENOVATIONS OF POOL CHANGE HOUSE AND DECK The Committee was in receipt this date of Heritage Permit Application HPA 2010-IV-017, dated August 25, 2010 regarding proposed alterations to the front and rear elevations of the pool change house as well as renovations to the existing poolside deck areas at 115 Woodside Avenue. Ms. M. Wade presented the HPA, advising that staff are supportive of the proposed alterations subject to their review of the final building permit drawings. Mr. John MacDonald and Ms. Krista Hulshof, John MacDonald Architect Inc. attended in support of the HPA. In response to questions, Mr. MacDonald advised that this work is being undertaken partly in response to changes brought forward by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. He noted that only parts of the fapade are painted and questioned if the Committee would prefer to have the paint around the poolside removed, or if it should remain in its existing form. Ms. M. Wade advised that staff would follow-up with the Applicant regarding this matter, as they have concerns with respect to materials that might be used to remove the paint. On motion by Ms. L. Brohman - itwas resolved: "That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA 2010-IV-017, be approved to permit: the construction of a new door opening within the foundation of the front fapade; the installation of new stairs and walkways within the front yard; the enlargement of two rear door openings by one brick course; the relocation and replacement of the drinking water fountain; and, the cleaning, repair (or replacement), and/or painting to match existing at 115 Woodside Avenue (commonly known as Harry Class Community Pool) in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application, subject to the following condition: i. That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance issued by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit." HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 99 STRANGE STREET - (ST. JOHN'S CATHOLIC SCHOOLI Mr. L. Robertson declared a conflict of interest as he is employed by a firm associated with this item and accordingly, did not participate in any discussion or voting regarding this matter. The Committee considered the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 99 Strange Street (St. Johns Catholic School), dated August 2010 prepared by MHBC Planning as a requirement of the Site Plan Approval process for a proposed addition to the rear of the building. Ms. M. Wade advised that while Heritage Planning staff are generally supportive of the proposal in principle, they still have a few concerns. She advised that Waterloo Catholic District School Board (WCDSB) are strongly encouraged to consider colours and materials that will not detract from the front fapade when undertaking the work on the proposed kindergarten HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 31.2010 - 24 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 99 STRANGE STREET - (ST. JOHN'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL) (CONT'D) area. She stated that staff disagree with the statement put forward in the HIA that the Site Plan Approval process provides an effective alternative to heritage designation for managing the property. She pointed out that future alterations that could impact heritage attributes may not trigger a requirement for Planning Act approvals, and therefore the City may not have the opportunity to require a future HIA to ensure appropriate conservation measures are undertaken. She commented that managing the conservation of cultural heritage resources is only addressed if they are afforded long-term protection via heritage designation or through a restrictive covenant such as a heritage conservation easement agreement, all under the Ontario Heritage Act. Ms. Wade further advised that it is understood that the WCDSB does not intend to undertake repairs to the exterior of the original building; however, based on Standard 7 of the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, the HIA should provide an evaluation of the existing condition of the heritage attributes and identify whether or not any interventions are needed. She noted that staff are recommending the following as conditions of Site Plan Approval: • that the HIA be approved by the Director of Planning prior to final Site Plan approval; and, • that the final Landscape Plans be reviewed and approved in consultation with the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning; and further, • that the final Elevation Drawings be reviewed and approved in consultation with the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. Ms. Wendy Shearer, MHBC Planning, Mr. Dave Bennett, WCDSB and Mr. Fei Wei, Walter Fedy Partnership were in attendance in support of the HIA. Ms. Shearer presented the HIA, advising that the proposal suggests the retention of the original 1929-46 portions of the school and the removal of the 1960~s addition. She stated that the new addition would be similar in scale, material, and layout, noting that most of the existing parking area would be removed and relocated. She commented that it would be appropriate to have 99 Strange Street continue to be listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register as anon-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. In response to questions, Ms. Shearer advised that landscape elements on the school property include a large ornamental mix of native and introduced shade