Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage Kitchener - 2001-06-27HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JUNE 27, 2001CITY OF KITCHENER Heritage Kitchener met this date, chaired by Councillor M. Galloway, commencing at 2:02 p.m., with the following members present: Ms. G. Engel, and Messrs. P. Bufe, R. Green, E. Lucy, W. Stauch and J. Clinckett. Regrets:Mr. B. Scott Others Present:Ms. D. Gilchrist and Mr. L. Bensason. 1 .5 MAURICE STREET (SHANTZ TERRACE) – ALTERATION APPLICATION Mr. L. Bensason gave a PowerPoint presentation of the designated property municipally known as 5 Maurice Street (Shantz Terrace). He reminded the Committee of the alterations approved for this building last year. He noted that since consideration last year, the deterioration with the stucco and brick has progressed. Mr. Bruce Davey appeared as a delegation to represent the Alteration Application of Kitchener Housing Inc., dated June 15, 2001, as attached to the Agenda. He agreed with Mr. Bensason that there has been progressive deterioration of the exterior of the building, stating that the building will not likely last another winter if the proposed alterations are not completed by then. Following discussion, the Committee was assured that the proposed Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS) will provide 1 ½ “ of insulation which will protect the original exterior of the building. It was noted that this proposed finish is a complete membrane that breathes, and the integrity of the original exterior fabric will be maintained. On motion by Mr. E. Lucy – it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Council approve the application of the owner to alter the designated property municipally known as 5 Maurice Street (Shantz Terrace) to restore the remainder of the exterior brickwork and apply an Exterior Finish Insulation System (EIFS) as outlined in their Alteration Application dated June 15, 2001, subject to review by the City’s Heritage Planner and a member of Heritage Kitchener of the aesthetic reveals in the applied exterior finish.” 2. 25 JOSEPH STREET (VICTORIA SCHOOL) – MAINTENANCE/ REPAIR UPDATE Mr. L. Bensason distributed copies of an assessment of the problems and corresponding solutions for the repair of the leaks on the copper roof at the front entrance to Victoria School, 25 Joseph Street. He advised that the leaking roof has caused paint to peel on the columns and front entrance of this building, and the request before the Committee today is for approval of the method of paint removal. Mr. Bensason noted that this is a maintenance/repair issue, and traditionally an Alteration Application has not been required for such work. A PowerPoint presentation of the building was then shown by Mr. Bensason. Mr. B. Davey and Ms. K. Kwiatkowski of Kitchener Housing Inc. were in attendance to represent the request. Mr. Bensason described two possible methods for removing the old paint: Peel-Away 1 and Take- Off 2000. Mr. Davey advised that they had not decided which method of paint removal to use, and spoke of an alternative method, Ice Blasting, which the Committee members had not heard of. Mr. Davey advised that should they choose a method of paint removal other than those mentioned by Mr. Bensason, they would do a test patch first to determine the results. On motion by Mr. J. Clinckett – it was resolved: “That Kitchener Housing Inc. proceed to remove the paint on the columns and front entrance at 25 Joseph Street (Victoria School) by using either of the following methods: Peel-Away 1 or Take-Off 2000; and further; HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 27, 2001- 34 -CITY OF KITCHENER 2. 25 JOSEPH STREET (VICTORIA SCHOOL) – MAINTENANCE/ REPAIR UPDATE (CONT’D) That should the owners choose to use or test an alternate method of paint removal, they first obtain approval from the City’s Heritage Planner.” 3. 236-248 VICTORIA STREET NORTH – PROPOSED DEMOLITION Mr. N. Koebel, proponent for the proposed redevelopment at 236-248 Victoria Street North was in attendance. It was noted that the Committee members had been invited to inspect the property prior to this meeting. In the Agenda package, the Committee members had been provided with a brief description of the subject property, from the Heritage Inventory, and a copy of a preliminary site plan for the redevelopment of the subject property. At this meeting, Mr. Bensason provided the Committee members with copies of a site inspection report prepared by Mr. G. Good, Supervisor of Inspection Services, undated, which provided a general description of the building and inspection notes. Mr. Bensason provided a brief recent history of the subject property, noting that approximately seven years ago a redevelopment proposal for this property was submitted to the City, including Heritage Kitchener. That proposal involved the use of the existing buildings on the site today, and demolition of the corner building which existed at that time. He reminded the Committee that at the time of the previous redevelopment proposal, Heritage Kitchener put forward a recommendation to designate the corner building, which was not accepted by Council, and the corner building was demolished. Mr. Bensason advised that Mr. Koebel had a pre site-plan meeting with staff and his proposal is being presented to Heritage Kitchener because this property is on the Heritage Inventory. Mr. Bensason then gave a PowerPoint presentation of the buildings on the subject property. Mr. P. Bufe stated that at the time of the demolition of the corner building, the Committee also had an interest in designating the remaining structures on this property. He stated his opinion that it is Heritage Kitchener’s duty to advise Council of the historic