Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2018-01-09HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2018 CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:02 p.m. Present: S. Hamoen - Vice-Chair Councillors J. Gazzola and P. Singh, Ms. A. Reid, Ms. K. Huxted and Ms. S. Hossack and Messrs. C. Farley, P. Ciuciura, R. Parnell, S. Miladinovic, S. Thomson and S. Strohack. Staff: B. Sloan, Manager Long Range & Policy Planning L. Bensason, Coordinator of Cultural Heritage Resources M. Drake, Senior Heritage & Project Planner S. Kelly, Student Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator 1. WELCOME - MS. S. KELLY Ms. M. Drake introduced and welcomed Ms. S. Kelly who joined the City as a Student Planner in January 2018. She indicated Ms. Kelly has an interest in Heritage Planning and would be attending meetings in the future as part of her Co-op experience. 2. REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES The Committee considered draft documents entitled nt Cultural Herit , prepared by the Region of Waterloo. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of a memorandum prepared by the Region of Waterloo, r Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) Conservation and Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources (RSCHR) dated November 17, 2017. Ms. K. Hagerman, Region of Waterloo, presented the Draft Regional Implementation Guidelines, advising the Province of Ontario, through the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), requires that significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes be conserved. She indicated through the Regional Official Plan (ROP), Regional staff have been directed to prepare guidelines for reviewing Cultural Heritage Landscapes and for conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Resources. She stated the intentions of the Guidelines are to provide guidance to property owners, applicants, municipal heritage advisory committees and Regional and area municipal staff on the process for identifying, evaluating, documenting and incorporating Regionally Significant Heritage properties or landscapes within the identification and documentation into the existing Heritage review process. Ms. A. Reid entered the meeting at this time. Ms. Hagerman stated the City of Kitchener already has a very robust Heritage Approval process and the guidelines are intended to provide some direction to indicate when Regional Heritage staff would like to comment on development applications where there are Cultural Heritage Resources or Regionally Heritage significant properties/features. She stated her next steps in the process for finalizing the guidelines include: meeting with stakeholders and interested parties; compiling feedback and revising the Guidelines where appropriate; have a formal public meeting under the Planning Act; and, receiving Regional Council approval on the proposed Guidelines. She stated she was in attendance this date to receive feedback on the following four questions: 1. Can the conservation processes introduced in the Guidelines be streamlined or improved in any way to better conserve CHL/RSCHRs? 2. Do you have any suggestions on how the Implementation Guideline documents could be improved? 3. Do you have any suggestions for RSCHR? 4. Other? Several members expressed concerns regarding overlap between the purposed Regional Guidelines and the work currently being undertaken by the City to address heritage significant properties and features. Further concerns were raised that private property owners would potentially be subjected to extended approval timelines and multiple applications to receive heritage approvals, which may add frustration to the process for heritage property owners. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2018 - 2 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. In response to questions, Ms. M. Drake advised the City is the approval authority for designations. She indicated the Region of Waterloo is recognized as having interest on heritage significant features at the Regional level, and in those instances the Guidelines would provide a clearer process on when the Region should be circulated for comment on a development application. Ms. A. Reid stated in her opinion, if the Region is circulated for that reason, their comments should provide reasons qualifying their comments and their interest in the matter. She stated consideration needs to be given to respecting the development process and being mindful of approval timelines as well. Councillor J. Gazzola stated in his opinion, it seems as if the guidelines are a duplication of efforts. He indicated if the Region does not have any approval/designation authority in the Heritage process these Guidelines may add an additional approval process that may deter an individuals interest in purchasing/maintaining/restoring a Heritage property. Ms. Drake stated for clarification, the guidelines are not intended to be a duplication of efforts. She added they are intended to provide further direction to municipalities and townships for with possible Regional significance suggesting how to engage the Heritage staff may reach out to property owners for properties that have been identified as having Regional significance, whereas the property may also be identified as being municipally significant. She noted it is still the City to issue a designation if that is the preferred option identified for a property. She further advised the Region of Wate comment on a planning application would not impact the timelines related to a development application, as those dates are outlined in the Ontario Heritage Act and Planning Act and would still need to be adhered to. Councillor P. Singh entered the meeting at this time. Questions were raised regarding the Regional Heritage Advisory Committee and their role in the approval process and whether an applicant would be required to make presentations to both committees if the Region determines a property has Regional significance. Ms. Hagerman stated the Regional Committee would only be consulted if the property was identified as having Regional significance. Ms. Hagerman further advised there are very few two-tier government structures in Ontario, adding Kitchener does not require a great deal of assistance with heritage resources. She indicated the Guidelines are intended to provide assistance to all those within the Region that may not have the resources for a heritage conservation. She stated Kitchener has been a leader in this area and it is anticipated the Region would only have a greater involvement on regionally significant heritage features. In response to further questions, she noted if a property was identified as being regionally significant, it is anticipated the property owner would only need to make an appearance at one Heritage Committee meeting, which would likely be that of the municipality, adding the Region would only comment from a staff perspective. It was noted any additional comments or suggestions members may have could be forwarded via email to KHagerman@regionofwaterloo.ca. 3. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 883 DOON VILLAGE ROAD The Committee considered the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared for 883 Doon Village Road. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of a written submission prepared by Ms. J. Haalboom, dated January 7, 2018 and Ms. K. Huxted expressing concerns with the findings in the HIA and the proposed severance applications. It was noted Heritage Ms. Vanessa Hicks, MHBC Planning, Ms. A. LaFrance, Mr. B. LaFrance and Ms. B. Hanson were in attendance in support of the HIA. Ms. Hicks presented the HIA, advising the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road was designated in 1984, which at that time was recognized for the dwelling and a number of its attributes. She stated within the By-law there are no other structures or features on the property identified as heritage attributes, HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2018 - 3 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 883 DOON VILLAGE ROAD including former hog & hen barn) now an outbuilding/garage on the property. She indicated the HIA was completed to support a future severance application, which sees the property severed into five residential lots; four new lots fronting on to Bechtel Drive and a retained lot which will consist of the residential heritage dwelling and the Coach House which will be relocated from its current location onto the retained parcel to maintain the relationship of the heritage structures. Ms. Hicks provided an overview of the HIA, advising its purpose was to provide an assessment of cultural heritage value or interest and a revised list of Heritage Attributes; identify potential impacts of the proposed development, including a review of the impacts related to the proposed Plan of Consent; and identify the impacts related to the proposed re-location of the Coach House. She presented a summary of the historic value of the property, noting the following impacts were reviewed in relation to the proposed development, including: destruction; alteration; shadows; isolation; direct or indirect obstruction; change in land use; and, land disturbances, advising the result of those reviews indicating neutral impacts were identified as a result of the creation of the lots. Ms. Hicks summarized the HIA, indicating: the proposed development is supported; the identified heritage attributes will be retained and conserved on the retained lot, maintaining the historical relationship between the dwelling and , the proposed creation of four severed lots and one retained lot will not result in any adverse impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources as the site has been determined to have lost its contextual value and is not a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape. She further advised there are some mitigation recommendations, which address the relocation of Ms. K. Huxted advised she is a resident of the Doon area and she attended the subject property, referencing the photos she took of the dwelling. She stated in her opinion, the creation of four lots will block the views from Bechtel Street of the heritage dwelling. She added if the property owner wished to sever the property, she would prefer that they only created three lots, removing the creations of proposed Lots 1 and 2 to maintain the view of the subject property from Bechtel Drive. She further advised she also has concerns with the adverse impacts from the shadows resulting from the new homes. Several members expressed similar concerns with regard to preserving the view of the heritage dwelling and Coach House from the corner of Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road. Mr. S. Miladinovic advised he had no objections to the proposed severance applications as the new lots would not have any impacts on the primary elevation of the heritage dwelling. He stated any concerns raised regarding shadows, in his opinion, would be minimal. In response to questions, Ms. Hicks advised the north elevations of both the dwelling and the Coach House are the elevations that have been identified as being historically significant. She indicated that even with the creation of the lots adjacent to Bechtel Drive, the historical views would be maintained. She stated consideration was given to the views of the property from Bechtel Drive, which were not deemed significant as Bechtel Drive was only constructed in the Councillor P. Singh questioned how large the size of the proposed lots would be. Ms. Hicks noted the lot frontage of the severed lots is proposed to be a minimum of 18m wide, which is considerably larger than the other lots in the vicinity. She stated the lots on the opposite side of the street are approximately 14m in width. She further advised the retained land, which will contain the heritage dwelling will have a lot width of 73.2m and will have a total area of 3,517sq.m. She stated the proposed severance will not adversely impact the primary view of the heritage dwelling. Questions were raised regarding the relocation of the Coach House and whether there were any conflicts with the Building Code Act and the openings along the elevation of the structure that would be impacted by the proposed 1.2m side yard setback. Ms. Drake stated she would follow up with Building staff to confirm the Building Code requirements. Councillor P. Singh stated in his opinion, it appears the applicant has taken significant measures to protect the Heritage dwelling, the Couch House and the relationship the two HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2018 - 4 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 883 DOON VILLAGE ROAD structures have with each other. He stated the retained lands are extremely large and the relocation of the Coach House and costs associated with the relocation should be commended. Ms. S. Hossack stated in her opinion one of the Heritage significances with the dwelling and the Coach House/hog and hen house are the distance separation between the two structures. She indicated it would be her preference to try to maintain the separation distance so the previous use and contextual value would not be lost. Mr. LaFrance, property owner, stated they reside at the property and they have no intention of taking away from the heritage significance of the site. He indicated they have pride in the heritage structure and it can be costly to maintain, but it is their intention to live at the subject property long-term and continue to maintain it as they have to date. Councillor J. Gazzola noted he was in conflict on the HIA, as he is aware that the property owners are Heritage-minded. The subject property is not the only heritage property they own within Kitchener, indicating they have undergone significant upkeep on their other property to maintain its Heritage status as well. Mr. S. Hamoen indicated in his opinion, the Coach House appears to be the more dominate structure on-site. He stated consideration could be given to removing some of the foliage to increase the presence of the dwelling from Doon Village Road. In response to questions, Ms. Drake advised there are other properties that have been designated where the Heritage attributes do not fully align with the property as it exists this date. She indicated it may be appropriate at this time to review and update the designating By- law, Mr. C. Farley indicated it may be worthwhile as a future agenda item, to discuss designating By-laws and whether they should be reviewed if they are out of date, similar to the one in this instance. 4. HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES OPEN FORUM SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATES Ms. M. Drake advised there were no Heritage Best Practices updates this date. 5. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator