Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage Kitchener - 2002-03-05HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 5, 2002CITY OF KITCHENER Heritage Kitchener met this date, chaired by Councillor M. Galloway, commencing at 4:05 p.m., with the following members present: Ms. P. Wagner, Ms. G. Engel, Ms. C. Martindale and Messrs. J. Clinckett, R. Green, B. Krafchek, E. Lucy, B. Nixon and B. Scott. Mr. W. Stauch was in attendance for part of the meeting. Regrets: Mr. Z. Janecki Others Present:Councillor C. Weylie, Ms. J. Murphy, Ms. L. MacDonald, Ms. D. Gilchrist and Messrs. B. Stanley, L. Masseo, L. Bensason and S. Vipond. 1. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION 2002-V-06 -55 JOSEPH STREET - DEMOLITION -VICTORIA PARK AREA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Committee was in receipt of Heritage Permit Application 2002-V-06, dated February 4, 2002, requesting permission to demolish the property municipally known 55 Joseph Street, consisting of a house and three attached garages. This property is located in the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District, adjacent to the entrance to Victoria Park which is at the end of Gaukel Street. Mr. L. Bensason showed images of the property and both the interior and exterior of the house, noting that the interior of the house has been stripped. He advised that staff recommend the application be approved. On motion by Mr. R. Green - it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 43 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Council approve Heritage Permit Application 2002-V-06 to demolish the property municipally known as 55 Joseph Street, located in the Victoria Park Area Heritage District.” 2. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION 2002-IV-07 -209 FREDERICK STREET - DEMOLITION The Committee was in receipt of Heritage Permit Application 2002-IV-07, dated February 21, 2002, requesting demolition of the designated property municipally known as 209 Frederick Street, commonly referred to as the Bingeman Cottage. Included in the Committee’s agenda package is a letter from Thunderhill Construction Limited, the current owner of the property, dated February 20, 2002, outlining the condition of the property. Also, a letter from The Timeless Material Co., dated February 19, 2002, outlining the current state of this building, recommending it be “be-constructed”, is included in the agenda package. At the meeting, Committee members were provided with printed copies of: the Reasons for Designation of 209 Frederick Street; and a report titled Investigation and Evaluation of the Frederick & Lancaster St. Residential Buildings, Kitchener, prepared by Peter Betka & Associates Ltd., Consulting Structural Engineers, dated December 2001. Mr. W. Stauch entered the meeting at this time. Mr. L. Bensason displayed images of the property and building at 209 Frederick Street, as well as three adjacent properties on Frederick Street and one on Lancaster Street. He noted the property is of particular interest, being a modest, small, one storey building in amongst large, two storey brick houses. He also advised that there are outstanding Property Standards Orders against these properties. Mr. Bensason advised that the owner must still apply for site plan approval and demolition control, for their proposed development, and staff would like all applications for this development to go forward to Council at the same time. Mr. R. Solowka, owner of the subject property, addressed the Committee, displayed concept plans for a proposed mixed use building for the site, suggesting that the design of this proposed development will blend in with the streetscape. 2. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION 2002-IV-07 HERITAGE KITCHENER MARCH 5, 2002- 12 -CITY OF KITCHENER -209 FREDERICK STREET – DEMOLITION (CONT’D) With respect to 209 Frederick Street, Mr. B. Nixon suggested that this building be moved to a property owned by the City of Kitchener, beside the Conestoga Parkway. Mr. Bensason noted that the questions of cost and who will pay, will have to be addressed. He stated that Mr. Solowka is willing to allow the building to be moved off the site by anyone willing to pay the cost, noting that it has been offered to the Bingeman Family who have declined. If it is the Committee’s wish, consideration of the application could be deferred to the April meeting and still be within the owner’s time frame; then the Committee could take the opportunity to investigate what possibilities are available to have the building relocated to another site. Councillor Galloway questioned Mr. Solowka’s thoughts in this regard, Mr. Solowka advised him that the City has had 10 years to consider such a possibility. He also questioned the City’s historic background on this property, noting that his information shows the Bingeman family only owned the property for two one year periods. Mr. J. Clinckett questioned the ability of the City to request measured drawings if the property is to be demolished. Mr. Bensason advised that the City can ask for a recording of the designated property, prior to demolition; however, the method of recording must be determined. He also cautioned that this is a request to the owner, not a requirement. Mr. Clinckett put forward a motion to recommend approval of this application, subject to the owner providing measured drawings. It was