Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2018-11-06HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2018 CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:01 p.m. Present: A. Reid - Chair Councillor J. Gazzola, Ms. K. Huxted, Ms. S, Hossack and Messrs. P. Ciuciura, R. Parnell, S. Miladinovic, S. Thomson, S. Burrows and S. Strohack. Staff: B. Sloan, Manager Long Range & Policy Planning M. Love, Manager, Service Coordination and Improvement L. Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning V. Grohn, Heritage Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator 1. WELCOME - MS. V. GROHN Mr. L. Bensason introduced and welcomed Ms. V. Grohn who joined the City as a Heritage Planner in October 2018. He indicated Ms. Grohn would be with the City while Ms. M. Drake is on Maternity Leave. 2. DSD-18-147 - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DEMOLISH - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (STAGE I &II) - 200 FAIRWAY ROAD SOUTH FORMER SEARS BUILDING The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-18-147, dated October 17, 2018 recommending that, in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the written Notice of Intention to Demolish the structure on the property municipally addressed as 200 Fairway Road South, commonly known as the Sears building, dated August 9, 2018 be received for information and that the Notice period run its course. Mr. L. Bensason presented the Report, advising that although the Sears building has sufficient design value to qualify for heritage designation, staff do not believe a heritage designation is the best course of action moving forward. He indicated while the property owner is interested in addressing heritage objectives, they are not in favour of designating the Sears building under the Ontario Heritage Act. He stated rather than risking a confrontational situation and potentially jeopardizing heritage interests, the opportunity exists to work with the property owner through the development review process to achieve a compromise acceptable to both the property owner and City. Mr. Bensason further advised the proposal to retain a portion of the original façade forms the start of a conservation approach that can be enhanced and refined through the Heritage Impact Assessment, Conservation Plan and Site Plan approval process and would ) to conserve significant built heritage resources. regards to the Notice of Intention to Demolish, stating Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council include the following: request further information; receive the Notice of Intention to Demolish, allowing the notice period to run its course; or, issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, at which point Council would have the authority to deny demolition. Mr. F. McEwen, Cadillac Fairview and Mr. P. Berton, +VG Architects addressed the Committee in support of the staff recommendation. Mr. McEwen stated Cadillac Fairview recently acquired the Sears building and the space no longer addresses commercial needs this date. He stated they have intentions of demolishing 20% of the building and modifying it to create a more permeable space for retailers. Mr. Berton provided an overview of the portion of the Sears building that is proposed to be demolished, noting the property owner has intentions of maintaining a portion of the north façade of the Sears building. He indicated the property owner also intends to commemorate the building and will continue to work with the City to find an appropriate and meaningful approach. He stated they have already completed a significant amount of documentation for the building and consideration has been given to reusing materials from the existing structure in the future redevelopment where possible. Ms. S. Parks, Architectural Conservancy Ontario, North Waterloo Region branch, addressed the Committee in opposition to the Notice of Intention to Demolish portions of the Sears building. She stated in her opinion there are a small number of properties within the City that have heritage significance and the Sears building is one of those.She indicated the property has more than HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2018 - 37 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. DSD-18-147 - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DEMOLISH - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (STAGE I &II) - 200 FAIRWAY ROAD SOUTH FORMER SEARS BUILDING one criteria that make it worthy of designation and protection under the Ontario Heritage Act, and should not be permitted to be demolished. Ms. Parks further advised the Sears building is a landmark within the community and only maintaining one small façade does not commemorate the history relative to the site. Ms. K. Elgie addressed the Committee in opposition to the staff recommendation outlined in Report DSD-18-147. She stated in her opinion, the building should be designated to give assurance to the public that the building will be repurposed in a more meaningful way. In response to questions, Mr. McEwen stated long-term goals for the property include adding office buildings and residential uses to the site, stating they intend to construct an 8-storey office building on the side of the property closest to the highway, as well as adding a residential use on the Kingsway Drive side of the property. He indicated additional Planning applications would be required prior to finalizing plans for future phases of the development. He stated the basic function of the mall would continue to exist. He further advised additional information regarding the long-term goals of the site are featured in their marketing materials for the Grand Market District. In response to further questions, Mr. McEwen stated they are in support of the staff recommendation outlined in Report DSD-18-147. Questions were raised regarding the demolition. Mr. McEwen advised that 20% of the western portion of the building is proposed to be demolished to accommodate a fire route and possible ION right-of-way. He stated there is a possibility of a future transit project that will require access through the property, and prior to redevelopment they would like to ensure that access can be provided and would not need to be addressed through a future redevelopment phase. Mr. S. Burrows questioned whether there were discrepancies between the delegations presentation and the staff presentation on the number of criteria that the property possesses that would make it worthy of designation. Mr. Bensason advised staff agree that there is at least one of the criteria that merits designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. He stated from a staff perspective designation of the site may not be the best approach at this time as the property owner is not supportive of designation. He indicated there are mechanisms under the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statements to achieve heritage conservation and staff feel they can achieve conservation objections through the development and planning approval process. In response to questions, Mr. McEwen stated the reason for the decision not to preserve the south façade relates to retailers that may be interested in leasing the space. He stated the existing façade is not interactive and can be seen as restrictive. He noted for many retailers, it would prohibit outward facing advertising. He stated there is a possibility to save a larger portion of the Sears façade noting the north west corner and possibly the north east façade of the building are other areas for possible consideration at a later stage of the redevelopment process. Ms. A. Reid stated in her opinion it appears the developer is being cooperative through their proposal and are trying to work with the City for mutual benefit regarding the heritage conservation of the property. She stated she is in support of the staff recommendation, noting in her opinion it may be in the best interest to work with the applicant to conserve the building as much as possible. Questions were raised regarding designation and the contents of a Heritage designation By-law. Mr. Bensason advised it would be registered on the entire property, but the contents of the By- law would indicate which features are subject to the By-law. Ms. Parks stated if the property still has a separate roll number, it may be a possibility to register the Designating By-law only on the portion of the property that contains the Sears building. Several members expressed concerns with the limited amount of heritage conservation that was being proposed through the Heritage Impact Assessment, stating maintaining a portion of one HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2018 - 38 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. DSD-18-147 - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DEMOLISH - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (STAGE I &II) - 200 FAIRWAY ROAD SOUTH FORMER SEARS BUILDING façade that is not as visible from the street is not preferred. Mr. P. Ciuciura stated in his opinion, the proposal has minimal heritage conservation and be may be more appropriate to designate the building to achieve an acceptable level of conservation. Mr. P. Eglin addressed the Committee in opposition to the Notice of Intention to Demolish, stating in his opinion if the south façade is lost, the heritage of the site will also be lost. A motion was brought forward by Mr. S. Miladinovic to approve the recommendation as outlined in Report DSD-18-147, which was voted on and was LOST. Questions were raised regarding designation and what recourse the property owner may have if they are not in support of designation. Mr. Bensason advised there is an appeal process through the LPAT in same manner as the previous Conservation Review Board, noting ultimately the decision would be up to Council. Mr. P. Ciuciura brought forward a motion to issue a Notice of Intention to Designate 200 Fairway Road South pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, so as to provide Council the authority to deny demolition of the Sears building. On motion by Mr. P. Ciuciura - it was resolved: That, in response to the written Notice of Intention to Demolish dated August 9, 2018 and deemed complete on October 16, 2018, submitted in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act and having regard to the property municipally addressed as 200 Fairway Road South, commonly known as the Sears building; the Clerk be directed to issue a Notice of Intention to Designate 200 Fairway Road South pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, so as to provide Council the authority to deny the demolition of the Sears building, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-18-147. 3. UPDATED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL & HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - 242-262 QUEEN STREET SOUTH - ALTERATIONS & PROPOSED NEW BUILDING The Committee considered a memorandum dated October 22, 2018 regarding an updated development proposal and Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 242-262 Queen Street South, located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPHACD) for proposed demolition, alteration and redevelopment. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of itage Impact Assessment Report, Phase II: 242-262 Queen Street South, City of g. Mr. L. Bensason advised the City was previously in receipt of Heritage Permit Applications seeking to demolish 242, 254 and 262 Queen Street South. He indicated on September 24, proved the application to demolish 242 Queen Street South, and refused the applications to demolish 254 and 262 Queen Street South. He stated City staff received a request from the applicant to make a presentation at the meeting this date regarding the new development concept for the subject properties, which retains portions of 254 and 262 Queen Street South in the redevelopment plans. He stated comments received from the Committee this date will be considered by Heritage Planning staff in the processing of Planning and Heritage Permit Applications. He stated the application would be required to go through Site Plan Approval for the proposed development and will be required to apply for Heritage Permit Applications for alterations and new construction, which will come back before the Heritage Kitchener committee later in the development process. Messrs. D. Currie, MHBC Planning and Mr. S. Litt, Vive Development were in attendance in support of the HIA. Mr. Currie provided an overview of the HIA, stating 254and 262 Queen HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2018 - 39 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. UPDATED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL & HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - 242-262 QUEEN STREET SOUTH - ALTE Street South were not approved for demolition, the property owner has since revised their development plans to maintain those two single detached dwellings. He indicated to facilitate the construction of a 10-storey 125-unit multiple residential dwelling the applicant is proposing to remove the rear yard additions from both 254 and 262 Queen Street South but intends to maintain the bay windows in the rear of the dwellings. He provided an overview of the policies within the VPAHCD Plan and how the proposed development conforms with those policies. Mr. Currie reviewed the impact of the new building on the adjacent properties, stating in his opinion there is minor to no impacts to the District with the proposed redevelopment. He further advised there are a number of recommendations within the HIA including, but not limited to: photo documentation; salvaging materials from the removal of the additions at 254 and 262 Queen Street South; and, landscaping to soften and screen the front yard parking. Messrs. M. Chilanski and M. Muller addressed the Committee in support of the HIA, stating since the applications to demolish 254 and 262 Queen Street South were refused, the developer has been working to address the concerns of the neighbourhood. He indicated he is in support of the proposed redevelopment concept. Several members expressed support for the proposed redevelopment plan, noting appreciation to the developer to finding a more appropriate design concept for the District that maintains the single detached dwellings municipally addressed as 254 and 262 Queen Street South. Members offered the following comments on the new proposal for further consideration, as follows: give further consideration to the proposed colour of the 10 storey multi-residential development for greater consistency with the adjacent properties; the rules outlined in the district related to setbacks with the new design are not completely being maintained; concerns related to materials, noting the majority of the buildings within the district are brick; using the rendering from the street, review whether there is an opportunity to address the gap in the streetscape with the multi-residential dwelling where the dwelling at 242 Queen Street South previously existed; and, the design of the multi-residential dwelling may not be as creative aesthetically. Questions were raised regarding the proposed future use of 254 and 262 Queen Street South. Mr. S. Litt advised the use of those dwellings would be residential. 4. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT & CONSERVATION PLAN - 28 BURGETZ AVENUE The Committee considered Assessment (HIA) & Conservation Plan - . Mr. L. Bensason advised staff were contacted in 2018 by a member of the Burgetz Family advising that the property municipally addressed as 28 Burgetz Avenue was recently sold to a new owner, and wished to inform staff that the property was a log home covered in aluminum siding. He stated staff have been in contact with the new property owner regarding the dwelling and they have been in full cooperation in completing all of the necessary heritage reports prior to requesting permission to remove the non-historic items from the property in an effort to review the condition of the dwelling. He stated the property owner has completed a Heritage Impact Assessment, as well as a structural engineer report of the dwelling. He indicated MHBC Planning is in attendance this date to present the HIA to the Committee members to receive feedback from the Committee. He further advised the property owner intends to maintain the dwelling and redevelop the remainder of the property. Mr. D. Currie, MHBC Planning, presented the HIA, advising there were five components to the single detached dwelling. He noted using an aerial photograph of the dwelling, that the original HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2018 - 40 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT & CONSERVATION PLAN - dwelling as early as 1850. He indicated the property had various additions built onto it since its existence, which have all been removed in an effort to determine the condition of the log dwelling. He stated Tacoma Engineers have completed a structural report on the dwelling, noting it is a rare example of construction that has always had some type of cladding on the outside, but once the cladding was removed, it was determined to be in good structural condition. He stated the Tacoma Engineers report indicated the dwelling could be reused, offering the following recommendations: that the building should be re-cladded, the chinking should be replaced, and the openings on the structure should not be changed. Mr. Currie stated the current property owner intends to redevelop the property and would like to rehabilitate the dwelling for future residential use. He noted initially the property owner was considering constructing an addition on the dwelling however no longer intends to construct the addition. Mr. Bensason provided a further overview on the subject property, advising the property owner has been very co-operative with the City regarding the assessment of the dwelling. He stated in the initial review of the dwelling it was acknowledged that some of the exterior logs have twisted over time. He indicated Tacoma Engineers have confirmed they will need to be secured but the dwelling is structurally sound. He commented two concerns identified related to openings in the foundation and the possibility of water damage and the chinking needing to be replaced. He further advised that according to provided there are no major changes to the façade walls, the home is expected to meet the requirements under the Building Code Act to be repurposed. Mr. Bensason advised he has spoken with the property owner regarding designation and possible heritage grants that may be available to them. He indicated the owner intends to rehabilitate the property and is making immediate plans to fence and secure the property. the property are addressing the foundation and possibly the roof to protect the home for the winter. He indicated as part of repurposing the property adding cladding will still likely be required, but in speaking with Tacoma Engineers that is something that could possibly wait until 2019. Mr. J. De Boer and Ms. L. Grimmer were in attendance in support of the conservation plan. Mr. De Boer stated he has interests in what happens with the log home at the property municipally addressed as 28 Burgetz Avenue, stating if it is the intention to preserve the house he has additional documentation on the history of the property. He noted if it was not the property owners intention to conserve the house in situ, there is a new Mennonite museum opening in St. Jacobs and the curator of the museum is willing to store the logs and reconstruct the house at the museum to conserve the heritage of the area. He noted the history of the property is of great interest to him and he would be writing a paper for the Waterloo Historical Society on the subject property. In response to questions regarding designation, Mr. M. Prebreza advised he is in support of having the property designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Questions were raised regarding cladding and whether the historic value would be lost if the logs are covered. Mr. Bensason advised the structure has been cladded in some type of material even in early construction. Mr. R. Parnell expressed some concern with leaving the logs exposed for the winter. He stated there is concern for moisture absorption and possible freezing that may affect the integrity of the structure. 5. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEW PROJECT UPDATE The Committee considered a memorandum dated October 25, 2018 Services Review Ms. M. Love advised she was in attendance this date to introduce the Committee to the Development Services Review project currently underway in Development Services Department. She stated in April 2018 the City underwent a reorganization, which has aligned the five development services divisions:Engineering, Planning,Building,Transportation HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2018 - 41 - CITY OF KITCHENER 5. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEW PROJECT UPDATE Services and Economic Development under the Development Services Department. She indicated one of the directions from the reorganization was to review the development process and to seek process improvements and efficiencies where possible. She stated she was in attendance this date to introduce the project to the Committee and to solicit any initial feedback or questions the Committee may have this date. Ms. Love advised the process will have many phases and she would be back to the Committee to provide information and seek feedback throughout the review where necessary. Ms. Love advised one of the earliest initiatives currently being undertaken is a Development Review Survey and she encouraged all members interested in participating to complete the 10- 15 minute survey at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/kitchener-DSR. She further advised members having any questions or feedback on the review can contact her via email at Margaret.Love@kitchener.ca. 6. ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER YEAR END SURVEY Ms. D. Saunderson circulated the City of Kitchener Advisory Committee End-of-Term Volunteer Survey and requested members complete the survey to inform staff of their experience as an advisory committee volunteer. She noted the goal of the survey is to understand the experience so improvements can be made in the future. 7. STATUS UPDATES - SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATES - OPEN FORUM/HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS Mr. L. Bensason advised there were no status updates this date. 8. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator