Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-01HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 1, 2012 CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:00 p.m. Present: Mr. K. Kirby -Chair Councillors F. Etherington, J. Gazzola, Z. Zanecki and Y. Fernandes, Ms. A. Oja, Ms. E. Young, and Messrs. J. Ariens, L. Robertson, S. Thomson and G. Zeilstra. Staff: G. Murphy, Director, Engineering Services S. Allen, Manager, Engineering Design & Approvals K. Mick, Design and Approvals Engineer B. Sloan, Manager, Long Range and Policy Planning L. Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Resources M. Drake, Heritage Planner J. Billett, Committee Administrator 1. CSD-12-070 -HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2012-IV-007 - 279 GLASGOW STREET - NEW STORM WINDOWS & INNER FRONT DOOR SURROUND REPAIRS The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-12-070, dated April 11, 2012, recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2012-IV-007 to permit repair of the existing wood windows, install new wood storm windows and replace the inner cement front door surround (jams and header}. On motion by Councillor Y. Fernandes - itwas resolved: "That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2012-IV-007 be approved to permit the repair of the existing wood windows and the installation of new wood storm windows on the house municipally addressed as 279 Glasgow Street in accordance with the plans and supporting information submitted with the application; and further, That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2012-IV-007 be approved to permit the replacement of the inner cement front door surround (jams and header} on the front elevation of the house municipally addressed as 279 Glasgow Street in accordance with the plans and supporting information submitted with the application and subject to the following condition: That a sample (or samples) of the new concrete be reviewed and approved by Heritage Planning staff prior to commencement of work." 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) -HURON ROAD BRIDGE -UPDATE The Committee was in receipt of a memorandum dated April 24, 2012 prepared by Scott Davis, P.Eng., AECOM, outlining the proposed Environmental Assessment (EA} Evaluation Criteria and background information for the Huron Road Bridge improvements. A Schedule `B' EA is required when a bridge structure is more than 40 years old and which after evaluation is found to have cultural heritage value. An update on the process for the bridge EA was previously presented to the Committee for comment at its meeting of January 2, 2012. Mr. L. Bensason advised that Heritage staff sit on the EA Project Team, together with Mr. Laird Robertson representing the Heritage Kitchener Committee. The Team has undergone an evaluation exercise consisting of various alternatives for rehabilitation of the bridge and the Committee is being asked this date for comment on the study findings. Mr. K Mick advised that the study was conducted with emphasis on the heritage component of the bridge and introduced Mr. Scott Davis to present findings of the study. Mr. S. Davis advised that the Huron Road bridge is in need of rehabilitation and outlined the study objectives to address the deteriorated condition of the bridge. Mr. Davis reviewed heritage guidelines, noting the bridge was constructed in 1930 and is identified in the Region of Waterloo's `Spanning the Generations: A Study of Old Bridges in Waterloo Region" as one of the earliest examples of a bridge with a visible I-Beam in the Region. The study exercise considered the eight conservation options listed under the Ontario Ministry of Transportation HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 1.2012 - 22 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) -HURON ROAD BRIDGE -UPDATE (CONT'D) Heritage Bridge Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridges, which requires each option in order of listing to firstly be deemed non-viable before moving on to consider the next option. Three alternative approaches were evaluated in this study under technical, economic, environmental and social criteria, with all criteria given equal weighting. The three alternatives consisted of: do nothing; rehabilitation with 4 varying rail options and deck replacement; and retention of the old bridge with a new structure built on an alternate alignment. Alternative 2 with railing option 3 is preferred which includes: deck replacement, strengthening and repair of existing steel girders, removal of the load posting and removal 1 replacement of the existing railings. Mr. Davis advised that the next steps involve a second public information session to be held on May 9, 2012, following which the study will be completed for submission to the Ministry of Environment fora 30 day comment period. Once the comment period has lapsed detailed design will begin and it is anticipated that construction will start in the summer of 2012. Mr. K. Kirby commented that no historical bridge will meet current code and the Huron Road bridge should be restored as it was originally built. Councillor Y. Fernandes displayed a photograph of another bridge in the Region which has been restored and which she indicated fulfills all design criteria. She questioned how the proposed rail option will serve to replicate and maintain