Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage Kitchener - 2001-06-01HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JUNE 1, 2001CITY OF KITCHENER Heritage Kitchener met this date, chaired by Ms. P. Wagner, commencing at 12:00 noon, with the following members present: Ms. G. Engel, Ms. C. Martindale, and Messrs. P. Bufe, R. Green, E. Lucy and J. Clinckett. Regrets:Councillor M. Galloway and Mr. W. Stauch Others Present:Ms. M. Morrison, Ms. C. Ladd, Ms. D. Gilchrist and Messrs. B. Stanley, L. Masseo, S. Vipond and L. Bensason. 1 .EXPANSION OF DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Ms. P. Wagner advised that she had read a notice in The Record with respect to a proposed expansion to the Downtown Community Improvement Plan and requested Mr. Stanley to provide the Committee with further information in this regard. Mr. B. Stanley advised that the purpose of the expansion of the Downtown Community Improvement Plan is to broaden the area to which specific development incentives apply, in order to attract development to the downtown area. The plan is intended to attract developers interested in adaptive re-use of existing buildings. The current proposal is to extend the plan to cover the warehouse district located between Victoria Street and the railway. As an example of a successful adaptive re-use project, Mr. Stanley noted the property at 72 Victoria Street South. Mr. Bufe suggested that the incentives will encourage demolition of existing buildings. Mr. Stanley agreed that demolition is possible; although, through discussions with the developer of 72 Victoria Street South, he has determined that it is cheaper to rehabilitate an existing building. He noted that there are certain additional advantages to adaptive re-use; the footprint of the existing buildings is larger than that permitted for new buildings, and there is currently a market niche for restored/renovated buildings. Mr. Bufe noted that there are smaller single family dwellings in this area and Mr. Stanley advised that the incentives would not apply to those buildings, as they are legal non-conforming. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Stanley advised that the incentives will apply to properties on Victoria Street North as far as Waterloo Street, noting that the purpose of the incentives is to attract development to the downtown. Staff are considering other incentives for areas outside of the downtown area. 2. CITY OF KITCHENER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW Mayor C. Zehr and Mr. B. Stanley were in attendance to provide Heritage Kitchener with an overview of the process being undertaken by the City to review the mandates, membership and structure of the City’s current advisory committees, in order to determine if there is a better way of grouping issues. Mayor Zehr noted that Heritage Kitchener will probably be least affected by this review, as the Committee’s mandate is legislated. He then advised that the other issue being addressed is more philosophical in nature, to determine whether committee membership should be homogenous, or whether there is any advantage to having a membership with a broader range of interests. Mayor Zehr suggested that committees with members having a broad range of interests will theoretically put forward recommendations that have been synthesized. Mayor Zehr then pointed out that traditionally advisory committees have had two roles: the first to take up interests and comment on them; the second has been developed to look at issues at request of Council, staff or Standing Committees. He noted that various layers of committees have been created over the years and it is now time to take an objective look at the current situation. Mr. B. Stanley then advised that there are a number of committees with similar mandates. He reviewed with Heritage Kitchener the chart titled “Draft Advisory Committee Mandates and Reporting – for Discussion”, noting proposed committees “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, each being a combination of existing committees. He then referred to the schematic titled “Draft Model for Discussion”, noting that the “Healthy Communities” model includes social, environmental, and economic aspects. He noted that Heritage Kitchener straddles the social and environmental spheres. With respect to the timing for this review, Mr. Stanley advised that the objective of the working group is to receive comments from existing advisory committees in June. They will discuss the comments received and redraft a report for review by the Finance and Administration Committee 2. CITY OF KITCHENER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW (CONT’D) HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 1, 2001- 27 -CITY OF KITCHENER in August, with final approval from Council anticipated no later than September. The new advisory committee structure would then be in place in time for the November appointments. Mr. Stanley then questioned whether this Committee thinks its membership should continue to be people with a heritage focus only, or whether they should have a wider, healthy communities focus. Ms. P. Wagner questioned whether the City will continue its traditional process of advertising for members of committees or whether they will seek specific individuals or types of individuals for membership. Mayor Zehr advised that the City will continue with its usual process. Ms. Wagner then noted the evolution of this Committee where it is now in the position of addressing more than built heritage, and questioned whether as a result of this review, that mandate will be expanded or reduced. Mr. Stanley responded that the mandate is getting broader and would not be confined. Mr. J. Clinckett stated it is the reputation of Heritage Kitchener that it is an obstacle and he recommended that this Committee be advertised as a resource to owners of heritage properties. He noted that Heritage Kitchener has a legislated function to advise Council on matters governed by the Ontario Heritage Act. Mr. Green suggested publicizing the roles and responsibilities of the City’s Advisory Committees when the City advertises for appointments. Ms. P. Wagner suggested that the one-year appointment for Heritage Kitchener members is too short, as there is a lot for new members to learn. Mr. Green suggested a two-year term. Mayor Zehr responded by suggesting that the City’s advertisement be altered to include a statement that a person can be reappointed to a Committee for up to six years. Ms. C. Martindale questioned the role of the Committee Chair and that position’s relationship to Council. Mayor Zehr stated that the role of the Committee Chair is to take the Committee’s position to Council; however, it is not necessary that the Chair vote in favour of the Committee’s position. Mr. L. Bensason advised that he has watched this Committee evolve, and through this evolution the members have at all times had an interest in heritage. He questioned whether it would be beneficial to appoint people to this Committee who do not have a general interest in heritage. Mr. Bensason then questioned whether this review will address meeting days and times; as it may be necessary to change the traditional meeting schedule in order to attract professional people to this Committee. Mayor Zehr agreed with Mr. Bensason’s comment about changes in meeting date and times, noting that each committee should be prepared to undertake such a review. Mr. E. Lucy commented that a good deal of Heritage Kitchener’s time is spent interfacing with developers, the amount of time having increased over a number of years. If this is an area of more and more activity, some consideration should be given to making that interface smoother. Mayor Zehr agreed with Mr. Lucy’s comments noting that some developers have indicated to him their frustration at the length of time it takes to obtain this Committee’s recommendation on their development proposal. He stated that it would be helpful if the process was quicker; however, he did acknowledge that there are times when developers do not allow sufficient time to obtain the approvals they require. Ms. Martindale suggested that if developers came to Heritage Kitchener with all the necessary information, this Committee could undertake its review in a much shorter period of time. 3. ST. MARY’S HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT – REVIEW OF DRAFT PLAN The Committee members had been provided with copies of the draft report “St. Mary’s Heritage Conservation District Study – Guidelines for Conservation and Change”, dated March, 2001. Ms. P. Wagner noted that since this report was prepared, the Community Advisory Committee and the neighbours have met and certain changes have been requested. Ms. Wagner then introduced Ms. Wendy Shearer, now the lead consultant for this project and Mr. L. Allan 3. ST. MARY’S HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT – REVIEW OF DRAFT PLAN (CONT’D) Grinham, who is the architect for this project. HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 1, 2001- 28 -CITY OF KITCHENER Upon questioning, Mr. Bensason advised that the Heritage Conservation District Plan and Study, along with the City’s by-law to create the Heritage Conservation District, will have to be approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. Ms. W. Shearer then addressed the Committee briefly advising of the process undertaken over the last year to arrive at the report before the members today. She stated that in 1946, Housing Enterprises of Canada commenced construction of houses in the District, constructing a total of 110 units including three duplexes. Wartime Housing Limited constructed another 99 units. She advised that this area has a well defined character, noting the non-grid street system, linkages and open space. Ms. Shearer continued to explain that the guidelines for construction and change cover 4 basic areas of interest: the built fabric, landscape, planning issues, and architecture. This draft report has been reviewed by the Steering Committee, the residents and City staff, and revisions in each of the 4 areas have been requested. The report is now before this Committee for comment. The report will then be re-drafted and presented at a public meeting on June 20, 2001. The final task for the consulting team will be the preparation of a walking tour booklet for the district. Ms. Shearer then reviewed the requested revisions to the Draft Plan as follows: 1) the application process for alterations to be identified in the Plan; 2) the role of the proposed Neighbourhood Advisory Committee to be changed to that of a sub-Committee of Heritage Kitchener, the sub-Committee to be populated by residents of the District; 3) remove the recommendation for a tree-saving by-law for trees on public lands, as the City already has such a by-law; 4) the City is encouraging naturalization; however, the consultants do not feel naturalization is appropriate in this area as the use of the front yards adds to the neighbourhood quality; 5) landscape improvements should be guidelines; 6) as those homes constructed by Wartime Housing Limited only have crawl spaces; the guidelines should include acceptable alterations to allow basements to be built; although the finished elevation should not exceed that of homes which already have basements. 7) conservation issues to preserve the built form, noting changes to windows do not require permits. Ms. C. Martindale suggested the following revisions to the plan: the report should include a map of the District; all technical terms should be defined. Ms. Martindale pointed out some typographical errors and noted that the term L.A.C.A.C. should be changed to Heritage Kitchener. With respect to the comment that changes to windows will not require permits, Mr. P. Bufe stated that he thinks the window design is important to this type of housing. Mr. Bufe then questioned what changes are being proposed to the Zoning By-law, given that the plan is only to be a guideline. Mr. L. Bensason advised that he has initiated a zoning by-law amendment for the area within the district boundary, encompassing the following: a change from R-5 to R-4 zoning with a Special Regulation; a change from R-4 to R-4 with a Special Regulation; the Special Regulation to change the maximum building height from 10.5 meters to 8 meters. Mr. Bensason also advised that the change from R-5 zoning will eliminate triplexes and lodging houses as permitted uses. Mr. Bufe stated that the proposed re-zoning will still change the heritage streetscape, as it will permit an increased building height of one additional storey; also, the zoning by-law allows smaller sideyards, rearyards and frontyards than those permitted when these properties were originally developed. Mr. Grinham pointed out that permitting only one and a half storey houses would create enough conflict to prevent passing of the by-law. Mr. Bufe suggested that people will build to the maximum permitted height and to do so will have a detrimental impact on this area. Mr. Bensason pointed out that a maximum height of three storeys has been permitted in this area for quite some time, and people have not built to the maximum. He suggested that 3. ST. MARY’S HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT – REVIEW OF DRAFT PLAN (CONT’D) residents will consider the guidelines and determine what is best for their homes. Ms. Shearer and Mr. Bensason agreed to review the planning issues; Mr. Bensason pointing out that notice of the proposed re-zoning has already been sent to the area residents. HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 1, 2001- 29 -CITY OF KITCHENER Ms. P. Wagner questioned the guidelines with respect to garages and front porches. Ms. Shearer referred to the chart at the back of the report, noting that detached garages constructed behind a house would not require an Alteration Application. She pointed out that the main concerns are the front façade and the streetscape. Mr. Bensason pointed out that the guidelines do not prohibit front porches. Ms. Shearer stated that this is an unusual district with unique levels of acceptability in the plan. She stated that although front porches are not part of the original design, to prohibit them now would be a strong departure from the plan, and such a change would have to go back through the consultation process. With respect to an acceptable location for detached garages, Mr. J. Clinckett suggested permitting them behind the rear wall of the house. Mr. Grinham noted that the plan permits them away from the main façade, either in the rear yard or in an inconspicuous sideyard. Ms. P. Wagner referred to a recent Committee of Adjustment Application for a property on St. Clair Avenue, requesting permission for a second driveway on a narrow lot. Ms. Shearer advised that they have reviewed the new zoning regulations respecting frontyard parking and widening driveways in front of a house; she pointed out that these regulations have been dealt with in the guidelines which promote landscaping only in the frontyards and not driveways. Ms. P. Wagner then advised that she is not in agreement with the proposed residents committee. Mr. Bufe commented that the residents committee should understand that it does not administer the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Mr. Bensason advised that the public meeting to be held on June 20, 2001, will most likely be the last meeting before the plan is finalized. Following finalization of the plan, Heritage Kitchener will be asked to pass a resolution recommending that Council pass a by-law to establish a Heritage Conservation District and adopt the plan. Following that Heritage Kitchener meeting, the zoning by-law and the Heritage Conservation District Plan will be presented to the Planning and Economic Development Committee. Ms. Shearer questioned whether this Committee wants its comments with respect to zoning, height th and front porches discussed at the June 20 public meeting. The Committee then further discussed its concerns respecting the 8 meter maximum building height in the proposed zoning amendment. Ms. Wagner again offered her concern with respect to front porch additions. Mr. Bensason advised that agreement has been reached to add a statement to the guidelines discouraging front additions including front porches. He then advised that the community does not want a Heritage Conservation District Plan which is overly restrictive. Ms. Shearer stated that the purpose of the District is to assist with its longevity. She noted that people who grew up in that area are now the adults buying homes there. She advised that to prohibit front porches would be contrary to the philosophy and tone of the Heritage Conservation District Plan, as agreed to by the neighbourhood. Ms. Wagner then suggested that the consultants proceed to amend the guidelines as they outlined, stating that she hoped the revised guidelines will give clear directions to the neighbourhood. 4. BPS-01-073 – RENAMING OF THE PORTION OF DOON VILLAGE ROAD WITHIN THE UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services Department report BPS-01-073, dated May 22, 2001, which requests Heritage Kitchener’s endorsement of the renaming of that portion of Doon Village Road, from St. Emilion Place easterly to Homer Watson Boulevard, which is in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District, to “Old Doon Village Road”. The report explains that once the Doon Village Road diversion is complete, the section of Doon Village Road from Homer Watson Boulevard (at Manitou Drive) through to and including the new section, will form the main through road. The section of Doon Village Road in the Heritage Conservation District will be cul-de-saced and become a local road, no longer connected to a through road. The purpose of renaming Doon Village Road within the area of Upper Doon is to 4. BPS-01-073 – RENAMING OF THE PORTION OF DOON VILLAGE ROAD WITHIN THE UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (CONT’D) reduce confusion and to ensure that emergency response is not hindered. Mr. Bensason displayed a map showing the existing Doon Village Road, both within and outside HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 1, 2001- 30 -CITY OF KITCHENER the Heritage Conservation District, and the location for the Doon Village Road diversion. He noted that notification of the proposed name change was mailed to all affected property owners and the staff report was written before all comments were received. He noted that some of the comments received subsequent to writing the staff report are worthy of consideration and suggested that the staff recommendation be altered to state that should Council decide to change the name of that portion of Doon Village Road within the District, they consider the name “Old Doon Village Road”. The Committee questioned why the name of the portion of Doon Village Road within the Heritage Conservation District is proposed to be changed. Mr. Bensason advised that the portion of the road within the District has fewer units to be affected by the name change than the other portion of Doon Village Road. Following discussion and questions of staff, the Committee agreed that the portion of Doon Village Road outside the District and the Doon Village Road diversion should be given a different name, and the name of that portion of Doon Village Road within the Heritage Conservation District should not be changed. On motion by Mr. R. Green – it was resolved: “That the Planning and Economic Development Committee be advised that Heritage Kitchener opposes renaming the portion of Doon Village Road located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District.” 5. BPS-01-070 – MODIFICATION TO DOON MILLS PLAN OF SUBDIVISION – MONARCH CONSTRUCTION The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services Department report BPS-01-070, dated 05/09/01, with respect to proposed modifications to the Doon Mills Plan of Subdivision 30T- 95018. The Committee was advised that this report is before them for information only; further, this report will considered by the Planning and Economic Development Committee on June 4, 2001. The landscape easement plan, as revised, was distributed to the Committee, and Mr. Bensason advised that the implementation of the visual easement modifications will be handled through changes to the Subdivision agreement, which are being recommended by staff. The changes to the visual easement requested by the applicant include a scallop design, varying in width from 30 feet to 75 feet, as it abuts Oregon Court. Mr. Bensason then advised that there is a public right-of- way at the end of Oregon Drive which is recommended to be closed. The City, as is required by legislation, has offered half the right-of-way to each of the abutting land owners, being Mr. and Mrs. Nequest and Monarch Construction. Monarch has advised that they have no interest in purchasing half the right-of-way and Mr. and Mrs. Nequest have indicated an interest in purchasing all of the right-of-way. Mr. Bensason displayed a map of the proposed subdivision and advised that there will be an addendum report presented to Planning and Economic Development Committee on June 4, 2001, recommending that residents in the proposed subdivision be permitted to use Tilt Drive to access the subdivision until the City’s portion of the Doon Village Road extension is constructed. He advised that when this subdivision was first approved by Council, the agreement stated that building permits for Stage 3 of the Subdivision would not be available until construction of the Doon Village Road diversion. The City’s portion of the diversion is now being delayed because of problems encountered in purchasing the necessary land; consequently, that portion of the diversion cannot be completed until the fall of 2002. As Monarch Construction will have completed their portion of the diversion in the fall of 2001, there will be almost one year between the issuance of the first building permits and completion of the City’s portion of the diversion. 5. BPS-01-070 – MODIFICATION TO DOON MILLS PLAN OF SUBDIVISION – MONARCH CONSTRUCTION (CONT’D) Staff are recommending the new residents in the subdivision be permitted to access the subdivision via Tilt Drive temporarily, until the City’s portion of the diversion is built. It was noted that construction traffic will not be permitted to use Tilt Drive, and there will be no change to the surface of Tilt Drive for this purpose. Mr. P. Bufe questioned the prohibition of construction traffic and was advised that this prohibition will be included in the subdivision agreement and Monarch HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 1, 2001- 31 -CITY OF KITCHENER Construction will advise their contractors and subcontractors that construction traffic is prohibited on Tilt Drive. Mr. Bensason advised that the City is trying to find a way to allow limited occupancy and still meet the City’s Emergency Access policies. Ms. C. Ladd advised that if construction traffic frequently disobeys this prohibition the Public Works Department can stop construction. Mr. L. Masseo noted that the last time this matter was discussed at Heritage Kitchener, the City thought that it would be able to construct its portion of the diversion within the same time frame as Monarch would construct its portion. The City is now not able to meet that time frame and is now trying to find a way to allow Monarch’s customers to occupy their homes. 6. 15 WEBER STREET EAST – HERITAGE INVENTORY PROPERTY – DEMOLITION APPLICATION At this meeting, Committee members were provided with copies of Business and Planning Services Department report BPS-01-067, dated May 28, 2001, with respect to Demolition Control Application DC01/04/W/GR for 15 Weber Street East. The Committee was advised that this report will be considered by the Planning and Economic Development Committee on June 4, 2001. Mr. Bensason advised that this property is listed on the Heritage Inventory and is part of the former YMCA property. He stated that he inspected the property and believes it to be in good condition. He noted that a building permit had been issued two years ago to renovate the building to be used as a restaurant. Mr. Bensason referred to his written comments attached to the staff report, and stated that from a heritage perspective, this property should be saved from demolition. Mr. Clinckett questioned whether the City could obtain measured drawings of this building and Mr. Bensason advised that measured drawings are usually only required if the property is designated. Ms. P. Wagner commented on the prominent people who have lived in the residence. Mr. Bufe stated that the heritage of Downtown Kitchener is doomed to extinction because of planning documents. 7. ST. GEORGE STREET WATER TOWER – PROPOSED DEMOLITION – DETERMINATION OF HERITAGE INTEREST Mr. L. Bensason advised that he had received a phone call from a resident in the Cedar Hills Neighbourhood advising that the St. George Street Water Tower is to be decommissioned by the Region and demolished next year. Mr. Bensason stated he has obtained some information from the Region, noting that the current water tower was constructed in 1927, although the 1892 map of Berlin shows that there was a water tower in this location at that time. The Region has advised that the water tower is no longer useful to them due to its size and it will cost $1M in maintenance and upgrades. The Committee questioned whether the maintenance costs would be less if the tower was not used to hold water, and whether the structure is of regional significance. On motion by Mr. P. Bufe – it was resolved: 7. ST. GEORGE STREET WATER TOWER – PROPOSED DEMOLITION – DETERMINATION OF HERITAGE INTEREST(CONT’D) “That Heritage Kitchener requests the following from the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee: a) determination as to whether the St. George Street Water Tower, in Kitchener, is of Regional heritage significance; and, b) that the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee request an estimate from the Regional Engineering Department of the cost to maintain this structure if it is not used as a water tower.” HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 1, 2001- 32 -CITY OF KITCHENER 8. OLD MILL ROAD / MILL PARK DRIVE – SCENIC/HERITAGE ROAD – TRAFFIC STUDY Mr. L. Bensason advised that the City will undertake a traffic study in the Lower Doon area to determine what, if any, traffic calming measures need to be introduced in this area. He advised that he will undertake a scenic analysis of Old Mill Road/Mill Park Drive and present this analysis at a future Heritage Kitchener meeting. An attempt will be made to ensure there are no physical changes on the road that score high in scenic heritage significance. 9. 3040 OLD MILL ROAD – HERITAGE STRUCTURAL REPORT Mr. Bensason provided the Committee members with copies of the Heritage Structural Report for the property at 3040 Old Mill Road. The report is dated May 23, 2001, and has been prepared by Jonathan Weizel, Architect. Mr. Bensason advised that staff intend to tie this report to the Site Plan Agreement. 10. FREEEPORT BRIDGE – FUTURE HERITAGE DESIGNATION Mr. Bensason advised that designation of the Freeport Bridge is imminent and a recommendation in this regard will be presented at the August Heritage Kitchener meeting. Ms. P. Wagner questioned whether viewscapes from the bridge will be taken into consideration, and was advised by Mr. Bensason that only the structure and landscape features on the same property can be included in the designation. 11. INFORMATION ITEMS Ms. Wagner referred to articles she had read in The Record: the first concerned a property at 130 Shanley Street, and Ms. Wagner requested review of the property by the Committee and consideration of designation on its historic merit. Ms. Wagner noted that the environmental concerns at the Bauer Skate Factory are being investigated. Finally, Ms. Wagner advised that Lynn Myers, M.P. has recently been appointed head of the Federal Heritage Caucus and has advised that they will consider a new tax credit system. 12. ADJOURNMENT On a motion, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Dianne H. Gilchrist Committee Administrator