Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2021-04-06HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES APRIL 6, 2021CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee metelectronicallythis date, commencing at 4:00p.m. Present:S. Hossack-Chair Councillors D. Chapman, J. Gazzola, C. Michaud, and D. Gundrum, D. Vongphakdy, J. Haalboom, M. Asling, P. Ciuciura, R. Schwarz, S. AhmedandV. Mance. Staff:M. Drake, Senior Heritage & Project Planner G. Stevenson, Senior Planner V. Grohn, Heritage Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator 1.HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -B2021-011 & PENDING FURTHER PLANNING APPLICATIONS -FAIRWAY ROAD AND WOOLNER TRAIL (GRCA) -HERITAGE PLANNING COMMENTS The Committee considered a memorandum dated March 22, 2021regarding a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property municipally addressed as 80 Woolner Trail, commonly known as the Woolner Farm.The subject land is located at the south east corner of Fairway Road, Old Zeller Driveand Woolner Trail. It is currently owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and is located adjacent to 80 Woolner Trail, which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, subject to a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement, and identified as a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape(CHL)in the 2014 CHLStudy.M. Drakeprovided opening remarks, stating an HIA has been submittedin support of a current Planning Act application andproposed future Planning Act applications.Heritage Planning staff areseeking the Committee’s feedback, which will be taken into consideration as part of staff’s review of the HIAto address potential impactsof the proposed Planning Act applications in regard tothe existing cultural heritage resource and its heritage attributes. Cecilia Nin Hernandez,McCallum Sather,Jennifer Passy, Waterloo Catholic District School Board andKevin Muir,GSP Group were in attendance in support of the HIA and to respond to questions from the Committee. C. Nin Hernandez presented the HIAstating the subject property is adjacent to the property municipally addressed as 80 Woolner Trailcommonly known as the Woolner Farm, which is designated under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.C. Nin Hernandez provided an overview of the existing conditions for the vacant parcel of land at the southeast corner of Woolner Trailand Fairway Road North;presented a conceptual design of the proposed school, which includes building, parking, play area and sports field;reviewed the heritage attributes significant to the Woolner Farm; and,notedthe recommendations contained within the HIA indicatethere areno impacts to the heritage attributes of the Woolner Farm or to the views to and from the Grand River. C. Nin Hernandezfurther advised Heritage Planning staff have raised questions related topotential fencing andlightingfor the proposed school, noting both matters would be adequately addressed through the Site Plan Review process. In response to questions, K.Muir provided clarification on the proposed severance, stating the proposed school property is part of a 6-acreproperty currently owned by the GRCA. K. Muir indicated the Woolner Farm, which was identified on page 6 of the HIA is adjacent to the subject property, the site boundary for the farm property demonstrates all of the trees/vegetation that are located on the farm property. Questions were raised regarding the views from Fairway Road North to the Woolner Farm. C. Nin Hernandezadvised the Cultural Heritage Landscape study for the subject area only identifies views to and from the Grand River anddoes not speak to the significance ofthe views from Fairway Road North.In response to further questions, M. Drake advised the propertyowner from the Woolner Farm has provided a written submission in response to the severance application, stating those comments can be circulated to the Committeefollowing the meeting. S. Hossack stated the recommendations as outlined in the HIA do not identifyany impacts to the heritage resource and schools are ofanidentified need for the community. She indicated in her opinion,it seemed like a sound development. S. Hossack questioned whether any efforts would be made to draw a connection between the school and the heritage property. J. Passy stated there have not yet been discussions regarding design materials or colours etc.of the proposed school.J. Passystated consideration will be given to the natural features of the area once an architect has been retained to begin the designprocess. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES APRIL 6, 2021-18-CITY OF KITCHENER 2.DSD-2021-35-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-012 -171 FREDERICK STREET -PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO THE FAÇADE AT SUDDABY PUBLIC SCHOOL The Committee considered DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-2021-35, dated March 19, 2021regarding receipt of incompleteHeritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021- IV-012to permit thereplacement ofthe original wood windows with new aluminum clad wood windows on the property municipally addressed as 171 Frederick Street,commonly known as Suddaby Public School.The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. M. Drake presented the Report, advising based on the missing information, heritage planning staff are not in a position to make a recommendation this date.M. Drake stated the Waterloo Region District School Board is eager to move forward with this project in the spring,so the majority of the work can commencein thesummer and finishedby September 2021 in time for the new school year. In an effort to assist with managing the proposed timeline, heritage planning staff felt that it was appropriate to share the incomplete application with the Committeeto receive initial comments andfeedback this date related to the application. The Committee was also in receipt this date of a written submission from Kae Elgiedated April 6, 2021, regarding the proposed HPA. Josh Bedard, ABAArchitects andDale Wildeman, Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) were in attendance to present the HPA and respond to questions from the Committee. J. Bedard presented the HPA stating WRDSB is seeking to replace 85 windows located on the Frederick Street façade of the schoolthroughgrantfunding offered bythe Ontario Ministry of Educationspecifically through the COVID-19 Resilience Infrastructure Stream (CVRIS) funding under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP)to improvethe ventilation in the school. J. Bedard stated in order to be eligible to receive the CVRIS funding, the window replacementsmust commence before September 30th, 2021 and be substantially completeby December 31st, 2021. Failure to meet these deadlines will constitute project default and ineligibility for funding through this program.J. Bedard provided an overview of the current condition of the existing windows, indicating their proposal is to replace the existing wood windows with new aluminum clad wood windows that offer the look of realwood on the interior and the durability of aluminum on the exterior. D. Gundrumdeclared a pecuniary interestas a member of his family is a staff member at the school and did not participate in any voting or discussion regarding this matter. R. Schwarzstated she was in support of the proposed HPA, indicatingshe would like to ensure thetiming of theapproval process would not jeopardize the ability to obtain the funding for the project. In response to questions, D. Wideman advised they have not evaluated each window individually, noting all of the windows are in similar condition. J. Haalboom stated in her opinion, although there is funding available for window replacement, it would be her preference to see some of the wooden windowsrehabilitated rather than replaced if they are in fair condition. D. Wideman stated the windows are not salvageableasthey are in poor condition both inside and outside. It was noted there used to bepulls on the windows to open and close them, but they have since been broken. The wood hadbeen improperly painted several times, making the windowswarp or become inoperable. J. Bedardstated the windows no longer act as a barrier to the exterior. Questions were raised regarding the window design.J. Bedardadvised although there is funding available to undertake this project, there are upset limits to the amount of funding that is available. J. Bedardadvised although the goal is to replace the windows with something similar to what currently exists, the funding allocation may not allow for exact replicas of the windows to be obtained. J. Bedardfurther advised the grant funding is specifically intended to improve the safety oftheschool ventilation. J. Haalboom indicated she was in full support of the comments and questions outlined in the staff report and feelsthat the observations notedin the report should be adhered to as closely as possible. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES APRIL 6, 2021-19-CITY OF KITCHENER 2.DSD-2021-35-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-012 -171 FREDERICK STREET -PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO THE FAÇADE AT SUDDABY PUBLIC SCHOOL(CONT’D) R. Schwarzstated in her opinion, that heritage preservation continues to evolve and the proposed HPA does seem to demonstrate current preservation practises. R. Schwarzfurther advised the project will help to preserve the building and protect the safety of the children, noting wood windows do not have a similar life expectancy as those being proposed by the architect. D. Wideman indicated the windows on the Frederick Street façadeare not original to the building, statingthis portion of the building was constructed in 1922, whichwas athird renovation to the school. D. Wideman further advised consideration was also given to vinyl windows, but those only have a life expectancy of 20 to 25 years, rather than the possible 50-year life expectancy of the aluminum windows. Finally,D. Wideman indicated, the window replacement is the first step to a larger project that would include the installation of air conditioning. 3.DSD-2021-34-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-V-011 -1249 DOON VILLAGE ROAD -CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS The Committee considered DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-2021-34, dated March 23, 2021recommendingapproval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021-V-011 to permit the construction of anadditionand alterationsto the single detached dwelling municipally addressed as 1249 Doon Village Roadlocated within the Upper DoonHeritage Conservation District(UDHCD). V.Grohn presented the Report, advising staff are recommending approval of the HPA, subject to one condition. Marissa Crandell, applicant was in attendancein support of the staff recommendation andto respond to questions from the Committee.In response to questions, M. Crandell advised it was their intention to install garage doors that include windows. J. Haalboom questionedwhether the applicant had decided on a black roof over light grey. M. Crandell advised she was amenable to both colours and had no objections to light grey if it was preferred by the Committee. J. Haalboom stated it would be her preference to see a light grey roof installed. Councillor D. Chapman commented she was in support of the HPA, noting the design appears to be complementary with the existing neighbourhood. In response to questions, M. Crandell advised she has not consulted with the neighbouring property owners regarding the proposed alterations of the dwelling. Councillor C. Michaud commented she liked the suggestion brought forward regarding a lighter colour roof, stating in her opinion,the proposed design has been well considered and will enhance the streetscape. J. Haalboom further advised appreciation for the factthat the proposed addition doesnot increase the size of the dwelling beyond 3,000 sq.ft. The following motion was voted on and Carried unanimously. On motion by Councillor C. Michaud- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2021-V-011, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-2021-34,be approved to permit the construction of an addition and alterations to the single detached dwelling at the property municipally addressed as 1249 Doon Village Road, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: i.That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.” HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES APRIL 6, 2021-20-CITY OF KITCHENER 4.HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -3571 KING STREET EAST -MEGHQ-FREEPORT -KITCHENER’S COLD WAR NUCLEAR SHELTER The Committee considered a memorandum dated March 23, 2021 regarding Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)dated November 30, 2020 and prepared by Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.for the property municipally addressed as 3571 King Street East, known as Municipal Emergency Government Headquarters(MEGHQ) Freeport, a cold war nuclear shelter. The propertyislisted on the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest.V. Grohn provided opening remarks, stating and HIA has beencompleted to consideroptions for the future of the former nuclear bunker;options which include demolition,rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. V. Grohn advised the heritage consultant that prepared the HIA and staff from the Region of Waterlooare in attendance this dateto present the draft HIA and answer any questions from committee members.V. Grohn further advised the HIA was already reviewed by the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee (HPAC) at its meeting held on January 14, 2021 and acopy of the comments prepared by members of HPAC have been included in the agenda for the Committee’s consideration. Kayla Jonas Galvin, AraHeritage and Laurie Wells, Region of Waterloo were in attendance to present the HIA and respond to questions from the Committee.K. Jonas Galvinprovided an overview of: Heritage evaluation specifically in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act; the evaluation of Regional Significance; as well as the possible options for consideration including: demolition; demolition mitigation;and, rehabilitation and reuse mitigation.K. Jonas Galvinadvised the cold war bunker is only 1 of 2 municipal bunkers in Ontario. L.Wellsstatedthe Region undertookinvestigation work on the property in 2017, which included a structural investigation and designated substance investigation. L.Wellsnoted the building is in poor structural condition as the soil around the building has begun to erode and the entrance stairs are at risk of collapsing. L.Wellsfurther advised the soil covering the building was also removed in 1992 and at that time the waterproofing membrane was also removed exposing the building to water damage, which has impacted the overall structural integrity of the bunker.L.Wellsindicated the water damage is one reason why demolition is being considered as a preferred alternative at this time. R. SchwarzcommentedAndrew Burch’sbookentitled “Give me Shelter”should be consulted when reviewing the preferred alternativesfor the cold war bunker. In response to questions, K. Jonas Galvinadvised the other municipal bunker is located in Toronto at220 Old YongeStreet and is constructed under the single detached dwelling. R. Schwarzfurther advised where possibleefforts should be made to preserve the history and the bunker. Questions were raised regarding the proposed timing of this project and specifically noting with the global pandemic,there may be financial constraints to some of the proposed options. L. Wellsstated currently staff intend on bringing forward a reportto Regional Councilprior to summer 2021,with some initial recommendations,noting this is the preliminary stage of the project. Staff would likely propose doing only the necessary work to protect the existing structure with possiblerehabilitationtaking place in the coming yearsif that is the preferred alternative. Councillor C. Michaud questioned if the building was previously used by the KW Rowing Club. L.Wellsadvised the building was previously used by the club until it was no longer financially viable. L.Wellsnoted the building was also discovered to have high levels of mold and asbestos making it unsafe for use and has now beenvacant since 2017. P. Ciuciurastated in his opinion,the building is fascinating and something worth preserving. P. Ciuciuraindicated although the building is not aesthetically pleasing,it adds to the community’s collective identity. P. Ciuciuraindicated consideration should be given to designating the building and all actions should be taken to prevent water from further damaging the building, stating it should be saved and restored. Questions were raised regardingartifacts contained within the building and whether anything was able to be preserved. L.Wellsadvised she was unsure this date of whether any items had been removed and archived. R. Schwarzstated from her previous research related to bunkers HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES APRIL 6, 2021-21-CITY OF KITCHENER 4.HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -3571 KING STREET EAST -MEGHQ-FREEPORT -KITCHENER’S COLD WAR NUCLEAR SHELTER (CONT’D) such as this, it is unlikely that there wereany artifacts to be archived. R. Schwarzstated if you participate in the tour of the Diefenbunker, the historical significance of the artifacts at that location are explained to be not true to the bunker itself, rather there to assist in providing an explanation of the history surrounding the cold warand are not true artifacts. J. Haalboom stated where possible,efforts should be made to preserve and stabilize the building. M. Asling indicated he did have some concern with the how the HIA has been framed, specifically in regard to the indigenous history of the community. M. Asling stated there is language in the report related toland being transferred,specifically related to Beasley’s Survey. M. Asling indicated it was documented by a scholar that theBeasley’s Surveywas leased,not sold. M. Asling further advised the bunker is an interesting part of our community’shistory, and thatit should be learned about and maintained. Specifically,in regardto theindigenous historyrelated to the property,M. Aslingindicated it should be properly researched anddocumented as well. Councillor J. Gazzola stated the Committee has already expressed the importance of the history related to the bunker. Councillor Gazzola noted where possible,actions should be taken to maintain it, as long as large expenditures are not required at this time. Councillor Gazzola stated the bunker is an important part of ourcommunity and world history. S. Hossack stated in her opinion,the bunkershould be saved if possible and consideration should be given to heritage designation and promotion in hopes to help protect and rehabilitate the building. Councillor C. Michaud left the meeting at this time. 5.STATUS UPDATES -HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES UPDATE AND 2021PRIORITIES -HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS V. Grohn provided a follow up on a Heritage Impact Assessment that was previously considered by the Committeeat its meeting on February 2, 2021. V. Grohn advised the property was previously subject to a Committee of Adjustment decision that was appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). V. Grohn statedthatLPAT rendered a decision this date to permit the construction of a 3-storey building in the rear year of 35 Sheldon Avenue. V. Grohn further advised the property owner has agreed to designate the propertyandit is anticipated that the Committee will further consider this property at the May meeting. In response to questions, M. Drake provided an overview on the processes related tocreating a new Heritage Conservation District,as well as the process for heritage designation. Questions were raised regarding the heritage significanceof the Conservatory of Music building located on Queen Street. M. Drake indicated the property is listed on the Municipal Heritage Registrar, indicating a Site Plan approvalapplicationhas been submitted and it will likely be on a future Committee agenda for consideration. 6.ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 6:01p.m. D.Saunderson Committee Administrator