estimated the cost of the measured drawings would be $1,200. Mr. Clinckett’s motion was not voted on, as the Committee generally agreed to defer consideration of application to the meeting of April 2, 2002, to allow an opportunity to determine whether someone would be willing to move this building to another site. 3.HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION 2002-V-03 -530-540 QUEEN STREET SOUTH – NEW DEVELOPMENT VICTORIA PARK AREA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT - The Committee was in receipt of Heritage Permit Application 2002-V-03, dated January 9, 2002, requesting permission to construct a 17-storey apartment building, parking ramp structure and possible swimming pool enclosure, part of which will be located on the property municipally known 530-540 Queen Street South, located in the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. This application had been considered by Heritage Kitchener at its meeting of February 5, 2002, with a recommendation to refuse the application forwarded to the Council meeting of February 25, 2002. Council deferred consideration of Heritage Kitchener’s recommendation and referred it back to the Committee for reconsideration, requesting that a recommendation be forwarded to their March 18, 2002 meeting. The Committee was provided this date, by Mr. B. Hermsen, planning consultant for the applicant, with a report titled “A Brief to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on behalf of Drewlo Holdings Limited, 560 Queen Street, review of Community Plan, Zoning By-law, and the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District”, dated March 5, 2002. Mr. L. Bensason declared a pecuniary interest in this application, as he owns property in the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District, and did not participate in any discussion or provided any advice on this application to the Committee. Mr. B. Stanley reviewed Council’s actions on the Committee’s February 5, 2002 recommendations. He noted Heritage Kitchener’s recommendation to approve the demolition of the garage at 31-33 Schneider Avenue had been adopted; and a deferral and referral of the recommendations to refuse the application for new development at 530-540 Queen Street South, explaining that Council had not been provided with sufficient information in this regard. Mr. Stanley advised that within the brief provided this date by Mr. Hermsen are revisions to the application. He recommended that Heritage Kitchener sub-committee be reconstituted to 3.HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION 2002-V-03 HERITAGE KITCHENER MARCH 5, 2002- 13 -CITY OF KITCHENER -530-540 QUEEN STREET SOUTH – NEW DEVELOPMENT -VICTORIA PARK AREA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT(CONT’D) systematically review the revised proposal in light of the guidelines in the Heritage Conservation District Plan, to determine whether the proposal meets the guidelines. The Committee should also consider the necessity of a Heritage Impact Assessment. If the sub-committee determines that a Heritage Impact Assessment is necessary, it should consider which, if any of the guidelines of the plan have not been met, and the terms of reference for a Heritage Impact Assessment. Mr. Stanley then advised that, as Mr. Bensason is not able to provide advice to this Committee, Mr. S. Vipond will provide staff support, will work with the sub-committee and will prepare a written report. He then noted that if Heritage Kitchener is to report to Council by March 18, 2002, a special Heritage Kitchener meeting will have to be held, or Heritage Kitchener will have to request an extension from Council allowing them to report back by the Council meeting of April 8, 2002. With respect to Heritage Kitchener’s jurisdiction, Mr. Stanley advised that this Committee can implement the guidelines in the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan. He pointed out that the Heritage Conservation District Plan did contemplate high-rise development. He stated that from a staff perspective the height and density of a development can only be dealt with through the zoning by-law, being beyond the scope of the Heritage Conservation District Plan and the Ontario Heritage Act. Ms. P. Wagner advised that she had reviewed the entire Heritage Conservation District Plan and guidelines provided by the Province and it was her opinion that Heritage Kitchener could comment on the height and form of this building. She stated the issue should be debated. Further, she clarified the position previously taken by the Heritage Kitchener sub-committee, which did not support the original plan for this development. Also, she stated that the sub-committee was advised that they could not request a Heritage Impact Assessment; whereas, Heritage Kitchener is now being told they can request a Heritage Impact Assessment. Mr. Stanley responded that Heritage Kitchener can make a recommendation to Council that a Heritage Impact Assessment be required. Mr. B. Scott questioned the procedure of a Heritage Impact Assessment; Mr. Stanley responded that Heritage Kitchener can establish the terms of reference for a Heritage Impact Assessment and recommend to Council that one be required. The Heritage Impact Assessment report would then come to this Committee for a further recommendation to Council. Mr. Scott then questioned whether the proposal submitted this date is a new application or a revision to existing application, and Mr. Stanley advised that staff consider it to be a revision to the original application. Mr. B. Hermsen, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning, was in attendance on behalf of the property owner to describe the revisions to the application. With the aid of a revised site plan and building elevation drawing, he pointed out the changed footprint for the building which has been enlarged towards the rear. He also noted that the proposed outdoor pool will be eliminated and a pool incorporated into the building. Further, the building will be reduced by two stories, 15 storeys in height, with the two ends of the building reduced to 14 stories. The enlarged building footprint causes a reduction in surface parking to 50 spaces; consequently, a couple of visitor parking spaces will have to be located underground. With respect to the Queen Street elevation, Mr. Hermsen noted that there will be a two-storey reduction in height and part of the red brick fence along the Queen Street lot line will be replaced with railing. Mr. Hermsen then advised that the proposal conforms to the Community Plan and zoning by-law, and he looks forward to working with the Heritage Kitchener sub-committee. Residents of the Victoria Park neighbourhood were in attendance, six of whom addressed the Committee: Ms. M. Sokvitne and Messrs R. Dyck, D. Fletcher, B. Berry, M. Chilanski and M. Maguire. Councillor Galloway introduced Councillor C. Weylie, West-Victoria Park Ward and former Councillor Mark Jantzi, both seated in the audience. 3.HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION 2002-V-03 -530-540 QUEEN STREET SOUTH – NEW DEVELOPMENT HERITAGE KITCHENER MARCH 5, 2002- 14 -CITY OF KITCHENER -VICTORIA PARK AREA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT(CONT’D) Mr. R. Dyck addressed the Committee referring to the displayed site plan and building elevation, and offering his opinion as to this development’s compliance with the guidelines contained in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. He suggested that the redevelopment does not have a pedestrian scale, the building fabric and elements do not reflect Victoria Park, the proposed landscaping will be within the fence on this property, not benefiting the people who live outside the development. Mr. B. Fletcher then addressed the Committee noting that the revised proposal is for a building with a larger mass, which does not fit into the landscape of Victoria Park. Mr. B. Berry advised that Heritage Kitchener needs to advocate on behalf of the neighbourhood. He referred to traffic problems on Queen Street, and with respect to the guidelines in the Plan, and stated that they were written in relation to the zoning in effect at the time the plan was written and not the current zoning. He stated that the Municipal Plan has recently been amended to reduce floor space ratio from four to two. He stated that a Heritage Impact Assessment will provide guidance to Council and hoped that it will help them thoroughly understand the issues. Ms. M. Sokvitne referred to printed information provided to the public at the time of the preparation of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan and the comprehensive zoning by- law 88-1, questioning why the City would pass a designating by-law for the Heritage Conservation District Plan and increase the density in the zoning by-law for Queen Street at the same time; which appeared to her to be a contradiction. Mr. Masseo explained the timing of these two separate processes. Ms. Sokvitne then questioned why the developer would not have chosen a different site for a development of this magnitude, such as the Canada Blower/Canada Forge Site on Woodside Avenue. Mr. M. Chilanski addressed the Committee stating that the proposal put forward by the developer is a good business plan for them, but will devalue the existing properties around the park. This proposal will create a concrete wall along the park, and devalue properties which in turn will deteriorate. Mr. M. Maguire question how the existing zoning came into being, suggesting that it was not necessarily the desire of the Council of the day that the zoning be as it is; as he understood that the zoning could not be changed without the City facing a law suit. Councillor Galloway read aloud an e-mail received from Chris and Karen Winters in support of this development proposal. Councillor Galloway noted that staff and some of the residents would like a Heritage Impact Assessment to be undertaken, and questioned whether the Committee would like to recommend to Council that one be undertaken. Mr. E. Lucy questioned why staff are recommending a Heritage Impact Assessment when they have already advised this Committee that the zoning on the property is the law and cannot be changed. He stated that in theory a Heritage Impact Assessment should recommend the preservation of this heritage area, which will be vastly and remarkably impacted. This development will have a tremendous affect on the properties closest to it and ultimately on the whole of the City. Ms. C. Martindale noted the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District was supported by staff and Council, and it was a promise to the neighbours that development would be in keeping with the area’s heritage. To approve this development would be to betray the trust of the neighbourhood. She put forward a motion to defer consideration of this application until a Heritage Impact Assessment is completed. 3.HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION 2002-V-03 -530-540 QUEEN STREET SOUTH – NEW DEVELOPMENT -VICTORIA PARK AREA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT(CONT’D) HERITAGE KITCHENER MARCH 5, 2002- 15 -CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. L. Masseo provided an explanation of Official Plan Amendment #36, which just received Regional approval; noting that it does not effect this proposed development, as the application was received prior to this amendment’s approval. Mr. E. Lucy again questioned why staff are recommending a Heritage Impact Assessment. Mr. Stanley responded that a Heritage Impact Assessment is being recommended because Mr. Bensason has a conflict of interest with this application. Staff feel that this Committee needs a higher level of advice; also, Council needs to be assured that it is fully informed. Councillor Galloway advised that if Council agrees to a Heritage Impact Assessment, this Committee can establish terms of reference at the April 2 meeting. With respect to the legislated 90 day period within which Council must make a decision on an alteration application, Mr. Stanley advised that it is staff’s position the 90 day period for this application has not commenced, as the application is considered not to be complete. On motion by Ms. C. Martindale – it was resolved: “That consideration of Heritage Permit Application 2002-V-03, for the development of an apartment building to be partly located on the property municipally known as 530-540 Queen Street South, located in the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District, be deferred pending completion of a Heritage Impact Assessment.” 4.2002 COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGES TO CONTRIBUTE IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE’S WORK PROGRAM Mr. Bensason provided the Committee with a copy of his 2002 work plan, and questioned whether the Committee had suggestions or ideas concerning its own work program for this year. He then suggested a review of the Heritage Inventory, noting the Committee’s mandate to include in the Inventory “Those properties within the municipality which it feels should be designated…pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act” and “…pursuant to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.” He suggested that there are a number of properties on the Inventory which are not worthy of designation. If the Committee does not wish to undertake this review, they could prepare a term of reference for the work, which could be undertaken by a student in the fall. He asked the Committee to put forward suggestions for their work program at the April meeting. Mr. Clinckett suggested the Committee recommend to Council the requirement of measured drawings for designated properties prior to their demolition. Mr. Bensason advised that a report would have to be prepared for Council, advising what is involved in measured drawings and the cost of preparation of these drawings. 5. EVALUATION OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE -3850 KING STREET EAST -83 SCOTT STREET/1-5 ISRAEL PLACE Mr. Bensason displayed images of the property municipally known as 83 Scott Street/1-5 Israel Place, noting the property is listed on the Heritage Inventory. A written description of this property is included in the Committee’s agenda package. He noted that Israel Place is not a public street, but a lane way that runs down the side of this property, giving access to the multiple dwellings attached to the rear of the house at 83 Scott Street. He noted its architectural interest, and the fact that there are not many properties like this in the City. Mr. Bensason advised that it is the intention of the owner to redevelop this property in conjunction with other adjacent properties. 6. EVALUATION OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE -3850 KING STREET EAST -83 SCOTT STREET/1-5 ISRAEL PLACE (CONT’D) HERITAGE KITCHENER MARCH 5, 2002- 16 -CITY OF KITCHENER On motion by Mr. E. Lucy – it was resolved: “That Heritage Kitchener reaffirm its position that the property municipally known 83 Scott/1-5 Israel Place is of heritage significance and worthy of being on the Heritage Inventory.” Mr. Bensason advised that he would advise the Planner processing the site plan application for the redevelopment, of the Committee’s position. He asked for assistance from the Committee to research further historic information on this property and Mr. B. Scott volunteered. With respect to 3850 King Street East, the Committee was in receipt of correspondence from Uterman McPhail Associates, dated February 6, 2002, on behalf of the Ontario Realty Corporation noting their intention to demolish this building. Mr. Bensason displayed images of the property and the building, noting that the Ontario Realty Corporation wants to demolish the property, but before doing so are inquiring if it has heritage significance. He noted that it is not on the Heritage Inventory. He advised that there are other examples of this style of building in the inner City, but this location is unique. He then requested assistance in researching the property. 6.ADJOURNMENT On a motion, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Dianne H. Gilchrist Committee Administrator