the heritage characteristics of the bridge. Mr. Davis advised that the preferred option comprises a single parapet with the top portion of the parapet replicating the existing bridge railings. Councillor Fernandes suggested that the preferred rail option is not in keeping with the original heritage features and questioned if the consultant had viewed examples of other bridges rehabilitated in the Region. Mr. Davis advised that he had viewed some examples and pointed out that the bridge displayed by Councillor Fernandes is not of the same style, and had differing requirements applied that did not include measures to protect vehicular movement needed for the Huron Road bridge. Councillor Fernandes questioned if any fatalities have been reported in respect to the Huron Road bridge. Mr. Davis advised that statistics of that nature were not investigated as part of the study. Mr. S. Allen added that many older bridges exist without record of fatalities, questioning the relevance of the question. Councillor Fernandes stated that part of the rationale for changes to the heritage features of the bridge is based on need to address safety, questioning why safety is of such importance for this bridge if there are no fatalities and the width of the bridge only allows vehicles to cross at low rates of speed. Mr. Allen advised that fatalities in general have been recorded and are why bridge design codes were developed. He stated that as stewards and designers of bridges there is compelling justification to use the latest code requirements. Councillor Fernandes questioned if another company she had mentioned in previous discussions, who has undertaken bridge restoration work for the Region, was consulted. Mr. S. Allen advised that the Huron Road bridge is unique to other bridges in the Region, and the Project Team consists of numerous professional individuals who have been working on the issue of the railing while keeping in mind how best to be sympathetic to the heritage aspects. He added that the consultant for this study has ample experience in the field and is aware of what has previously been done in the Region. Mr. J. Ariens expressed the view that the bridge, given its proximity to the Schneider Creek and the Doon Heritage Village /Museum, should be replicated to as close to the original structure as possible. Mr. Ariens and Councillor J. Gazzola questioned if it was possible to rehabilitate the bridge without meeting all code requirements. Mr. Allen advised that the study team has been in discussion with Legal Services staff to consider the implications if code requirements were not all met but questioned why the City would not endorse an EA that provides opportunity to do so. Councillor Gazzola noted that the bridge is used infrequently which is not likely to change in future and in this case, questioned the need to meet all code requirements. Councillor Gazzola questioned if there is any record of traffic incidents and Mr. K. Mick advised that one vehicular accident is on record occurring within the past 5 year period. Councillor Y. Fernandes requested that the EA findings be brought to the Environmental Committee for comment and Mr. Allen agreed subject to scheduling availability. Ms. E. Young commented that notwithstanding adesire to maintain the original historical features of the bridge, she would not want the heritage aspects to take precedents over meeting code requirements to address issues of safety. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 1.2012 - 23 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) -HURON ROAD BRIDGE -UPDATE (CONT'D) Mr. Stephen Thomson advised that he would prefer to see rail option 4 implemented as in his opinion it is the one that most looks like the existing bridge railings. Ms. Ana Oja questioned if the EA could be brought back to the Committee following the public information session. Mr. L. Bensason suggested that further discussion could take place in the event that a significant change to the preferred alternative results from the public information session; but if no substantive change is proposed he was not sure what merit there would be in revisiting the EA. Ms. Oja questioned if the bridge will provide a bicycle lane and Mr. Allen advised that currently it does not but could be looked at in the detailed design phase. Subsequent to the Committee concluding the remainder of its agenda, Councillor Fernandes asked to revisit this item, questioning the appropriateness of making recommendation to the consultant to consider similar restoration to that of the bridge she had displayed earlier as part of the Huron Road bridge study options. Mr. Bensason advised that the bridge in question is completely different and is not reflective of the historical values of the Huron Road bridge. 