Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-06HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 6. 2012 CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:03 p. m. Present: K. Kirby -Chair Councillors F. Etherington , J. Gazzola and Y. Fernandes, Ms. A. Oja, Ms. E. Young, and Messrs. J. Ariens, L. Robertson, S. Sindile, S. Thomson, G. Wolfe and G. Zeilstra Staff: R. Regier, Executive Director, Economic Development L. Bensason, Coordinator of Cultural Heritage Resources M. Drake, Heritage Planner J. Billett, Committee Administrator CSD-11-116 -HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2012-V-002 - 11 ROY STREET - PROPOSED PORCH RECONSTRUCTION The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-12-035, dated February 16, 2012, recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2012-V-002 for 11 Roy Street to replace the front porch. Ms. M. Drake advised that Heritage staff have no concerns with the proposed application and are recommending approval subject to 2 conditions related to final building permit drawings and the brick materials to be used in reconstruction of the brick piers. Mr. J. Ariens suggested that the owner should be required to use any of the original brick salvaged on the front of the piers and any new brick on the back side. Ms. Drake advised that staff can work with the owner to ensure an appropriate match. Mr. K. Kirby asked that in working with the owner, staff recommend to the owner that in the event the number of original bricks fall short for reconstruction they use the salvaged bricks on the front of the piers. On motion by Mr. S. Thomson - itwas resolved: "That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2012-V-002 be approved to permit the replacement of the front porch at 11 Roy Street in accordance with the plans and supporting information submitted with the application subject to the following conditions: That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and approved by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit; and, That the bricks required to complete the reconstruction of the brick piers be reviewed and approved by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit ." UPDATE - DESIGNATION OF 137-147 KING STREET EAST Ms. M. Drake advised that designation of the property 137-147 King Street East has moved forward. She advised that staff had agreed to remove reference to "roof" from the heritage attributes and on this basis, the owner withdrew an appeal to the Conservation Review Board. A by-law to designate the property has been adopted by Council. In response to Mr. Kirby, Ms. Drake advised that the owner is only required to seek approval of alterations to the building if it impacts the heritage attributes set out in the by-law. She added that "roofline" is still listed as a heritage attribute and if any alterations are proposed that would affect the front facade a Heritage Permit Application would be required. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 35 DAVID STREET -PHASE II The Committee was in receipt this date of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated March 1, 2012 for 35 David Street, prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 6. 2012 - 11 - CITY OF KITC 3. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIAI - 35 DAVID STREET -PHASE II (CONT'D Mr. Laird Robertson disclosed a pecuniary interest and abstained from all discussion and voting concerning this matter as he is employed by the firm who prepared the HIA. Mr. L. Bensason advised that this HIA represents Phase II of development, noting that an HIA for Phase I (31-43 David Street and 25 Joseph Street) was considered in February 2010. It was noted that a second phase was always part of the development plans and was subject to financing. Mr. Bensason advised that funding has been obtained and the developer is now proceeding with Phase II on an aggressive timeline to meet deadlines applicable to the funding source. He added that a Heritage Permit Application for this phase will be coming to Heritage Kitchener for consideration in April. At this time, the Committee's comments on the draft HIA are being requested for purpose of site plan review. Mr. Owen Scott, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., and Ms. Karen Kwiatkowski, General Manager, Kitchener Housing Inc., attended in support of the draft HIA. Mr. Scott advised that the HIA is required to address potential impact of the Phase II development on the heritage attributes of 25 Joseph Street, a Part IV designated property, and on heritage attributes associated with the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (HCD), particularly as it relates to the surrounding streetscape and neighbourhood. Phase II will fill the vacant lands beside the development completed as Phase I and will mirror the building design of the first phase. The site plan will encompass the same building footprint and exterior cladding will be in similar red brick materials. The building is to be attached to the first, with both buildings to share a common lobby and elevator located in the first building to achieve cost savings; and a central entranceway will be articulated to give the appearance of 2 separate buildings. Mr. Scott expressed the view that Phase II will not have any impact on the heritage attributes