and coniferous trees, evergreen foundation plantings, and open recreational fields. She added that several of those trees, especially in the front yard of the school, are not suitable for schoolyards, noting that one of the inappropriate species are Manitoba Maple, which are prone to ice damage. She added that another species is Spruce trees, which are no longer considered suitable because of concerns for visibility. She stated that the loss of these trees will be mitigated by the planting of new trees along the parking lot, noting that overall there will be a net gain in the number of trees on the site. Several members spoke in support of the preservation of the original 1929 section of the school. In addition, it was noted that it would be preferable to ensure that over time, the trees planted along the perimeter of the property do not screen the school from the public view. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 51 BREITHAUPT STREET Mr. L. Robertson declared a conflict of interest as he is employed by a firm associated with this item and accordingly, did not participate in any discussion or voting regarding this matter. The Committee considered the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 51 Breithaupt Street (Breithaupt Block), dated July 23, 2010 prepared by the Landplan Collaborative Ltd. as a requirement of the Site Plan Approval process. Mr. L. Bensason advised that 51 Breithaupt Street is listed on the Municipal Heritage Register (MHR), noting that the HIA was submitted in support of a Site Plan Application proposing to adaptively re-use the site for commercial office space. He stated that the proposed redevelopment would involve: demolition of buildings at 20-24 Breithaupt Street for parking; HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES AUGUST 31.2010 - 25 - CITY OF F 3. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIAI - 51 BREITHAUPT STREET (CONT'D rehabilitation of buildings at 51 Breithaupt Street to include partial demolitions, alterations, new additions, and repair or replacement of deteriorated character defining features. He commented that repair and/or replacement of heritage attributes might require the submission of a Conservation Plan, noting that the Committee's comments/feedback are being sought in anticipation of staff making a recommendation on a revised HIA within the next two weeks. Messrs. Owen Scott, the Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Craig Beattie, Perimeter Development and Duncan Bates, Robertson Simmons Architects, presented the HIA, describing the various heritage architectural elements of each of the building components of 20-24 Breithaupt Street as well as 51 Breithaupt Street. Mr. Scott stated that the property is representative of the founding and progression of the industrial age in Kitchener, with the earliest building dating from 1903 and the latest to 2001. He reviewed the proposed development, which is referred to as "The Breithaupt Block", being an office complex created from the historic spaces of the buildings at 51 Breithaupt Street. Mr. Beattie advised that to accommodate contemporary needs and create amenity space for the tenants, the 1966 concrete block addition (Office Cafeteria & Lab), the front portion of the 1912 single storey building (Building No. 5), and the front portion of the 1909 single storey building with its 2001 addition (Building No. 2) are to be removed; thereby, creating two courtyards enclosed by new construction at the rear and existing buildings at each side. He added that the original single storey Breithaupt Street facade of Building No. 2 with its glazing removed would be retained to frame the courtyard space. Further, the current interior wall brick arches will face the new courtyard, exposing this previously hidden architectural feature. It was noted that the three buildings at 20-24 Breithaupt Street are to be demolished to make room for the required parking for the proposed development. Mr. Scott advised that the impact of these changes will be to provide a pedestrian amenity to the street which is currently lacking, without affecting the heritage attributes of the buildings or the overall heritage character of 51 Breithaupt Street. In response to questions, Mr. Beattie stated that no structural accommodations will need to be made to the building as a result of it being located next to a railway line. Mr. Scott advised that where elements are missing, such as windows having been replaced with sheet metal or plywood, these would be either replaced with contemporary materials or replicated to maintain the vernacular fapade depending upon the circumstance. He noted that building materials such as brick will be salvaged from areas being demolished to be used as part of the proposed repairs. Ms. E. Gallaher commented that she would prefer to see the pump house located at 20-24 Breithaupt Street retained and incorporated in to the overall design of the proposed office complex. The Committee expressed general support for the proposed redevelopment and the members agreed to forward any further questions to Mr. Bensason. 4. DTS-10-157 -HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2010-V-016 - 393-411 QUEEN STREET SOUTH (BARRA CASTLE) - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE FRONT SECTION The Committee considered Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-10- 157, dated August 25, 2010 regarding Heritage Permit Application HPA 2010-V-016 as well as a supporting Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and structural report, which propose the demolition of the remaining front section of the Barra Castle and the 2-storey building located at 393-411 Queen Street South. Mr. L. Bensason presented the history of this property, advising that since it was identified as being of very high cultural heritage value within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District (VPHCD) and is of considerable public interest, the City commissioned the Walter Fedy Partnership to conduct an independent structural review of the front section of the Barra Castle. He stated that with regard to the condition of the building and structural deficiencies, the Walter Fedy Partnership found little material difference between what they observed and what was outlined in the Colin A. Lee Engineering Ltd report submitted with HPA 2010-V-016. He added that the $300 per square foot estimate to restore the Barra Castle as identified in the HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES DTS-10-157 -HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2010-V-016 - 393-411 QUEEN STREET SOUTH (BARRA CASTLE) - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE FRONT SECTION (CONT'D) Landplan Collaborative Ltd. HIA was found to be realistic. He pointed out that the main difference in the restoration approach proposed by the Walter Fedy Partnership compared with Colin A. Lee Engineering Ltd., is in recommending gluing the cracked sections of concrete wall back together by injection. He stated that this approach could result in the salvage of approximately 50% of the concrete structure, compared with 40% in the Lee approach; however in both approaches, none of the exterior stucco or interior surfaces would be able to be salvaged. He noted that the cost to restore the Barra Castle using the Walter Fedy Partnership approach is estimated at $335 per square foot. Messrs. Owen Scott, the Landplan Collaborative Ltd., and Mike Puopolo, Polocorp Inc. attended in support of HPA 2010-V-016. Mr. Puopolo advised, that as indicated in the HIA, the further structural assessments identify that the front portion of the Barra Castle building is in much poorer condition than originally thought. He noted that the HIA states that the cost estimate to restore the front portion of the Castle is significantly higher than the cost to reconstruct and replicate; that 60% of the building, with the majority of the exterior walls, would need to be replaced; and that restoration costs, even if feasible, are now estimated to be between $250 to $300 per square foot, which is double the estimated cost to replicate/reconstruct. He concluded that based on this information, demolition of the Barra Castle and reconstructing/replicating the front portion of the Castle as part of a redevelopment proposal, is the most reasonable alternative from environmental/construction, economic and heritage perspectives. In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised that the Barra Castle requires intervention given its existing condition, adding that such intervention, even with a view toward conservation, would result in the salvage of a limited amount of the building at best. He stated that various options have been considered, noting that conservation through restoration or rehabilitation is no longer viable. Accordingly, staff are not opposed the proposed demolition. Several members commented that while it would have been preferable to have the remaining front section of the Barra Castle preserved, given the findings of the various structural assessments this does not appear to be feasible. On motion by Mr. Z. Janecki - itwas resolved: "That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA 2010-V-016, be approved to permit the demolition of the remaining (front) section of the building known as the Barra Castle and a two storey building at the property municipally addressed as 393-411 Queen Street South in accordance with the Heritage Impact Assessment dated August 19, 2010 submitted with the application." Mr. Bensason advised that it is expected that the owner will submit a Site Plan Application for new development, which will require the submission of an HIA to assess the impact of the proposed new development on the VPHCD, as well as a Heritage Permit Application. He added that based on discussions with the owner, it is staff's understanding that the proposed new development may include in part the reconstruction of the front portion of the Barra Castle. He stated that development and design related issues will need to be examined carefully by City staff, and the Committee may wish to consider commenting generally on the owner's intent to build a new castle on the property. Members expressed concern that the reconstruction of the Castle would not accurately reflect what is there today. Questions were raised regarding the meaning of replication, noting that the cost associated with truly replicating the Barra Castle with materials, such as stucco and concrete, could potentially cost as much or more than the estimate to save the existing portion of the building. Several members commented that they would prefer to see the site developed with something that is in keeping with the historic character of the surrounding neighbourhood, rather than a replication constructed from modern materials, which does not resemble the original building. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:42 p. m. Colin Goodeve Committee Administrator