3. CSD-12-071 -GUIDELINES FOR INSTALLATION OF SOLAR TECHNOLOGY ON CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-12-071, dated April 12, 2012, recommending adoption of guidelines for installation of solar technology on cultural heritage resources. Draft guidelines were previously presented to the Committee for comment at its meeting of November 1, 2011. Ms. M. Wade advised that the purpose of the guidelines is to implement a consistent, fair and transparent process for consideration of proposals to install solar technology on cultural heritage resources (CHR). Proposals should conform to Ontario Ministry of Culture's Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties and Parks Canada Standards /Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Installations on the primary fapade is considered the least desirable option as it is likely to have the greatest adverse effect on heritage values and attributes. The proposed guidelines comprise 4 categories, including: aesthetics /visibility; design 1 installation; location; and reversibility I physical impact. Ms. Wade advised that the guidelines are primarily the same as presented in the draft with the exception that wording has been changed to delete references to the word "prohibit" and replace it with "discourage". She stated that the guidelines are being adopted on the premise that there is an understanding revisions may be necessary as the technology advances and experience is gained through consideration of proposals. Ms. Wade advised that proposals will be discouraged where removal of historic materials is required; removal or alteration to historic roof configuration and/or heritage attributes is required; and where installation causes irreversible alterations to heritage attributes. Proposals to install the technology on Part IV and Part V (Groups `A', `B' and `C') designations will require a Heritage Permit Application (HPA). Those pertaining to Part V (Group 'D') and listed non-designated properties will be strongly encouraged to consider the guidelines but will not require an HPA. Mr. J. Ariens raised concerns with wording under the first bullet of the `Location' criteria which stipulates that installations "locate on elevations and roof slopes that are not visible from the public realm". He questioned the feasibility of softening the wording to mirror the last two bullets of the criteria which begin "avoid locating", expressing the view that proposals should not be automatically refused because the panels can be seen from the public realm. He suggested that proposed installations to be seen from the public realm should be considered where panels can match roof materials and follow the roof line and not be denied simply because they will be seen. Ms. Drake advised that it is not the intent that a proposal would be automatically denied but rather to ensure the physical component does not have an adverse impact. She added that the intent is to consider each proposal on an individual basis and mitigate adverse impacts, of which the primary focus to the Committee is likely to be on the architecture of the built structure. Ms. Drake responded to concerns regarding potential placements facing the front fagade, reiterating that such proposals would be considered on a case by case basis and noting that there is technology available that resembles shingles. Each case would be reviewed to HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 1.2012 - 24 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. CSD-12-071 -GUIDELINES FOR INSTALLATION OF SOLAR TECHNOLOGY ON CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES (CONT'D) determine if a balance can be found while ensuring the installation would not physically or aesthetically have an adverse impact to the heritage resource. Ms. Drake added that the technology is still expensive, often only a viable option to a homeowner through grant programs and alternative options are included in the guidelines proposed for consideration of the homeowner. Mr. Ariens brought forward a motion to amend the wording of the first bullet of the `Location' criteria to read "avoid locating on elevations and roof slopes that are not visible from the public realm". Mr. Ariens subsequently withdrew his motion on agreement by staff to accept and make the change requested. On motion by Mr. J. Ariens - itwas resolved: "That the Guidelines for the Installation of Solar Technology on Cultural Heritage Resources, as outlined in Appendix A of Community Services Department report CSD- 12-071, be approved." 4. REVIEW OF 4 STEP LISTING PROCESS FOR MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER Ms. M. Drake presented an overview of the Council approved 4 step listing process in response to concerns raised previously by the Committee in respect to the length of time it is taking to bring forward properties from the former Heritage Inventory for consideration of listing on the Municipal Heritage Register (MHR} as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest. Ms. Drake advised that of the original 868 properties listed on the former inventory, 500 properties have been reviewed since 2008 and approximately 366 properties remain for re-evaluation. In addition, 104 properties that were not on the original list have been evaluated under other processes, such as review of Heritage Impact Assessments and submission of development applications posing a threat to properties of interest. In total, approximately 600 properties have been reviewed since 2008. Ms. Drake advised that of the 366 properties left on the original list to be re-evaluated, 140 potential individual properties have an existing report on file and of another 200 to be re- evaluated with Heritage Conservation District / streetscape potential significance, 40 have an existing report on file. She noted that out of the grouping of properties reviewed each session by the sub-committee, 2/3 are being removed because they have no cultural heritage value or interest and about 113 is being advanced to the Committee for consideration of listing. Ms. Drake investigated the practices of other municipalities and found that the majority have a form of notification process, with the most common form of notification by letter to the property owner. Ms. Drake stated that staff are of the view that Kitchener has created a transparent and effective process that positions the City well to move forward quickly with designation of any property underthreat. Ms. Drake provided several options that could help to move the process forward at a quicker pace, including: use of Google Street view and/or UVindshield Survey to confirm that built structures remain on properties and have not been demolished, saving time in field inspections; consideration and prioritization of remaining properties with an existing report on file, with the existing report to be used where appropriate rather than preparing a new Statement of Significance; and those properties remaining without a source file would continue through the normal 4 step listing process. Councillor Y. Fernandes raised concerns regarding the property at 500 Stauffer Drive and Ms. Drake stated that the property is currently going through the 4 step listing process, under which a team has gone out to review the physical site and the sub-committee has met to evaluate the data collected. Under normal practice, rather than bring one property at a time, the sub- committee advances a grouping of properties and this next step has been delayed because of the Committee's request to review the 4 step listing process. Councillor Fernandes questioned how the City can protect properties that are vacant from being left to deteriorate by a developer, citing an example of 2009 Ottawa Street South now HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 1.2012 - 25 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4. REVIEW OF 4 STEP LISTING PROCESS FOR MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER (CONT'D) subject to demolition. Ms. Drake advised that properties are flagged through listing on the MHR and in the instance of 2009 Ottawa Street South, a Heritage Permit Application (HPA) was required and reviewed by Heritage staff and this Committee, at which time no concerns were raised in respect to the proposed demolition. She reiterated that under the criteria introduced by the Province in 2005 most properties on the original inventory do not meet the criteria and are being removed; and in the instance of 500 Stauffer Drive, staff is working through the 4 step listing process so they can confidently say that it does meet the criteria for listing. Mr. L. Bensason added that ability to have impact to prevent deterioration of vacant buildings is dependent on the City's authority under existing legislation and what triggers are in place to invoke action. He stated that in the instance of a property listed on the MHR the only way to address potential deterioration of a vacant property is through the Property Standards By-law and/or triggers resulting from Planning Act applications requiring an HPA or Heritage Conservation Plan, through which certain conditions could be imposed to ensure a property is brought to acceptable standards. Councillor Fernandes questioned that if Environmental Assessments create priority, why the process of listing 500 Stauffer Drive has slowed given the threat posed by the Strasburg Road Extension Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). Ms. Drake reiterated that staff is currently working through the listing process for the property and noted that the Committee was previously presented with information on the EA at which time the preferred alternative was supported by Heritage staff. She added that as a result of the EA, 500 Stauffer Drive is being re-evaluated under that process. Mr. K. Kirby recalled that the property was firstly considered approximately 7 years ago at which time a decision was made to list the property on the former inventory. Ms. Drake acknowledged that the property was evaluated previously and in the interim of the Province establishing new regulations, a subsequent evaluation was done in 2005 at which time the decision reverted to not list the property. She explained that when the EA process commenced the consultant questioned why the property was not listed and it was through the EA process that staff agreed to re-evaluate the property. Mr. L. Bensason added that action on the property was put on hold until development of the current 4 step listing process was completed in response to changes to the Ontario Heritage Act. In order to officially list properties under the new regulations, a Council approved process for listing was required which was done in 2006 and effectively, the process of listing properties was started over again. 