Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLACAC - 1994-09-09LACAC\1994-09-09 LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 CITY OF KITCHENER A meeting of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee was held this date under the Chairmanship of Mr. V. Tarbutt, with the following members present: Mr. E. Bow, Ms. B. Buchanan, Mr. P. Bufe, Ms. S. Burke, Mr. R. Coo, Ms. E. Essenbergs, Ms. J. Kramer and Mrs. G. Stoner. Councillor T. Galloway was in attendance for part of the meeting. Others present: Councillor M. Yantzi, Messrs. T.B. Stanley, W. Sleeth, L. Bensason and G. Sosnoski. 1. MINUTES At the August 12, 1994 meeting Mr. Brenton Toderian, MacNaughton Hermson Britton Clarkson Planning Ltd. appeared and submitted a letter requesting specific amendments to the July 8, 1994 LACAC Minutes. At that time the Committee agreed to the changes requested by Mr. Toderian and itemized as #1 and #4. Subsequently, Mr. Toderian was to confirm comments attributed to Mr. T.B. Stanley and report to the Committee this date, prior to their adopting the Minutes at issue. In response to a question from Mr. Tarbutt, Mr. T.B. Stanley advised that he had not been contacted by Mr. Toderian to discuss the changes referred to and added that he would agree with Item #2 in Mr. Toderian's letter but not with Item #3. On a motion by Councillor T. Galloway, It was resolved: "That the Minutes of the July 8, 1994 Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee be amended, as follows: *page 22, paragraph 1 - change the sentence 'Mr. Toderian advised the Committee that the owner had always intended to keep the house' to 'Mr. Toderian advised the Committee that if possible, the owner had intended to keep the house.'; *page 22, new paragraph 1 -'Mr. Bensason advised the Committee of a memorandum from Mr. D. Mansell indicating that he has no concerns regarding the proposed demolition of 314 Old Chicopee Road. It was noted that Mr. Mansell concurred with the analysis of Mr. Randy Dodd, and agreed that the building could not be saved.'; *page 22, paragraph 2 - Delete the sentence 'These problems have come about as a result of the owner's choice to make this a front lotted road.' and replace with 'He suggested that the choice was a result of numerous considerations discussed by Staff and the property owner's former consultant.', and further, That the July 8, 1994 Minutes be adopted, as amended." Mr. Steven Gazzola appeared on behalf of John Clinckett Architect and their client the Waterloo County Board of Education to request clarification of the August 12, 1994 recommendation of the Committee relative to his firm's request to alter Suddaby Public School. In this regard the Committee was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Clinckett dated August 30, 1994. Mr. Gazzola referred specifically to references in the minutes relative to "wood/aluminum" replacement window units. He pointed out that it was his understanding Mr. Clinckett had asked for permission to replace seven of the existing windows with all aluminum window units. He added that a wood/aluminum window with aluminum munton bars had been brought in as a sample to demonstrate the similarity in appearance between the existing and replacement units. Be general consent, the Committee clarified that the permission given to install replacement windows applies to the use of all aluminum extruded units. LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMM/TTEE M/NUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 - 45- CITY OF KITCI:IENER 1.MINUTES CONT'D On a motion by Ms. E. Essenbergs, it was resolved: "That the Minutes of the August 12, 1994 Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, as mailed to the members, be adopted." 2.ALTERATION REQUEST - SUDDABY PUBLIC SCHOOL The Committee was in receipt of a facsimile transmission from John Clinckett Architect dated August 29, 1994 outlining a further proposal as regards replacement of the windows on the rear elevation of the school. Mr. S. Gazzola advised that no action is required at this time on the request, as the Architect is awaiting further direction from his client. 3.1052 DOON VILLAGE ROAD The Committee was in receipt of a letter and drawings from Mr. E. Lucy, concerning the proposed construction of a carriage shed on the property he owns at 1052 Doon Village Road. Mr. Lucy was in attendance in support of his request. Mr. Bensason circulated photographs of the property showing its context of setting, as well as the non- historic building policy from the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan and elevations of the proposed structure. It was noted that the property in question is a Type "B", non-historic building. Mr. Tarbutt inquired whether Mr. Lucy had contacted the Society for the Preservation of Upper Doon (SPUD) and he replied in the negative. Councillor Galloway suggested that there is no statutory requirement that SPUD comment, and pointed out that the organization does not have regular meetings or a mechanism to deal with alteration requests. Mr. Bensason added that in the past SPUD has been contacted where Type "A" buildings having historic value are involved. Councillor M. Yantzi entered the meeting at this time. On a motion by Councillor T. Galloway, it was resolved: "That pursuant to Sections 42 and 43 of the Ontario Heritaqe Act, Council grant the request of the owner of 1052 Doon Village Road, in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District, to erect a detached carriage shed as outlined in the letter and drawings submitted to the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee on September 9, 1994, and the presentation made that date." 4. URBAN DESIGN STUDY The Committee was in receipt of Terms of Reference for the Study and Mr. W. Sleeth of the Project Team was in attendance this date to explain the Study and invite participation by LACAC. By general consent, the Committee appointed Mr. Robert Coo as its representative on the Study Team. Mr. Bufe noted that there is nothing in the Terms of Reference that would indicate the value of Urban Design Guidelines in preserving heritage building stock. Mr. Stanley replied that the Study will be based on heritage principles in the City's Official Plan. LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMM/TTEE M/NUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 - 46- CITY OF KITCI:IENER 5.VICTORIA PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Committee was previously circulated with draft Terms of Reference and was asked to endorse these and finalize the study area boundaries. Ms. S. Burke gave a presentation on behalf of the site survey team andsuggested changes to the boundaries in order to better reflect the development of early Berlin. She displayed a colour coded plan (a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of these Minutes) showing various proposals and indicated that the study team had walked the area and identified pertinent issues. Ms. Burke also circulated a report containing various recommendations to amend the proposed boundaries of the Victoria Park, Industrial Heritage and Mill-Courtland Heritage Conservation Districts. The report also recommends establishing a secondary level of protection through a "heritage sensitive protected area." on both sides of Victoria Street from the revised southern boundary of the Industrial Heritage Conservation District to the CNR tracks. Ms. Burke argued that the reconfigurations proposed would result in the preservation of several significant features in the area including geographic features, transportation corridors as well as development patterns and structures which made Berlin/Kitchener unique. Mr. Bufe suggested an extension of the proposed boundary to the rear lot lines on the east side of Benton Street. Mr. Bow pointed out that the survey team was not unanimous in endorsing the entire proposal as outlined by Ms. Burke this date, and noted that he personally does not feel some of these areas should be included. He added that the houses around Victoria Park were developed in conjunction with the Park itself, whereas the development of the Benton/Church Street areas preceded development of the Park. Ms. Burke argued in favour of extending the boundaries noting that this is a unique opportunity to preserve various related components of early Berlin, and suggested that a sub-committee of LACAC could assist in preparing documentation for an expanded conservation district study. Mr. Bensason gave a presentation outlining the two options supported by the Planning and Development Department, noting that Scenario #1 is the preferred option. In this regard, Mr. Bensason circulated Staff Report No. PD 120/92 describing nine proposed heritage conservation districts. He also circulated a November, 1992 copy of Zoning News and an extract from a Provincial publication on delineating heritage conservation districts. Mr. Bensason pointed out that the primary goal of conservation districts is to preserve existing neighbourhood character, and for this reason historical issues alone should not determine district boundaries. He added that issues regarding land use and zoning should also be considered. In referring to the recommendation of the survey team, Mr. Bensason pointed out that the area east of King Street and north of Victoria Street cannot be supported by the Planning and Development Department. He suggested that this area has nothing to do with the Victoria Park neighbourhood which forms the basis of the original presentation to Council. He cautioned the Committee that the district plan could also be delayed by concerns expressed by property owners along Queen Street, whose lands are zoned differently than other properties in the proposed district. He also added that the budget for the project may be insufficient to include an expanded study area. Mr. Bensason pointed out that the property owners on the east side of Queen Street, north of Courtland Avenue, were not originally informed of Council's intent to initiate a Heritage Conservation District. It would therefore be necessary to circulate and await responses, which could result in property owners indicating that they do not wish to be included in the proposed district. Mr. Bensason noted that the Steering Committee initially formed to oversee the project has already agreed to the draft Terms of Reference and the initial boundaries. Mr. Bensason then reviewed Scenario #1, which is that preferred option of the Planning and Development Department, noting that the proposed townhouse development adjacent to the Park is included, while themajority of properties on the west side of Queen Street are not. He then reviewed the pros and cons of Scenario #1 and proposed dealing with the Queen Street corridor as a separate issue, either as a different district plan 5.VICTORIA PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT CONT'D or a special designated area. LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMM/TTEE M/NUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 - 47- CITY OF KITCI:IENER Mrs. Stoner offered the opinion that any district plan should ensure uniformity in preserving both sides of a streetscape. Mr. Bufe added that the planning process, specifically zoning designations, have already assumed that there is nothing in this portion of the Queen Street corridor worth preserving from a heritage standpoint. Mr. Bensason then reviewed Scenario #2, which the Planning and Development Department is also prepared to support and which would include buildings on the east side of Queen Street from the railway line to Courtland Avenue. Councillor Galloway questioned whether land owners on the east side of Queen Street would have responsibility for writingtheir own heritage policies within the context of the district. Mr. Bensason replied in the affirmative and added that there is a greater chance of a conservation district preceding smoothly where it is limited to lower density development. As an alternative, he indicated that staff could circulate the owners of properties in scenario #2, and if the response is unfavourable, default to Scenario #1. Ms. Burke responded that the heritage conservation district process can be used to either create or preserve neighbourhoods, and pointed out that the present Victoria Park neighbourhood boundaries were arbitrarily developed, largely in response to traffic flow. She added that ease of implementing the district is not the only issue, and pointed out that this may be the City's only chance to preserve the historic roots of the community. She argued that in her opinion it does not make sense to eliminate the Queen Street properties as these buildings require protection to a greater degree than those in the Park. She also stressed the need to include industrial buildings in the proposed district. Ms. Burke noted that property owners in the district will all have a say in the formulation of preservation guidelines. A general discussion took place concerning the proposals involved and various issues relating to industrial buildings, bonusing and the hiring of a consulting team. Ms. Burke stressed the positive benefits of a heritage conservation district designation and the potential for revitalization which could be generated by an expanded district plan. Mr. Tarbutt reminded the Committee that at present the study area only is being debated and not the final district boundaries, which may change as a result of the consultant's study. Mr. P. Bufe put forward, and later withdrew, a motion that Council endorse the study area as expanded by the building survey team and form its By-law of Intent around these extended boundaries. On a motion by Mr. P. Bufe, it was resolved: "That the City's Heritage Planner investigate and report on the degree of support from the affected residents for an expanded Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District study area as proposed by the building survey team and presented to the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee on September 9, 1994." By general consent, the Committee agreed to the request of Ms. Burke that the site survey team investigate the boundaries of each of the districts proposed in any given year to determine general suitability of the boundaries previously submitted to Council. Mr. Tarbutt asked that the Committee proper be updated in this regard from time to time. 6. DESIGNATED PROPERTY GRANT APPROVAL PROCESS - 1995/96 The Committee was in receipt of a report from Mr. G. Sosnoski dated August 3, 1994 offering suggestions on how the approval time frame could be altered and expanded. 6. DESIGNATED PROPERTY GRANT APPROVAL PROCESS - 1995/96 CONT'D On a motion by Ms. E. Essenbergs, it was resolved: "That LACAC endorse the changes to the designated property grant approval process as outlined in the report by Mr. G. Sosnoski dated August 3, 1994." LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMM/TTEE M/NUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 - 48- CITY OF KITCI:IENER Mr. Bufe pointed out that the report also requests that LACAC consider whether grants should be processed on a first come first served basis only, irrespective of the nature of the work, or be based on criteria which would prioritize this work in relation to its necessity in preserving or otherwise enhancing heritage value. It was generally agreed that this issue would be discussed when the Committee considers its general position on architectural conservation and alterations to properties. 7.ALTERATIONS TO DESIGNATED PROPERTIES By general consent, the Committee agreed to the request of Mr. Tarbutt that this item be deferred to a future special meeting. He also asked that any other philosophical issues for consideration be forwarded to Ms. Burke. Mr. Bufe asked that prior to the next meeting members consider the Architectural Conservation Note No. 1 (Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties) which was circulated with the agenda. 8.1610 WESTMOUNT ROAD EAST - HURON COMMUNITY PLAN The Committee was in receipt of a memo from Mr. D. Corks dated August 25, 1994 and an architectural analysis of the above property which is on the Heritage Inventory and will be affected by future development. Mr. Bensason reported that the owner's consultant has made inquiries and that future applications are anticipated. He asked that LACAC establish a position on preservation of the building and appoint a liaison to meet with staff. Mr. Bufe suggested that Mrs. P. Wagner be approached in this regard and that if the house is important enough it should be designated. Mr. Tarbutt advised that LACAC will receive a report in this regard, and the Committee generally indicated its interest in preserving the subject property. Ms. Burke stressed that a designation sub-committee is a necessity and should be struck as soon as possible. Mr. Tarbutt replied that to date no LACAC member has come forward to volunteer their services in this regard. 9. REGIONAL HERITAGE INVENTORY TASK FORCE The Committee was in receipt of a letter from Ms. S. Thorson, Commissioner of Planning and Culture, Region of Waterloo, dated August 19, 1994 requesting appointment of a LACAC representative to sit on the Task Force. On a motion by Ms. S. Burke, it was resolved: "That Mr. Peter Bufe be appointed as the representative of the Kitchener Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee on the Heritage Inventory Task Force established by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo." 10.STRATEGIC PRIORITIES UPDATE; 1994-1998 Mr. Bensason reviewed several minor changes to the priorities document including development of a new LACAC logo, new walking tour booklets and the preparation of two new public displays. By general consent, it was agreed to add the minor changes outlined by Mr. Bensason this date to the strategic priorities document. LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMM/TTEE M/NUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 - 49- CITY OF KITCI:IENER .ROUTINE INSPECTIONS OF HERITAGE PROPERTIES By general consent, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this item to the proposed special meeting. 12.43 SCHNEIDER AVENUE Ms. Buchanan questioned whether the subject property should retain its heritage designation since it has been recently sandblasted without the permission of Council, and since the owner is changing the appearance and 3.43 SCHNEIDER AVENUE CONT'D character of the house. Mr. Bensason replied that a Building Inspector has examined the brick work and has indicated that the sandblasting was not severe and that some of the patina on the bricks remains. Mr. Tarbutt commented that the Committee needs to consider what at minimum it needs to receive prior to recommending approval of any alterations to Council. Mr. Sosnoski suggested that a standardized Application for Alteration form could be circulated to property owners and could generally indicate the type of documentation required prior to considering a request. Mr. Bufe referred to a recent newspaper article circulated this date concerning property standards and demolition in the Downtown core, and offered the opinion that proposed revisions to the City's Demolition Control By-law pose a threat to the built heritage of the community. He also indicated that he has faxed his concerns to the LACAC chairman. 14. NEXT MEETING The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee will be held on October 7, 1994. 15.ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.. Gary Sosnoski Manager of Corporate Records/ Assistant City Clerk