value of this property, and recommend its designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Mr. J. Clinckett stated that the site inspection report prepared by Mr. Good seems to be based on the lack of structural integrity of the building. He advised that he disagrees with the report; as the condition of the building is not dissimilar to that of the Goudie’s building, which is not being demolished. Mr. Bensason pointed out that the site inspection report states that the issue of structural integrity is dependent on the engineer’s report. Councillor M. Galloway questioned how long the owner would have to wait to demolish the property if it was designated. Mr. Bensason advised that, under the Ontario Heritage Act, they would have to wait 180 days, and the City’s private legislation requires the owner to have an approved Building Permit in hand before the demolition could take place. Mr. P. Bufe advised that to the best of his knowledge, this is the only industrial building of this style remaining in the City of Kitchener. He also stated that the siting of the building close to the street is important. He pointed out that there is no guarantee that the proposed redevelopment will take place. He stated that the buildings are important architecturally and historically, and he put forward a motion to recommend that this property be designated. On motion by Mr. P. Bufe – it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Council direct the Clerk to publish a Notice of Intention to designate the property municipally known as 236-248 Victoria Street North (former Bauer Skate factory) as being of historic and architectural significance; and further, That the specific features of the designation include: all elevations, the roof and roof lines, fenestrations, brick detailing on the front and side facades, masonry detailing, coping and corbelling.” HERITAGE KITCHENER JUNE 27, 2001- 35 -CITY OF KITCHENER 4. 970 DOON VILLAGE ROAD – UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT – CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING Ms. K. Thornley, prospective purchaser of the lot to be severed from 970 Doon Village Road, was in attendance to represent the request to construct a new single family dwelling on the subject property. It was noted that the front of the lot would face St. Emilion Place. Mr. Bensason noted that the subject property is at the edge of the Heritage Conservation District, and the owner has chosen a contemporary style of house. A photograph of the style of the house and materials proposed were displayed. Mr. E. Lucy advised that he has no comments in this regard other than to note that the proposed house is compatible with the area immediately surrounding the property. On motion by Mr. E. Lucy – it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 43 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and subject to this lot being created by deed endorsement for Application for Consent B 2001-018, Council approve the request of the owner, as outlined in his Alteration Application dated June 14, 2001, to alter the designated property legally described as Part Lot 14, Registered Plan 1571 and Part Lot 2, Biehn’s Tract, bounded by St. Emilion Place and Doonbrook Place, located in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District, by constructing a new single family dwelling as shown on the plans prepared by W. D. Slumskie, dated June 14/01.” 5. 108 QUEEN STREET NORTH (SONNECK HOUSE) Mr. L. Bensason advised the Committee that he is preparing a report, pursuant to Section 39 of the Ontario Heritage Act, relative to providing financial assistance to the owners of 108 Queen Street North; the intention being to make this property eligible for the same type of financial incentive that the City has made available to adaptive re-use properties. In preparation of this report, the designating by-law has been reviewed, and Mr. Bensason noted that the only features designated on this property were the Margaret Avenue façade and the Queen Street façade. Mr. Bensason advised that in order for the renovations/restorations of a feature of a building to be eligible for funding, it must be included in the reasons for designation. He advised that they would like to expand the designation to include all of the elevations of the building, and he suggested that some interior features of the building also be included in the designation. Mr. Bensason then outlined some of the proposed renovations for the building including: a fire escape on the west elevation, a covered porch, renovations to the existing porch fronting Margaret Avenue, including the use of pressure treated wood; and the replacement of all soffits with a vinyl product . The owners would like comment from this Committee on their proposed renovations. There were some brief comments from Committee members on the proposed renovations. Mr. E. Lucy reminded the Committee of the state of disrepair of this building prior to the current owners, and the amount of work they have done to preserve this building. He stated that they deserve reasonable consideration of the proposed renovations. Mr. Bensason advised that his report in this regard should be available to this Committee by the end of the summer. 6. ST. MARY’S HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Mr. Bensason advised that he had received two requests from property owners to have their properties removed from the proposed St. Mary’s Heritage Conservation District. He stated that a recommendation from staff on the designation of this district will be presented to Heritage Kitchener this fall. 7. ADJOURNMENT On a motion, the meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. Dianne H. Gilchrist Committee Administrator