Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2019-12-03HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2019CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:00p.m. Present:S. Strohack-Chair Councillors D. Chapman, J. Gazzola, C. Michaud,and Ms. K. Huxted, Ms. S. Hossack, Ms. B. Muellerand Messrs. J. Baker, P. Ciuciura, D. GundrumandR. Parnell. Staff:B. Sloan, Manager, Long Range & Policy Planning L. Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning V. Grohn, Heritage Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator 1.DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -19-41 MILL STREET The Committee considered a memorandum dated October 22, 2019 regarding a draftHeritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property municipally addressed as 19-41 Mill Street. The draft HIA addressesthe proposal to redevelop 19-41 Mill Street. The subject property is adjacent to 45 Mill Street, which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act(OHA), andalso adjacent tothe Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD).In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of a written submission, dated November 22, 2019, provided by Mr. D. Ahrens. Ms. V. Grohn provided opening remarks related to the HIA,stating the draft HIAwas prepared in support of the development proposal at 19-41 Mill Street. She indicated 19-41 Mill Street does not haveheritagestatus under the Ontario Heritage Act. She stated19 and 25 Mill Street were formerly on the Heritage Kitchener Inventoryand were re-evaluated through theCouncil- approved 4-step listing process. She noted at that time,19 Mill Street was not recommended for inclusion on the Municipal Heritage Registrar (MHR) by the Heritage Kitchener Committee, and it was a decision of Council not to list 25 Mill Street on the MHR. She advised staff prepared a scoped Terms of Reference for the HIA based on thatinformation and the non-heritage status of the subject properties, noting some contentof a full HIAwas not required to be included. Ms. Grohn further advised the HIA was intended to focus on the impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent protected Part IV and Part V designated heritage properties. She stated staff are seekingfeedback from the Committee members on the HIA that will be taken into consideration as staff completes their review of the HIA and the planning applications. Mr. O. Scott,CHC Limited,and Ms. A.Stellings, Polocorp Inc.,presented the scoped HIA. Mr. Scott presentedan overview of the proposed development,noting the property owner intends to constructa10-storey mixed-unit residential apartment, including setbacks and stepbacks, with 3-storey street-fronting townhouses proposed for Mill Street.He provided an overview of the HIA including, but not limited to: the context of the neighbourhood; a summary of the development proposal; the scoped requirements of the HIA; the potential impacts on the VPAHCD;the scoped HIA requirements regarding 45 Mill Street; an overview of the shadow study; and, a summary & conservation recommendations.Ms. Stellings presented a video demonstratingcompatibility of the proposed development with the neighbourhood. She stated Polocorp Inc. isa resident of the neighbourhood,andas such,have a vested interest in preserving the heritage of the neighbourhood. Ms. M. Rowell, Architectural Conservancy Ontario-North Waterloo Region, addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposed development at 19-41 Mill Street. She indicatedin her opinion,the houses at the properties municipally addressed as 19 and 25 Mill Street areworthy of heritage conservation. She provided an overview of the physical and contextual value of each of the properties, stating theyshould be at minimum on the MHR, if not considered for Part IV heritage designation under the OHA. She stated the proposed development isdirectlyadjacent to 45 Mill Street, which is designated under Part IV of the OHA and may have adverse impacts on that property. She further advised a development of this size and scale is inappropriate in comparison to the other properties on Mill Street. Ms. Rowell statedin her opinion,developers should not be permitted to change heritage neighbourhoods that residents work hard to conserve. Ms. S. Parks addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposed development,stating the regulations within the OHA donot consult other Planning regulations, such as the Official Plan or Zoning By-lawwhen providing guidance as to whether a property is of cultural heritage or HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2019-40-CITY OF KITCHENER 1.DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -19-41 MILL STREET (CONT’D) interest. She stated the regulations provide clear understanding of what is worthy of heritage conservation and protection. She indicated although 19 and 25 Mill Street were previously evaluated through the 4-step listing process and were not listed on the MHR at that time, there is currently no process for re-evaluating those properties. She stated in her opinion, when planning applications are submitted, they presentan opportunity to re-evaluate