Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage Kitchener - 2006-01-03 HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 3 2006 CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:00 p.m. Present: Councillor M. Galloway, Chair Ms. J. Armstrong, Ms. E. Gallaher, Ms. L. Harris, Ms. D. Kuehl and Messrs: J. Countryman and Kerry Kirby. Messrs: Z. Janecki and M. Stranz were in attendance for part of the meeting Staff: S. Rice, Zoning Officer S. Barber, Assistant Heritage Planner L. Bensason, Heritage Planner L. Proulx, Director, Facilities Management L. Lynch, Manager, Engineering Rehabilitation D. Gilchrist, Committee Administrator 1. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - CROSSCAN INVESTMENTS LTD. - SCOTT STREET/ISRAEL PLACE/PEARL PLACE The Committee was in receipt of the Terms of Reference for the Heritage Impact Assessment required by the City for properties municipally known as 15, 25 & 29 Pearl Place, 79, 83 & 87 Scott Street, 1-5 Israel Place, 66 & 68 Weber Street East (vacant property), and 82 Weber Street East. This Heritage Impact Assessment has been required by the City as a result of the following Development Applications submitted by Crosscan Investments Limited: Zone Change Application ZC 01/24/W/GR and Municipal Plan Amendment Application MP 01/07/W/GR. Based on this requirement of the City, the property owner has submitted "Heritage Impact Assessment of Crosscan Investments Ltd. property Kitchener, Ontario" dated December 2005, prepared by Historica Research Limited, on behalf of Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd, and Crosscan Investments Ltd. Copies of this Heritage Impact Assessment were provided to all members of Heritage Kitchener. Mr. Bensason advised that decisions on Heritage Impact Assessments are made by Planning Division staff. This matter is before the Committee this date for its comments which will be taken into consideration by Planning Division staff when they make their decision. This Committee is asked to receive the information this date, seek clarification as required, and request further information as felt necessary. Then, at the February meeting, the Committee will be asked for its comments on this Heritage Impact Assessment. Mr. C. Andreae, Historica Research Limited was in attendance and presented the recommendations contained in the Heritage Impact Assessment, as well as a concept plan of the proposed redevelopment. He and Mr. P. Puopolo, Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd. were in attendance to answer any questions the Committee might have in this regard. Mr. Andreae displayed photographs of the buildings within the boundaries of the area assessed. He advised the most interesting of the buildings is 1-5 Israel Place, built approximately 1908, which is amongst the earliest examples of terrace development in the City. Also Pearl Place is of interest because of its homogeneity of style, which has a very distinctive streetscape. Mr. Andreae then described the proposed redevelopment, to contain a ten storey apartment tower with at grade and underground parking. There will also be five new townhouses approximately along Pearl Place. Further, the existing office building located at 82 Weber Street East will remain. He advised that in order to provide adequate underground parking for this development, the site must be excavated from lot line to lot line; consequently, it is not possible to retain any of the existing buildings. Mr. Andreae suggested there are adequate ways to mitigate this redevelopment proposal. Ways of enhancement including proper urban design for the townhouses along Pearl Place, so the character along Pearl Place can be maintained. In this regard, he suggested the City must consider what will happen on the opposite side of Pearl Place. With respect to the terrace housing on Israel Place, Mr. Andreae recommended they be properly documented. A further recommendation in his assessment is that the building fabric from the existing buildings be salvaged and reused in the new development or stockpiled. HERITAGE KITCHENER JANUARY 3 2006 - 2 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - CROSSCAN INVESTMENTS LTD. - SCOTT STREET/ISRAEL PLACE/PEARL PLACE (CONT'D) Mr. Bensason questioned whether the terrace houses at 1-5 Israel Place are the most significant buildings, historically and architecturally, in this assessment. Mr. Andreae stated their architectural quality is not significant; however, historically, as terrace housing, they are significant, and this significance can be documented. Upon further questioning Mr. Andreae advised the construction of these terrace houses in this area of the City seems to be early and is distinctive. Further, there is no link between the original tenants in these units and their occupations. In reviewing the concept plan displayed at the meeting, Mr. Bensason noted the plan shows a 16 storey apartment tower; whereas, the description given by Mr. Andreae was a 10 storey apartment building. Mr. Puopolo explained that originally the owner proposed a 16 storey apartment building but has recently reduced the size to a 10 or 11 storey building. Such a reduction in size will reduce the floor space ratio, but it will still exceed the by-law requirement of 2.33. Mr. Bensason commented that 87 and 91 Scott Street, being 2 Italianate buildings, frame the entrance to Pearl Place, and questioned the merit of retaining 87 Scott Street and locating the new townhouses further down Pearl Place. Mr. Andreae responded these two buildings are quite distinctive in framing the entrance to Scott Street, with matching of both sides continuing for the full length of the lane. Visually they provide balance. He stated the buildings aren't distinctive individually; it is the visual impact of the totality that provides the significance. Ms. J. Armstrong noted the City's Terms of Reference for this Heritage Impact Assessment asks for conservation options which have not been provided. Mr. Poupolo explained which of these buildings is currently vacant. He advised that because of the state of the buildings and the downtown location either this development will proceed, or the property will remain as it is. On questioning by the Committee as to his historic research, Mr. Andreae agreed to further investigate the names "Spetz", who was a brewer, and "Scott" who was the first warden of Waterloo County. Mr. Bensason requested the following information be provided to him prior to the February 7, 2006 Heritage Kitchener meeting: · information as to whether less excavating will be required on this site due to the fact that the apartment tower will only be 10 stories high instead of 16 stories; · a new concept plan showing a 10 storey apartment building, the retention of 87 Scott Street, and the relocation of the new townhouses along Pearl Place across from the existing townhouses on the opposite side of the lane, with minor variances for setbacks on the street. Mr. Puopolo stated that a lot line to lot line excavation will probably still be required to provide the underground parking for a 10 storey apartment building. Mr. Kirby questioned whether Heritage Kitchener members can gain access to these buildings. Mr. Puopolo advised that he would ask his client, but cautioned that access would be restricted to buildings that are vacant, and there are safety concerns. Messrs Z. Janecki and M. Stranz entered the meeting during the previous discussion. Mr. Z Janecki declared a pecuniary interest in this matter, as he is employed by Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd. and did not participate in any discussion on this matter. HERITAGE KITCHENER JANUARY 3 2006 - 3 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2005-V-020 - 24 MICHAEL STREET - VICTORIA PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT - PROPOSED SECOND STOREY ADDITION Mr. Bensason reminded the Committee the property owner wishes to construct a second storey addition over the rear ground floor addition. The property is on the edge of the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District, next door to a parking lot. As outlined in his memorandum to the Committee, dated December 15, 2005, Mr. Bensason explained that following a site visit and discussion with the owner, the application is being amended such that the roof of the proposed addition will be slightly higher than the existing peak roof on the main part of the house, and the siding of the addition will be a different colour than the siding on the house. Mr. R. Gabinet displayed a sample of the beige vinyl siding he now proposes for the addition. He advised the existing flat roof is leaking into his tenant's kitchen, which is the reason for the addition and change in the style of roof. On motion by Mr. Z. Janecki - it was resolved: "That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-V-020 (24 Michael Street - Victoria Park HCD) be aooroved to permit the construction of a second storey addition over the one storey portion at the rear of the building, subject to the roof of the addition being slightly higher than the existing peak roof on the main part of the building, and the vinyl siding on the addition being beige and of the same profile as the existing vinyl siding." 3. RICHMOND AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - VICTORIA PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Mr. Bensason advised the City is undertaking a reconstruction of Richmond Avenue, located in the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District. This reconstruction does not require an alteration permit, and the purpose of today's presentation is to allow the Committee to make comments to the staff. The Committee was advised this reconstruction was originally intended for 2008; however, has been moved forward to be undertaken in conjunction with improvements to the Park entrance, Gaukel Street and Joseph Street. It is intended this project will be tendered in early February, with Council making a decision at its March 20, 2006 meeting. Construction is anticipated to start in early April. Mr. L. Lynch was in attendance along with Mr. D. Lindner, MTE, who submitted copies of the report dated January 2006, showing drawings of the proposed reconstruction. Noting the configuration of the proposed cul-de-sac at the end of Richmond Avenue, Mr. Lindner explained that a round cul-de-sac would interfere with existing trees, and the configuration proposed will still allow emergency vehicles to turn around. With respect to the existing trees on Richmond Avenue, Mr. Lindner advised no tree removal is proposed at this time. He also advised the road will be rebuilt, including underground services, and the street will be replaced as close as possible to its current appearance. Ms. J. Armstrong requested an opportunity for Heritage Kitchener to review this material before making comments, and Mr. Lynch agreed to return to a future meeting. 4. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2005-V- 019 - 541 QUEEN STREET SOUTH - VICTORIA PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT - RELOCATION OF EXISTING GARAGE ON SIDE YARD TO REAR YARD As the owner was not in attendance, and has not communicated with Mr. L. Bensason since this matter was last before the Committee, it was generally agreed to defer consideration of this application until the Committee's February meeting. It was noted that a decision on this application must be made at the February meeting in order to meet the 90 day timeline set out in the Ontario Heritage Act. HERITAGE KITCHENER JANUARY 3 2006 - 4 - CITY OF KITCHENER 5. UPDATE ON FORSYTH BUILDING - 31 YOUNG STREET The Committee members were provided with a media release, issued by the City of Kitchener, stating that on December 22, 2005 City staff became aware of the former Forsyth factory, located at the corner of Duke and Young Streets, has deteriorated significantly and there is a risk of falling masonry around the site. Further, the City installed some barricades and signage in the affected areas around the building to protect public safety and are asking pedestrians to stay away from the building and use sidewalks on the other side of the street. Also, the City's consultant and a local masonry expert have examined the brick structure thoroughly, and a full engineering report on the structure will be received by staff and Council during the first week of January. Mr. L. Proulx was in attendance to answer any questions the Committee might have in this regard, advising that steel plates were previously installed but the wall has buckled. Further, during the inspection wood sills that were ready to fall out were removed. Mr. Kirby referred to Council's direction of October 24, 2005, authorizing certain measures to be taken respecting this building. He stated the City has owned this building for over 5 years and has done nothing to maintain it. In response Mr. Proulx advised the plumbing work approved by Council has been completed, most of the windows have been covered with plywood, and the fire alarm system has been ordered but not installed. The fire alarm system will not be installed until the engineering and masonry report, due this Friday, is considered. Mr. Kirby stated he is suspicious of the upcoming engineering report, and questioned whether Heritage Kitchener can request a second opinion. Mr. Bensason suggested the Committee can ask Council for a second opinion, but must explain why it is being requested. Ms. Gallaher questioned whether this Committee could look at each phase of the building individually, and put forward recommendation for preservation of the various phases. She also commented on the recent business cases and parking studies for the Centre Block. Councillor Galloway assured the Committee that Council has not made a final decision with respect to the redevelopment of the Centre Block for a library. When questioned by the Committee as to its ability to have this property designated as being of Regional significance, Mr. Bensason advised this Committees mandate is to recommend designation to Council in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. Other than the Part IV designation already applying to this property, Mr. Bensason advised the Ontario Heritage Act recognizes properties of Provincial significance but not Regional significance. With respect to the pending engineering report on this building, Mr. Janecki requested that Mr. Bensason be included on the staff team that will review the report. He also requested that once the staff team has considered this engineering report, Heritage Kitchener be provided with an overview of the report and staff's recommendations relative thereto. The Committee was generally in agreement that they put forward a recommendation that the Terms of Reference for the redevelopment of the Centre Block include a requirement that the Forsyth Building in its various phases be saved and included in the redevelopment proposal. Councillor Galloway advised that the Centre Block and Library Steering Committee are currently developing the Terms of Reference, and there has been some public input into this process. He recommended that Heritage Kitchener should identify what it wants included in the Terms of Reference for the Steering Committee's consideration. This Committee's input will be considered along with all other input from the public and all other Advisory Committees. Mr. Bensason noted that at this Committee's February meeting there will be consideration of which properties in the Centre Block should be recommended for inclusion in the Heritage Register. The owners of these properties will be invited to the February meeting. He stated his understanding that Council will not give final consideration to the Terms of Reference for the Centre Block until after the February Heritage Kitchener meeting. HERITAGE KITCHENER JANUARY 3 2006 - 5 - CITY OF KITCHENER 5. UPDATE ON FORSYTH BUILDING - 31 YOUNG STREET (CONT'D) Ms. Kuehl stated that Heritage Kitchener's aim should be to achieve inclusion of the preservation of the entire building in the Terms of Reference for the Centre Block redevelopment. Councillor Galloway cautioned that there may be engineering reports recommending demolition of the rear portion of the building; however, it may be possible to retain the Art Deco portion of the building and the house. Following further discussion on influencing the preservation of this building, Mr. Kirby recommended a working group of Heritage Kitchener meet prior to the February meeting to closely review this matter. It was requested that Heritage Kitchener be permitted to review the pending engineering report. Councillor Galloway agreed that if a recommendation concerning the Terms of Reference for the Centre Block redevelopment comes to Council, prior to this Committee's February meeting, or if any recommendations arising from the engineers report come to Council prior to Heritage Kitchener being given access to the report, he will request that Council defer its consideration of these matters until after Heritage Kitchener's February meeting. Also, with respect to this Committee's request that Mr. Bensason be included in the staff team to review the engineering report, Councillor Galloway agreed to make such a request on the Committee's behalf, and also request that the information arising from these staff team meetings be forwarded to Heritage Kitchener. NOTE: The Heritage Kitchener Working Group to review the Committees position with respect to preservation of the Forsyth Building will meet on Thursday January 19, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. in the Schmaltz Room, 2nd Floor, Kitchener City Hall. 6. DTS-05-213 - LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HERITAGE REGISTER The Committee was in receipt of Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-05-213, dated December 16, 2005, recommending a change to Section 4 of Council Policy 1-110 (Heritage Kitchener- Terms of Reference) to remove the responsibility from this Committee's mandate, to add properties to the Heritage Inventory, and instead to recommend to Council non-designated properties of cultural Heritage value or interest, to be added to the City's Heritage Register. This new responsibility has been provided for in the Ontario Heritage Act, as amended in Bill 60, adopted in April 2005. Staff, in Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-05-213, also recommend the creation of a Heritage Kitchener sub-committee called the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Sub-committee to evaluate properties on the Heritage Inventory, following a detailed process; which properties, depending on the results of the evaluation, could be recommended to Council for inclusion in the Heritage Register, as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest. The Committee Administrator advised it is not necessary to have Council approve the creation of this sub-committee or its mandate; as Council, through Council Policy 1-60 (Advisory Committees) has already given authority to its advisory committees to form sub-committees, provided they are ad-hoc in nature and have a clear mandate. On motion by Mr. K. Kirby - it was resolved: "That Council Policy 1-110 (Heritage Kitchener - Terms of Reference) be amended by repealing clause 4. b), and replacing it with the following: '4. b) Recommend to City Council non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest to be added to the Heritage Register.'; and, That Heritage Kitchener review and evaluate the properties on the City's heritage inventory, as to their cultural heritage value or interest, and recommend to Council those which aught to be listed as non-designated properties in the Register; HERITAGE KITCHENER JANUARY 3 2006 - 6 - CITY OF KITCHENER 6. DTS-05-213 - LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HERITAGE REGISTER (CONT'D) and further, That the City's existing heritage inventory become redundant once all properties listed thereon have been reviewed and evaluated, and a decision has been made as to which of them will be added to the heritage register." On motion by Mr. K. Kirby - it was resolved: "That a sub-committee be established, called the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Sub-committee, to be composed of members of Heritage Kitchener and Planning Division staff, to undertake the following process to evaluate properties to recommend to Council for inclusion in the heritage register as non-designated properties, based on their cultural heritage value or interest: 1. Members of the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Sub-committee will be assigned specific areas of the City or a list of properties to evaluate for possible inclusion in the City's Heritage Register. Members will conduct an exterior evaluation of each property located within the assigned area, completing a Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation form for every property deemed to be of cultural heritage value or interest. Exterior photographs of buildings and structures of interest shall be taken. Should buildings and/or structures of interest not be visible from public areas, the sub-committee member will make note of the address and City staff will send a letter to the property owner, requesting permission to access the property for the purpose of completing the initial evaluation. Should access to the property be denied, staff will advise the Ward Councillor of the sub-committee member's inability to complete the heritage evaluation, and will continue to make note in the City's files that the property is of cultural heritage value or interest, to provide staff with the opportunity to review and comment on applications made on the subject property or on lands adjacent to the subject property. 2. All properties for which a Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation form has been completed and for which photographs have been taken, will be reviewed and discussed at a meeting of the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Sub- committee. Upon review, the sub-committee will recommend to Heritage Kitchener, as follows: a) that the property be added to the City's Heritage Register; or, b) that the property be the subject of further heritage research and be brought back to a future meeting of the sub-committee for consideration; or, c) that the property not be added to the City's Heritage Register and the information collected be kept on file. The recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Sub- committee will be forwarded to Heritage Kitchener. City staff will prepare a heritage property report outlining the significance of the property and will forward such information together with notice of the recommendation of the sub- committee, and the implications of listing the property on the City's Heritage Register, to the property owner. The property owner will be invited to provide comment and attend the meeting of Heritage Kitchener when the recommendations of the sub-committee will be considered. 3. Heritage Kitchener will consider the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Sub-committee; the information contained within the heritage property report, and the comments of the property owner (if made), in HERITAGE KITCHENER JANUARY 3 2006 - 7- CITY OF KITCHENER 6. DTS-05-213 - LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HERITAGE REGISTER (CONT'D) making a formal recommendation to Council to add or not to add the subject property to the Heritage Register. Heritage Kitchener's recommendations will then be considered by Council as part of their report. Such properties added by Council to the Heritage Register will be identified as "non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest". Notice of the decision of Council will then be mailed to the property owner." 7. CIVIC CENTRE HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT - UPDATE Mr. L. Bensason briefly advised that the City is now in a position to short list the consultants interested in undertaking the work to produce he Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District study and plan. He will be able to advise further on this matter at the February meeting. 8. WORK PROGRAM REVISITED Ms. E. Gallaher questioned whether the Committee wishes to have a one page walking tour description for each of the City's Heritage Conservation Districts produced in time for Heritage Week. The Committee generally agreed to this suggestion, and Ms. Gallaher agreed to undertake this work. 9. HERITAGE REGISTER REVIEW Ms. S. Barber provided Committee members with a Heritage Property and Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form for the property municipally known as 96-98 King Street West which is located in the Centre Block. It was noted this property is included in this Committee's recommendation of October 4, 2005, to City Council, requesting this property among others be included in the City's Heritage Inventory. Ms. Barber's report advises the property at 96-98 King Street West was constructed in 1960. Mr. L. Bensason advised that owners of private properties in the Centre Block will be invited to come to the February Heritage Kitchener meeting, and he questioned whether, given the date of construction of 96-98 King Street West, the Committee is still interested in having the property added to the Heritage Register. It was generally agreed by the Committee members that they will not be recommending that 96-98 King Street West be added to the Heritage Register. 10. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Dianne Gilchrist Committee Administrator