Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage Kitchener - 1999-06-29H E RI TAG E\1999 -06 -29 HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JUNE 29, 1999 CITY OF KITCHENER Heritage Kitchener met this date, chaired by Councillor J. Haalboom, commencing at 9:37 a.m., with the following members present: Ms. C. Martindale, Ms. P. Wagner, Messrs. M. Badran, P. Bufe and E. Lucy. Others present: Ms. S. Barber, Mr. L. Bensason and Ms. D. Gilchrist. 1. ALTERATION APPLICATION - SUDDABY SCHOOL Messrs. D. Simpkins and C. Smith of the Waterloo Region District School Board were in attendance to discuss the replacement of the basement windows at Suddaby School. It was noted that this discussion had commenced at the Heritage Kitchener meeting of June 4, 1999, and since that meeting the School Board and Heritage Kitchener had arranged for a window consultant to review and recommend on options for the replacement of the basement windows. The Committee was now in receipt of a copy of the draft report from Historic Window Works of Orangeville, titled "Window Analysis and Replacement Plan, Suddaby Public School". Councillor J. Haalboom introduced this matter explaining that Mr. Bensason had found a window consultant and she gave some background to the company who had done the analysis and replacement plan. Councillor Haalboom noted that the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation does support this consultant. Mr. L. Bensason reviewed the information contained the draft report. The report was broken into various sections: appraisal of existing windows, analysis of paint condition and proposed paint removal scheme, review of School Board proposal and quotation, alternatives and conclusion. Mr. Bensason reviewed each section of the report for the Committee's benefit. Mr. Bensason noted that, in the report, the Consultant felt that, after reviewing the School Board's proposal, the estimate of costs to replace the existing basement windows with aluminum windows was reasonable. Mr. Bensason then reviewed the two alternatives suggested in the report. He noted that the Consultant's preference is Alternative No. 2 at a total cost, for eighty-five openings, of $83,725.00. Mr. Bensason then reviewed the comparison chart at the end of the report, which compared the various proposals, including the School Board's proposals and the costs of each. He noted that, although this is a draft report, it is anticipated that a final report will be available before the Council meeting next Monday night. Mr. Bensason then reviewed the letter from the School Board, dated June 3, 1999. He commented that it would appear, from the report, that there are alternatives, which could possibly meet the Board's needs, at a cost equal to what the Board provided for restoration of the existing windows without storms. He noted that the proposed cost of approximately $83,000.00 rather than the $109,000.00 as outlined in the Board's proposal would save enough money to cover the cost of maintenance over twenty-one years. He stated that if this meets the needs of the Board and is as energy efficient as the aluminum windows, then it would be possible to cover the cost of the maintenance of the wooden windows over the twenty-one years. Mr. C. Smith spoke of Mr. Bufe's suggestion. The Committee was in receipt of a proposal from Mr. P. Bufe dated June 27, 1999. Mr. Bufe advised that he looked at the report, which was submitted and advised that he had made a site visit with both Councillor K. Taylor- Harrison and Councillor T. Galloway. Mr. Bufe outlined his proposal. He noted that his proposal would cost $912.00, including storm windows, per opening for a total estimated cost of $77,520.00. Mr. Bufe identified his concerns with respect to the two alternatives contained in the Consultant's report and also advised of his concern that in the summary of the Board's proposal there were no maintenance costs for the new aluminum thermal windows. He felt that realistically, within a twenty-year cycle, some of the thermal units will have to be replaced and those costs have not been factored into the Board's figures. Mr. Bufe noted that in his tour of the building with the Councillors, all three of them felt that the protective grills would need to be replaced on the basement windows. Councillor J. Haalboom then reviewed Mr. Bufe's proposal, noting the total cost per window including storms of $912.00 for a total cost for the eighty-five openings of $77,520.00. Councillor Haalboom noted that the School Board needs to have these windows open and Mr. HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 297 1999 - 48 - CITY OF KITCHENER ALTERATION APPLICATION - SUDDABY SCHOOL - CONT'D Bufe advised that in his proposal both the windows and the storms could be opened. Mr. C. Smith advised that the Board has made it clear that they will remove the grills from the basement windows and it has been their experience with the aluminum windows that grills are not required. Mr. Smith also reviewed Mr. Bufe's proposal noting that, replacing all the panes in all the basement windows would bring the total cost to $89,000.00. Mr. D. Simpkins stated that he was not aware of an institutional grade storm window as described by Mr. Bufe. Councillor Haalboom clarified with Mr. Bufe his intentions with respect to the storm window and was advised that it was an aluminum frame two piece window that would move up and down. Mr. D. Simpkins then referred to the type of glass noted in the proposal advising that laminated glass will not shatter, which provides for greater security. He noted that the proposed glass is very similar to automotive glass. He also advised that the industry recognized this type of glass as security glazing for jewellery stores and banks. As a result, grills would not be required. Mr. C. Smith then gave an overview of the situation from the Board's point of view. Referring to the new tape balances contained in Alternative No. 2 of the Consultant's report. He advised that the Board has had some experience with these and were not pleased with them. Referring to the Consultant's appraisal of the existing aluminum windows, he noted that the Consultant felt that the exterior profile closely matched that of the original windows. He advised that the Board would prefer the replacement aluminum windows, which will cut down on long term maintenance. He noted that replacing the windows would allow for the continued use of this Heritage building. Ms. P. Wagner referred to the possibility of putting storms on the inside of the window, referring to Alternative No. 1 in the Consultant's report. She questioned the possibility of air conditioning. She also questioned how long McQuarrie Enrichment Centre would be located in that building. Mr. Smith advised that this is "loaded space" whether McQuarrie is there or not and explained for the Committee's benefit what "loaded space" means. Mr. E. Lucy commented that if the grills had to go back on the exterior of the windows he felt they would not give an attractive appearance. He felt the same with respect to external storms. He advised that he felt that aluminum windows would maintain the facade appearance. He stated that the most desirable situation would be to have a functional school with wood windows; however, if they have to hide the wood windows with grills or screens it would not be desirable. Ms. P. Wagner stated that she did not think that the aluminum windows matched the existing windows on the school and Mr. D. Simpkins pointed out the Consultant's report where the Consultant advises that he feels they match quite well. Councillor J. Haalboom pointed out that there was some condensation in an upper replacement window in the school and was advised that there was a broken seal. When questioned by Councillor Haalboom, Mr. Simpkins advised that the cost to replace a sealed unit is $220.00. Councillor Haalboom asked the Committee for a motion and Mr. Bufe put forward a motion that the alterations take place, for the basement windows, as outlined in his submission dated June 27, 1999. Mr. Bufe noted that his proposal would preserve the original window material. He noted that leaving most of the glass would not affect the balance of the windows. He felt that the Committee's mandate should be based on Heritage and that their mandate is to preserve original material. Mr. L. Bensason addressed the Committee stating that, in the past, this Committee has taken various approaches regarding designated buildings. He pointed out that five years ago the Committee recommended approval of replacement aluminum windows for this building. Mr. Bensason referred to Alternative No. 1 in the Consultant's report, which he felt was best from a conservation point of view. Concerning Alternative No. 2, Mr. Bensason noted that there HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 297 1999 - 49 - CITY OF KITCHENER ALTERATION APPLICATION - SUDDABY SCHOOL - CONT'D would be less of the original material but a lot of the original materials would be maintained. He felt that the Committee needed to balance conservation principles with the School Board's needs. He noted that Alternative No. 2 eliminates the needs for storms and reduces maintenance costs, although there will still be some maintenance costs. He suggested a change in the maintenance cycle from seven to ten years. There was a discussion between the Board's proposal for replacement aluminum windows and the Consultant's Alternative No. 2. There was also a review of what would be required in the way of alterations to this sash profile to accommodate the thermal units. Councillor Haalboom asked for a seconder for Mr. Bufe's motion and no seconder came forward. Mr. E. Lucy put forward a motion to approve Alternative No. 2 in the Consultant's report, subject to their being no external protective grills on the windows, which was seconded by Mr. Badran. Mr. Badran questioned Mr. Smith as to how he felt about this alternative. Mr. Smith responded that this would require more painting, which they wanted to get away from. He briefly noted maintenance requirements over the years and their future plans for maintenance. Ms. S. Barber pointed out the responsibilities of this Committee and the Board. She felt that Alternative No. 2 would be the best compromise alternative between the two parties. Prior to the vote, Mr. Smith noted that the Board would like some modification on the taped balances and Mr. Lucy amended his motion accordingly. On a motion by Mr. E. Lucy - it was resolved: "That, pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, we approve the request of the owner to alter the designated property municipally known as 171 Frederick Street (Suddaby School) by replacing all the basement windows; and, That the replacement of the basement windows shall be done in accordance with Alternative #2 as outlined in the report prepared by Historic Window Works, considered by Heritage Kitchener on June 29, 1999, except that a final solution on the balances be negotiated between Heritage Kitchener and the Waterloo Region District School Board; and further, That there shall be no external protective grills on the basement windows." Mr. Smith offered his thanks to Mr. Bensason for attending this meeting and for arranging for the Consultant. He thanked the Committee for holding this special meeting. He noted that they would have to decide whether or not they would appear before Council next Monday night. Councillor J. Haalboom thanked Messrs. Smith and Simpkins for their willingness to allow and contribute to the costs of the Consultant's study and for being willing to have discussions with this Committee. ADJOURNMENT On motion the meeting adjourned at 11:07 a.m. CANCELLATION OF JULY MEETING Please be advised that the Heritage Kitchener meeting scheduled for July 16, 1999, has been cancelled. Dianne H. Gilchrist HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 297 1999 - 50 - CITY OF KITCHENER Committee Administrator