properties for heritage conservation. She noted as the Terms of Reference for the HIA werescoped, and there is not a clear understanding as to whether a heritage resource is proposed to be demolished. She requested in future,a full HIA is completed when a planning application deems that anHIA is required,to ensure the City is preserving its heritage resources. Mr. F. Etherington addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposed development and the demolition of the building at 45 Mill Street,the former BaetzHome. He expressed concerns with the number of large developments thatare gradually deterioratingestablished neighbourhoods. He noted the proposed development in his opinion: willimpact the iron horse trail; will reduce the currentaffordable housing options within the downtown; and, does notfully take into consideration the impacts on 45 Mill Street, which is designated under Part IV of the OHA.He commented the developer is currently constructing another development on Queen Street that is adversely impacting the historic homes in its vicinity. He stated in his opinion,the Committee, Council and Planning staff have a responsibility for protecting heritage and affordable housing stock within the City, adding that 50% of residents within the City cannot afford their own home. He requested that the Committee reject the proposed development. Mr. G. Pool was in attendance in opposition to the proposed development at 19-41 Mill Street. He expressed concerns with the potential impacts on the Iron Horse Trail,as well as on 45 Mill Street.He stated in his opinion, the homes at19 and 25 Mill Street should be listed on the MHR, stating there is no other home within the Region similar to 25 Mill Street. He noted the VPAHCD identified potential redevelopment sites and Mill Street was not identified inthe Plan. He requested further consideration be given to:protecting 19 and 25 Mill Street, stating they are unique and havehistoric, contextual and associate value;protectingthe Iron Horse Trail, a valuable cultural heritage landscape;and, reducingthe negative impact on the Mill Street heritage neighbourhoodas the proposed building is incompatible in size and design. He further requested the Mill Street façadebe changedto reflect the unique heritage of the area. Ms. B. Mueller entered the meeting at this time. Ms. D. Wesman advised she owns the property municipally addressed as 45 Mill Street, directly adjacent to the proposed development. She expressed concerns with: the demolition of 19 and 25 Mill Street and the displacement of the residents; the proposed size of the development and its impact on their neighbourhood; the spatial separation between her property and the newly constructed building; the obstruction of the heritage views of her home; the potential shadowing impacts; and, the lack of sitehistory contained within the HIA. She stated the residents are care- takers of their heritage homes and the neighbourhood, and they wishto ensure their interests are being protected. In response to questions, she advised it was her preference to see the property be maintained with single family dwellings, noting if that was not an option,she would prefer the heritage dwellings be incorporated intothe development. She stated she would like to see a development that is less intrusive. Mr. P. Eglinexpressed concerns with the proposed development, stating in his opinion,the developer’s Official Plan and Zone Change Amendments requesting an increase in Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 1.0 to 3.5 isextreme. He required clarification on the 4-step process related to 19 and 25 Mill Street and why those two properties were not listed on the MHR. In response to questions, Mr. A.Bousfield,ABA Architects, advised the blank wall adjacentto 45 Mill Street is the exterior wall of the parking structure. He indicated there is some consideration to installing spandrel glazing to block the views of the parking structure. Ms. K. Huxted questioned whether it would be possible for the Committee to refuse the HIA until a full HIA could be completed. Mr. L. Bensason advised there was noprocess for the Committee to either approve or refuse an HIA. He stated it was also not within Heritage Planning staff’s HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2019-41-CITY OF KITCHENER 1.DRAFT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -19-41 MILL STREET (CONT’D) purview to approve or refuse it. He indicated Heritage Planning staff will complete a review and make a recommendation to the Director of Planning who will determine whether the HIA should be accepted. In response to questions, Ms. Grohn advised the applicant was provided a scoped HIA as the property had already been subject to the 4-step listing process and staff already have the necessary information related to the potential heritage value of 19 and 25 Mill Street, adding from that perspective, staffcould not request a full HIA. Mr. Bensasonadvised it would be Council’s decisionto determine whether further information should be provided through the HIA, noting the more appropriate time to make such a request iswhen the Official Plan and Zone Change