500 Stauffer Drive had no status at time of implementing the 4 step listing process and it was through the EA process for Strasburg Road that the property has been re-evaluated and confirmed as having cultural heritage value or interest. The EA consultant has made recommendations for mitigating measures to protect the property that can be acted upon if required in future. Mr. Bensason advised that staff is working to complete the 4 step listing process for the property, with a report to come forward to the Committee and Council at a future date. In response to Councillor Z. Janecki, Ms. Drake advised that a report on 500 Stauffer Drive is anticipated to come forward in the fall of 2012, with recommendation for designation of the property. Mr. J. Ariens raised concerns with watering down the existing process suggesting it could result in a loss of credibility and preferred that new Statements of Significance continue to be prepared as part of the process. Ms. Drake pointed out that this is the most time consuming part of the process and therefore, reduction in time would not be as great as in the case of using an existing report if deemed to be sufficient. Mr. G. Zeilstra expressed support for use of Google Street view that could be used to review built structures, as well as confirm demolitions, to save time and allow focus to be placed on those properties that merit consideration. Mr. L. Robertson commented that the Committee itself is the solution to speeding up the listing process. He did not agree that the existing process should be changed but rather suggested that commitment among the members of this Committee to participate on the evaluation sub- committee needs to increase. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 1.2012 - 26 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4. REVIEW OF 4 STEP LISTING PROCESS FOR MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER (CONT'D) Councillor Fernandes suggested that it may be of benefit to see how many properties can be eliminated through a Google search to help with the level of comfort in making change to the process. She also agreed that the Statement of Significance is an important part of the process and suggested that perhaps the Terms of Reference should identify expectations that Committee members will participate on the evaluation sub-committee. Mr. K. Kirby advised that he had been approached by Dr. Robert Shipley at the University of UVaterloo to ascertain if students attending his heritage class could be utilized to undertake the initial field investigations. Mr. Bensason advised that he would have concerns introducing students to undertake field investigations, noting that these matters go before Council and staff has already been in the position of having to defend the Committee's recommendations and Statements of Significance. He stated that it is important that the evaluation be prepared by trained members of the Committee working in tandem with Heritage staff and who have years of knowledge and experience. Mr. Kirby pointed out that a new Committee will be appointed at the end of this year which will require training and suggested it would take any new member 1 to 2 years to understand how to properly evaluate a property. Ms. Drake noted that other Cities have utilized students for field investigations and have indicated that they had concerns with the resulting end product. Councillor Fernandes suggested that 4th year students on the verge of graduating with an interest in historical matters may offer a higher degree of knowledge and such opportunities should be taken advantage of to reduce the workload of staff. Mr. J. Ariens agreed that the volunteer pool should be expanded regardless of whether with students or perhaps former members of the Committee that may have interest in participating on the evaluation sub-committee as opposed to being a full member of the Committee. Councillor Fernandes suggested that adding a part time student to composition of the Committee be considered and was advised that this would require a Council resolution to amend the Terms of Reference. Ms. E. Young expressed the view that it would be better to increase the volunteer base rather than the size of the Committee. In response to Mr. L. Robertson, it was confirmed that the Terms of Reference already includes wording identifying expectations that members of the Committee will endeavour to participate on at least one sub- committee. Councillor J. Gazzola agreed that increasing the volunteer pool should be investigated, particularly in respect to former members of the Committee who may have an interest in this specific aspect. Ms. M. Drake commented that while she was open to investigating a reasonable and appropriate approach to completing Steps 1 and 2, a backlog will still occur at Step 3 which is preparation of the Statement of Significance as she is the only staff resource to complete this function. She reiterated that to reduce time, in the interim staff could use existing property reports; however, she raised concerns that if this approach is taken and a property comes under threat, time would still then have to be taken by Heritage staff to ensure the documentation is as accurate as possible, as it is subject to a formal appeal process. Mr. G. Zeilstra suggested that regardless of time saving, if a student accompanied a trained Committee member on field investigations it could serve to generate interest in becoming future members of the Committee. Mr. Ariens further suggested that if the timing of Steps 1 and 2 is completed at a faster pace and a bottleneck is experienced at Step 3, then Council could be approached as part of budget discussions to entertain hiring a part time person to assist Heritage staff in preparing Statements of Significance. Ms. Drake commented that from the discussions, it would appear the Committee values the current 4 step listing process and continuance of preparation of a Statement of Significance; would like to see more participation among Committee members on the evaluation sub- committee and investigation of other opportunities for volunteer participation; and potential hiring considerations subject to budgetary approval. Councillor Fernandes suggested that a report should come forward before the summer recess and was advised that in order to do so for the June meeting, a report would have to be completed within the next 2 weeks which was not sufficient time to undertake the requested investigations. Mr. J. Ariens suggested that in the interim a letter be sent from the Chair and Vice-Chair to HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 1.2012 - 27 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4. REVIEW OF 4 STEP LISTING PROCESS FOR MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER (CONT'D) former members of the Committee to ascertain their interest in participating on the evaluation sub-committee; and to Dr. Shipley to determine feasibility of utilizing students, with the intent to have sufficient participation to undertake the process over the summer months. Councillor Janecki pointed out that the school year recesses during summer months and Ms. M. Drake added that the courses conducted by Dr. Shipley comprise only one heritage class and the students attending are not of architect or historical background. It was agreed that the Chair and Vice-Chair would draft a letter to be sent to former members of the Committee, with the draft letter to be forwarded to the Committee Administrator for review with Heritage Planning staff prior to it being sent out on behalf of the Committee. 5. DISCUSSION -PROPERTIES WITHIN THE FORMER VILLAGE OF BRIDGEPORT Ms. M. Drake advised that work has begun to develop a Mixed Use Corridor on Lancaster Street West, between Bridgeport Road and Bridge Street East. As part of this process, Heritage staff has undertaken site investigations and evaluation of properties abutting Lancaster Street West within the corridor which are either listed or designated. Ms. Drake advised that staff is seeking direction in respect to 6 properties which following evaluation, staff is of the opinion should not be listed as they have undergone a high degree of alternations such that they have lost their historical integrity. The properties in question are municipally addressed as 574, 595-596, 598-600, 606, 609 and 616 Lancaster Street West. Ms. Drake noted that the former Village has historic associative value as an area of early settlement; however, the built environment has no design or contextual value resulting from substantive alterations that have taken place. She advised that staff is recommending that the subject properties not be listed and that staff consider alternative opportunities to interpret the Village's associative value through such methods as a plaque program, interpretive signage l photographs or walking tours that detail the history of the area. Ms. Drake added that staff has also looked at the surrounding area outside of the corridor, and found a number of properties that warrant further investigation. She asked that the Committee consider their support of the approach being taken for the properties within the corridor and application of a similar approach for properties of interest surrounding the corridor. In response to Mr. L. Robertson, Ms. Drake advised that the 2 properties being advanced to the evaluation sub-committee are 537 and 544-546 Lancaster Street West and designated properties do exist on Shirk Place and Carisbrook Drive; in addition, other structures have also been looked at, such as area silos which are not on the inventory and are not within the corridor. Mr. G. Zeilstra questioned if staff have seen photographs published in the Village newsletter and Ms. Drake advised that she has made contact there in an attempt to obtain copies. Councillor Y. Fernandes referred to 606 Lancaster Street West, a former church, questioning if it would be possible to enter the building to view the interior. She raised concerns that if not listed it may be subject to demolition for purpose of road widening. Ms. Drake advised that if a decision is made not to list a property it means it is considered not to have any cultural heritage value or interest and if development is proposed the property could be subject to demolition. She advised that the property is currently a private car club and would require permission from the owner to view the interior but reiterated that integrity of the built structure has substantially diminished through extensive alterations. Ms. A. Oja questioned if the area is a candidate for a Heritage Conservation District (HCD) and Mr. Bensason advised that due to loss of historical integrity through extensive alterations to the built resources it would not meet the criteria for an HCD. Ms. Drake added that the regulations in the Ontario Heritage Act speak to specific values which are no longer present and is why staff is proposing other means to appropriately acknowledge the history of the former Village. Councillors F. Etherington and J. Gazzola agreed that some method of acknowledging the former Village is appropriate and in particular, Councillor Etherington suggested that General Drive would be an appropriate place for installation of a plaque. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 1.2012 - 28 - CITY OF KITCHENER 5. DISCUSSION -PROPERTIES WITHIN THE FORMER VILLAGE OF BRIDGEPORT (CONT'D) Ms. E. Young questioned what density is proposed for the corridor. Mr. B. Sloan advised that a designation of MU-1 (low density) is currently recommended for the corridor together with a variety of uses to encourage adaptive re-use of built structures. Councillor Z. Janecki agreed that the area does not lend itself to historical components of the Act having lost its historical integrity due to extensive alterations to the built structures and would agree with staff that the 6 properties in question not be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, including 606 Lancaster Street West. On motion by Mr. L. Robertson - itwas resolved: "That the following properties in the former Village of Bridgeport, municipally addressed as 574, 595-599, 598-600, 606, 609 and 616 Lancaster Street West, not be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest as the original built structures have lost historical integrity due to a high degree of alterations." 6. INITIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE STUDY Mr. L. Bensason presented an overview of staff's proposal to initiate a study on Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL) which has become more of an issue both from a development and policy context. He stated that staff is of the opinion there is merit in developing an appropriate and consistent approach to identifying and evaluating potential CHLs in Kitchener. It was noted that in addition to Provincial policy, both the Region of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP} and Kitchener Official Plan (KOP} contain new policies concerning CHLs and the ROP directs area municipalities to designate CHLs in its KOP and establish policies for their conservation. Mr. Bensason outlined an estimated timeline for the proposed study, as follows: pending finalization of the Region's Guidelines for CHLs in the latter part of 2012 -early 2013 commence consultant selection; study to commence in 2013 with anticipated completion in 2014; consideration of study recommendations by Heritage Kitchener and Council to follow completion of the study; and study recommendations to be implemented as approved by Council. Mr. J. Ariens disclosed a pecuniary interest and abstained from all discussion of this matter as his spouse owns property in the Pioneer Tower area which has been identified by the Region of Waterloo as a potential CHL. Councillor Y. Fernandes raised concerns that the proposed study duplicates what has already been undertaken by the Region and questioned why the City cannot mirror the same policies. Mr. Bensason advised that the policies derived by the Region are high level and do not contain specifics on CHLs in the City. The purpose of the proposed study is to comply with the ROP which directs each municipality to designate CHLs in its KOP and establish policies for their conservation. Councillor Fernandes questioned why the study could not be done in-house rather than hire a consultant. Mr. Bensason advised that this study will be time consuming and if done in-house, other work undertaken by Heritage staff in accordance with their work plan would have to be put on hold. He added that the policies developed will provide a proactive approach in review of development and/or Heritage Permit Applications as it will be known at time of review what attributes would be ideal for consideration in respect to CHLs. In response to Councillor J. Gazzola, Mr. Bensason advised that area municipalities are to identify areas of potential CHLs within their own City and prepare a Conservation Plan that will define what is considered significant, and how best to protect and implement conservation measures. Mr. Bensason advised that this work has not yet been done and is not a duplication of the Region's work. Mr. B. Sloan added that the budget for the study will be covered by existing reserve funds and no additional monies are anticipated to be requested. Councillor Z. Janecki questioned the feasibility of providing direction to the retained consultant to follow what the Region has already done. Councillor Gazzola also suggested that the Region collaborate with all of the area municipalities. Ms. M. Drake pointed out that landscapes HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MAY 1.2012 - 29 - CITY OF KITCHENER 6. INITIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE STUDY (CONT'D) differ in each municipality which will require specific policies to address unique circumstances, noting that the Region is providing the framework which can be applied based on individual circumstances. Councillor Gazzola questioned the feasibility of using one consultant to do the whole of the Region. Mr. Bensason referred to the definition of CHLs which provides that they be valued by a community and what is of value to one may not be consistent with other Cities. He added that the policies and Conservation Plans must be endorsed by Council and under one consultant the process could slow and/or become over-complicated with issues involving other area municipalities. 7. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Janet Billett, AMCT Committee Administrator