of 25 Joseph Street as it is separated from the designated property by the Phase 1 building; and Phase II will enhance the streetscape by filling the void left by demolition of former apartment buildings and provision of landscaping planned for the new building. Mr. K. Kirby noted that the original development plans provided for two separate buildings with a parkette in between and questioned why this plan had been changed. Mr. Scott advised that plans to attach the two buildings is for purposes of allowing use of a common lobby and elevator to save substantial costs. He stated that the change in no way impacts on the heritage attributes of the designated building or surrounding neighbourhood and reiterated that the main entrance will be articulated to give the appearance of 2 buildings. Councillor Y. Fernandes commented that the massing gives the appearance of a walled streetscape and while she could understand the desire to achieve cost savings it would be her preference to see a greenspace between the two buildings. Ms. K. Kwiatkowski referred to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (OPTED) concepts which are now applied in the planning process. She pointed out that problems of safety at the former apartment buildings on this site were present wherein space between the buildings was used for inappropriate activities. She stated that attaching the two buildings allows removal of darkened space between the buildings where problems could potentially occur. Mr. J. Ariens stated that while he understood concerns regarding the length of the buildings, the draft HIA has no impact to the heritage attributes of the designated building. He suggested that the appropriate time to discuss articulation of the buildings would be when the Heritage Permit Application is brought to the Committee for consideration. Mr. Bensason pointed out that Heritage Kitchener is being asked for comment on the draft HIA in preparation of Heritage staff making recommendations to the Site Plan Application Committee. He pointed out that the recommendations of Heritage staff will potentially have influence on the site plan and advised that now would be the appropriate time to comment on any concerns regarding the massing and articulation of the building. Mr. Bensason added that the HIA was requested in part to determine if articulation of the central entrance is sufficient to break massing to give the appearance of 2 buildings and staff was of the opinion it does. Mr. Ariens expressed the view that he did not see the massing as an issue to the heritage attributes and suggested that as concerns being raised relate more to site planning it was perhaps not appropriate as site plan issues are not within the mandate of this Committee. Councillor F. Etherington questioned if by eliminating the greenspace between the two buildings it is anticipated to create less of a safety issue. Ms. Kwiatkowski advised that design HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 6. 2012 - 12 - CITY OF KITCH 3. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 35 DAVID STREET -PHASE II (CONT'D) of the building was looked at from the perspective of security and protection of occupants Mr. J. Ariens questioned if both buildings must have the same colouring, noting that a different colour could be used to delineate between buildings. Mr. Scott suggested that similar colouring to 25 Joseph Street and the Phase 1 building should be used as it creates more of a cohesive development. Mr. Ariens suggested that the developer consider a different colouring for at least the central entranceway to help address distinction between the two buildings. Mr. Scott agreed that a different colour and/or materials could be used in this area but noted that the design is to be articulated such that at any angle the buildings will look like two separate buildings. Ms. A. Oja inquired if trees can be planted to soften the streetscape. Mr. Scott advised that the Phase II design includes gardens similar to Phase I and planting of new trees along David Street. 4. CSD-12-036 -LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTY OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-12-036, dated February 21, 2012, recommending listing of certain properties on the Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest. Ms. M. Drake reviewed the 4 step process used in considering properties for listing on the MHR and details of the 6 properties proposed this date for listing. It was noted that the property owners had been notified and given an opportunity to provide input and to make presentation at the meeting this date. Ms. Drake advised that verbal support was received for the properties at 56 Duke Street West, 41 Weber Street West and 73 Young Street. Written correspondence from the owner of 20 Weber Street East was received requesting consideration of changes to the list of heritage attributes in the draft Statement of Significance, as outlined in Table 1.0 to report CSD-12-036. Ms. Drake advised that staff is in agreement with most of the changes requested for 20 Weber Street East; however, proposed changes in wording for attributes pertaining to elevations of the building and window /window openings is not typically what is included in a list of heritage attributes. She pointed out that the list typically refers to features of a building, whereas the proposed wording speaks to additions and/or replacements to the building which staff believes does not belong in the list of attributes. She asked that this property be dealt with separately and proposed two options for consideration, including: approval of a modified list of attributes that would include all requested changes except the added language proposed to be used for elevations of building and window /window openings; or secondly, approval of the Statement of Significance as revised to include all requested changes to the list of heritage attributes as proposed by the owner. Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned which option best protects the property. Ms. Drake stated that either would equally protect the property, noting that the owner's concerns relate to their ability to undertake future alterations. The owner was advised that alterations are permitted and is a matter of going through the HIA process to determine the best option for conservation. Ms. Drake added that the HIA process is only required if a demolition and/or Planning Act application is submitted, pointing out that listing of a property on the MHR is an interim process to protect against sudden demolition or alteration of sites. Mr. J. Ariens suggested that the front courtyard landscaping should be added to the list of heritage attributes. Mr. L. Robertson commented that this is one of the purest pieces of architecture, virtually untouched and should be saved in its entirety. He added that if possible the exterior ramp should be removed. Mr. K. Kirby suggested that this property should be one of the Committee's top priorities for future designation. Councillor Y. Fernandes raised concerns relative to 432 Plains Road, suggesting that it is situate in an area she anticipates will experience significant development pressure in the near term and questioned the feasibility of immediate designation. Ms. Drake advised that she was HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES CSD-12-036 -LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTY OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER (CONT'D) not aware of any impending development at this time and maintained that proceeding with the process of listing the property on the MHR firstly is warranted. Mr. Kirby questioned that if approved for listing, if this property could then proceed immediately to designation. Ms. Drake advised that could be the case if the Committee determines this property to be of a priority but it would involve a separate process. Councillor J. Gazzola questioned that in the event of a demolition application, if the 60 day waiting period is sufficient to have a property designated and Mr. Bensason advised that the timeframe is typically sufficient. On motion by Councillor Y. Fernandes - itwas resolved: "That pursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the following properties be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest, in accordance with the Statements of Significance attached as Appendix 'A' to Community Services Department report CSD-12-036: • 56 Duke Street West; • 432 Plains Road; • 72 Victoria Street South; • 41 Weber Street West; and, • 73 Young Street." On motion by Mr. J. Ariens - itwas resolved: "That pursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the property municipally addressed 20 Weber Street East be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register as a non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest in accordance with the Statement of Significance, attached as Appendix 'A' to Community Services Department report CSD-12-036 as revised to provide the following modified list of heritage attributes: all elevations of the building; flat roof and roofline; windows and window openings; boomerang plan with two rectangular wings set at an angle of 42 degrees; precast concrete cladding; main entrance, including door and door opening, with concrete parabolic arch influenced by the Conestoga Wagon; date stone; signs at each end of the building that read "County of Waterloo Court House"; and front courtyard landscaping." A general discussion was then entered into in regard to the substantial number of properties still to be evaluated and the time it takes to consider each property under the 4 step process. Questions were raised in regard to the feasibility of taking steps to shorten the process. Mr. L. Bensason advised that direction was taken from Council in establishing the 4 step process that required staff to ensure that each property previously listed on the heritage inventory be evaluated against the new criteria and that full disclosure of documented research be given to property owners for comment prior to consideration by Heritage Kitchener and ultimately by Council. He added that the documented research resulting from the review is sufficient to allow the City to proceed to designation quickly if warranted and expressed the view that the process is transparent, particularly in allowing involvement of the owner at the outset. Ms. M. Drake asked that it be kept in mind that the number of properties evaluated in a year is more than the number that is ultimately recommended to the Committee for listing, with many of the properties eliminated at the outset because they do not meet the criteria. Mr. L. Robertson commented that evaluation of the properties is a task of asub-committee of Heritage Kitchener and suggested that the process is slow in part due to the volunteer component. He expressed the view that the 4 step process is appropriate and provides HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES CSD-12-036 -LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTY OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER (CONT'D) support to the owner, suggesting that the Committee needs to give more of their time to facilitate the process. At the request of Councillor J. Gazzola, it was agreed to direct staff to report to a future Heritage Kitchener meeting with options to potentially shorten the evaluation process, including comparison of best practices among other municipalities. 5. UPDATE - LISTING OF 48 ONTARIO STREET NORTH ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER The Committee considered background documentation provided in response to a request by Mr. K. Kirby to have the Committee revisit 48 Ontario Street North (Bell Telephone Co. / Canadian Legion) for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) as anon-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. This property was previously considered in 2005-2006 and was recommended for listing by Heritage Kitchener; however, Council's final decision was not to list the property. The background documentation provided consists of excerpts from past minutes; as well as, Development and Technical Services Department reports DTS-05-199 (dated November 22, 2005) and DTS-06-022 (dated February 2, 2006). Mr. L. Bensason advised that this property was originally part of an exercise for the Centre Block development, wherein Heritage staff had been requested to evaluate and inventory all buildings situate on the Centre Block. 48 Ontario Street North was identified at that time as having cultural heritage value or interest, with the building previously owned by the Bell Telephone Co. and later by the Canadian Legion. Mr. Bensason reviewed the heritage attributes of the building and advised that when first considered the property was recommended to be re-affirmed for listing on the City's Heritage Inventory as an MHR did not yet exist. Consideration was deferred by Council, during which time the MHR was established and the Committee's recommendation evolved to provide that the property be listed on the MHR. Council's vote on the Committee's recommendation to list 48 Ontario Street North was lost by a vote of 4 to 2. Mr. Bensason advised that over the past several weeks he had visited the property and advised that no change has occurred to the building since 2005, with the exception that the frame which held the Canadian Legion's signage has been removed. This has no adverse impact as it was not included in the heritage attributes of the property. Mr. Bensason stated that from staff's perspective the recommendation to list the property in 2005 is still valid as the cultural heritage value of the property has not changed. On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola - itwas resolved: "That pursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the property municipally addressed 48 Ontario Street North (former Bell Telephone Co. /Canadian Legion) be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register as anon-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest in accordance with the Statement of Significance, attached as Appendix 'B' to Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-05-199." UPDATE - VICTORIA PARK LAKE BOATHOUSE IMPROVEMENTS Mr. L. Bensason provided an update on the most recent decision of Council concerning the Victoria Park Lake Boathouse improvements. Previously, Council approved an option which included an asphalt walkway between the lake edge and the patio at the rear of the Boathouse and an extended patio to the west side of the building. On reconsideration, Council approved design modifications which include: extending the patio to wrap around the east and west sides of the Boathouse; installation of decorative metal gates to block the pathway between the Boathouse and the lake edge, the closing time of which will be established as part of a lease agreement between the City and the Boathouse proprietor, and will allow the rear patio to be extended to the lake edge during evening hours and special events; and, a temporary unisex public washroom will be made available at the Boathouse until permanent washrooms are constructed in the north end of Victoria Park or in vicinity of the Boathouse. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES UPDATE - VICTORIA PARK LAKE BOATHOUSE IMPROVEMENTS (CONT'D Mr. R. Regier noted that the existing Boathouse concession window will be moved further down to the east end of the building facing Jubilee Drive as part of the exterior renovations to facilitate a door opening to the patio. It was further noted that the City has made commitment to find resolution for public washrooms within the north end of the Park and a report will be coming forward to the April 16, 2012 Community and Infrastructure Services Committee meeting for consideration of this matter. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m Janet Billett, AMCT Committee Administrator