applications are being considered. Questions were raised regarding the establishment of the MHR.Mr. Bensason provided an overview of the work completed by the Heritage Committee and Heritage Planning staff with regards to reviewing over 900+ properties from 2006 to 2016. He indicated the process included: property evaluation; sub-committee meetings to review and short-list properties for recommendation; property owner notifications; Heritage Kitchener meeting; and, finally a Council decision. Mr. Bensason advised as Council made a decision in 2010,it would not be staff’s expectation to re-evaluate the properties at this time. Ms. Grohn agreed to provide the Committee the evaluation materials completed on 19 and 25 Mill Street. Ms. S. Hossackstated the Committee may wishto consider listing 19 and 25 Mill Street on the MHR. She further advised the proposed building in her opinion,overshadows 45 Mill Street and the VPAHCD. She indicated she believedthe developer tried to address some concerns with their choice of materials and proposed facades; however, theissue related to the increase in height shouldbe addressed. She further advised greater consideration should also be given to the setbacks between the proposed development and 45 Mill Street. The non-built spaces between properties are also important when preserving and protecting heritage buildings. Ms. K. Huxted also expressed concerns with the proposed height of the building. She indicated it would be her preference to see a building under 8 stories. She stated she would like greater setbacks, further consideration for the conservation of the Iron Horse Trail,and, less impact to 45 Mill Street with regards to shadowing. Mr. D. Gundrumadvised he wished to acknowledge that the applicant was trying to produce a design thatreflected some of the existing streetscape. He expressed concerns with the impacts of the proposed development on some of the surroundingheritage properties, noting they appear to be in shadow the majority of the day. He stated in his opinion,there could be additional mitigating efforts made to decrease any adverse impacts on the surrounding properties. He further advised 25 Mill Street should be re-evaluated in the context of the proposed development. Mr. P. Ciuciurastated in his opinion,19 and 25 Mill Street not being listed on the MHR is disappointing. He indicated the proposed development, specifically the townhouses fronting onto Mill Street and the Iron Horse Trail,did try to take into consideration the street presence for the development. He commented the proposedtownhomes adjacent to the Iron Horse Trailwere a good idea, and may improvesafety and usability of the trail itself. He expressed concerns with the blank parking garage wall adjacent to 45 Mill Street. Mr. Ciuciuraexpressed further concerns with the scale of the proposed townhouses in comparison to the other houses on the street, stating they are considerably taller than the existing homes. He stated in his opinion,the tower portion of the building has little articulation and he expressed concerns with the proposed building materials, statingany building within the VPAHCD should be constructed out of brick. Councillor C. Michaud left the meeting at this time. 2.DSD-19-273–DELEGATED AUTHORITY BY-LAW UPDATE The Committee considered DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-19-273, dated November 18, 2019recommending an amendment to Chapter 642 (Heritage Property Consent -Alteration)of the City of Kitchener Municipal Coderegarding delegated approval authority for heritage permit applications.In addition,the Committee was in receipt this date of an updated By-law, with minor corrections towhat was included in the agenda package. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2019-42-CITY OF KITCHENER 2.DSD-19-273–DELEGATED AUTHORITY BY-LAW UPDATE(CONT’D) Mr. L. Bensason presented the report advising,in December 2015, Council directed staff to establisha heritage procedural protocolto improve processes related to the issuance of Heritage Permit Applications (HPA’s), which included consideration to updating the City’s existing Delegated Approval By-law, established in 2009.He provided an overview of the review undertaken by staff, which included,but not limited to the following:a municipal scan of other city’s delegated approval authority by-laws; a review of previous heritage permit applications; consulting with the City’s Legal Division; and, consulting with the Heritage Kitchener (HK) Committee in 2018 and 2019. He stated staff are only recommending minor changes to the By- law as follows: amendingthe criteria applicable to referring applications made for Part V designated property to HK, by removing criteria 642.3.3 (f)and (g), indicating staffwould continue to use their professional judgement in determining whether applications meeting the above criteria should bereferred to HK;formalize the practice introduced in 2016, requiring a unanimous recommendation of approval to proceed with delegated approval of applications made for Part IV and Part V designated property; updating the wording in 642.2.4 (Part IV)and 642.3.5.(Part V); makinghousekeeping amendments to certain terms, including “Coordinator” and “Heritage Planning Staff”; and, updating the wording related to HPA’s in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District for Part V applications beingreferred to HK. Mr. Bensason further advised the proposed amendments are within appropriate heritage conservation, they improve customer service and add a more streamlined approach. He requested an amendmenttothe staff recommendation,noting the Committee is being requested to approve the By-law that was circulated this date, rather than “Appendix C” as attached to Report DSD-19-273. In responseto questions, Mr. Bensason advised the majority of HPA’s are submitted by individual property owners;they are not submitted by developers. He stated from the time a homeowner submits an application, the application may require updates priorto being deemed complete, after which time staff would write a fulsome staff report to be considered by HK. He stated following the HK meeting,the recommendation would thenbe finally considered by Council. He stated depending on the Committee/Council meeting schedules,it could take up to 10 weeks for an HPA to receive final approval. He further advised staff are unable to shorten the timeline required for reviewing the application and meeting preparation required for the HK Committee meeting. He indicated delegated approval would decrease the time following the HK meeting. Councillor D. Chapman advised it was herpreferenceif further delegated authority was not approved. She stated in her opinion,the current process offers a balanced approach. She indicated staff consulted with her on an HPA and whether it could be considered through delegated approval, stating she does not feel comfortable in all instances making a decision. Mr. R. Parnell stated in his opinion,he is in support of extending the delegated approval authority, noting he would like the Committee to be less consumed consulting on preferred paint colours, as an example,and focusingon larger heritage matterssuch as Heritage Impact Assessments. He stated by extending delegated authority, the goal is that the Committee would be encouraging more people to want to own heritage properties and that general renovations would be easier and faster to complete. Councillor J. Gazzola expressed concerns with the timeline to approve HPA’s,stating he was still unsure why it could possibly take up to 10 weeks to complete the approval process. He stated,as noted in the staff presentation,over 65% of HPA’s are already being approved by staff. He indicated in his opinion,the HPA’s being considered by the Committee are not overwhelming and at times may provide educational opportunities when more complex HPA’s are received. He commented the Committee is comprised of individuals passionate in heritage, and revising the processwould decrease the work being completed by the Committee. He requested the Committee maintain the delegated approval by-law as itexists this date. Questions were raised regarding criteria 642.3.3 (f)related to “Group A”properties or property of very high cultural heritage value or interest,and what the difference was between the two criteria.Mr. Bensason noted three of the Heritage Conservation Districts specifically mention property ratings and those properties that have “Group A” status. He commentedas the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan did not have different status for the properties within the District, staff visitedand evaluated the properties to determine which properties were HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2019-43-CITY OF KITCHENER 2.DSD-19-273–DELEGATED AUTHORITY BY-LAW UPDATE(CONT’D) of very high cultural heritage value or interest, stating that was why the By-law noted the criteria in that nature.Mr. Bensason advised if that criteria were to beremoved, it would be left to Planning staff’s professional opinion as to whether an HPA should be referred to the Committee. Ms. S. Hossackstated she was in support of the recommendation outlined in report DSD-19- 273, stating in her opinion,she would like to work at a higher level and have the Committee assist in more complex work, rather than considering minor HPA requests. She indicated if Planning staff were no longer writing lengthy staff reports, it is likely more heritage conservation work could be completed,as it would also afford them additional opportunity to address more items on their work plan. Ms. Hossack commented that she would like the Committee to be working at a higher level that would encourage people to look beyond the factthat a building is heritage torather what the heritage of the building contributes to the City. She stated less time could be spent at the Committee reviewing small requests such as exterior paint colours. She further requested that the Heritage Permit Tracking sheet be updated to include an additional column on the nature of the HPA, which would provide greater clarity to the Committee related to what types of applications are being considered through delegated authority. Mr. Bensason advised staff noted the request related to amending the Heritage Permit Tracking sheet and intend to makethat change for January 2020. Mr. J. Baker stated he could understand both arguments foramending andmaintaining the By- law. He indicated his only concern would be whether the By-law reduces the need for the Committee meetings. He questioned whether the direction to amend the By-law was as a result of customer complaints or about finding staff efficiencies. He further advised he appreciates a process that has checks and balances, whichcontinues to maintain a good working relationship with Heritage Planning staff. In response to questions related to whether staff are receiving customer complaints, Mr. Bensason advised staff do receive comments related to timing mainly from “Group A” property owners, noting when they are undertakingalterations properly and are in good conservation practice, some of them inquire why they have to attend the Committee. He further advised in regards to staff efficiencies, extending delegated authority wouldalso provide staff efficiencies to address other workplan matters. In response to questions, Mr. Bensason advised staff recently amended the HPA approval process to include a final staff inspection to confirm the work approved in the HPA was completed as requested. He further advised Planning staff could use their professional judgment as well as consulting the District Representative on the Committee to help make adetermination if an application is sensitive/controversial. Ms. K. Huxted stated in her opinion,within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District,the “Group A” properties are the ones that form an anchor within their community. She stated she would not be willing to extend delegated authority to properties having that status. She noted for the Committee’sconsideration thatif an HPA is not considered by HK,it is never made public. Mr. S. Strohack had similar concerns as other members, stating that some of the more simple HPA’s provide educational opportunities for HPA’s that are more complex, which was beneficial to him as a new member on the Committee. A motion was brought forward by CouncillorJ. Gazzola to approve the recommendation as outlined in Report DSD-19-273. Mr. R. Parnell brought forward an amendment to Councillor Gazzola’s motion rather than striking out criteria 642.3.3 (f),the application is made for a property identified as a “Group A”property or as property of very high cultural heritage value or interest as identified by Council or in a heritage conservation district study or plan, he would like to maintain the requirement noting that if the application is made for a “significant alteration” for a“Group A”property or as property of very high cultural heritage value or interest, that it be referred to Heritage Kitchener. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2019-44-CITY OF KITCHENER 2.DSD-19-273–DELEGATED AUTHORITY BY-LAW UPDATE(CONT’D) Councillor Gazzola brought forward a deferral of the recommendation outlined in Report DSD- 19-273, noting the meeting had already run longer than anticipated and it may be more appropriate to finalize the debate at the January 7, 2020 Heritage Kitchener meeting. Mr. Sloan advised there may be some challenges with the proposed wording of “significant”, noting it is subjective with several interpretations. Mr. Bensason advised there are other criteria within the By-law that already has subjective connotations and staff have no objections with the proposed amendment. He stated,if once the By-law has been approved,andifthe Committee is unsatisfied with the applications being approved through delegated authority, staff would be willing to revisit the delegated approval authority. Mr. D. Gundrum requested at the January meeting, staff consider Mr. Parnell’s amendment further and consider possible wording options that may address the challenges related to the use of the word “significant”. The following motion was then Carried, on a recorded vote with Councillors D. Chapman, J. Gazzola, Ms. B, Mueller, Mr. J. Baker, Mr. D. Gundrum, Ms. K. Huxted and Mr. S. Strohack voting in favour; and, Ms. S. Hossak and Mr. R. Parnell voting in opposition. On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola- it was resolved: “That the following motion be deferred to the January 7, 2020 Heritage Kitchener meetingto give the Heritage Kitchener Advisory Committee further opportunity to debate whether to amend Chapter 642 (Heritage Property Consent -Alteration): That the draft by-law as circulated to the Committeethis date, outlined in DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-19-273, be enacted to amend Chapter 642 (Heritage Property Consent -Alteration) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code regarding delegation of the power to consent to alterations to property designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.” 3.STATUS UPDATES -HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES UPDATE AND 2019 PRIORITIES -HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS Mr. L. Bensasonadvisedthere were no status updates this date. 4.ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:36p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator