Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage Kitchener - 2006-03-07 HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 7. 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. D. Kuehl, Ms. E. Gallaher, Ms. L. Harris, Ms. S. Lauber and Messrs. J. Countryman, Z. Janecki, K. Kirby, F. Bishop and T. Willcox. Staff: C. Ladd, Chief Administrative Officer G. Sosnoski, General Manager of Corporate Services and City Clerk L. Proulx, Director of Facilities Management J. Witmer, Director of Building L. Bensason, Heritage Planner S. Rice, Zoning Officer S. Barber, Assistant Heritage Planner C. Goodeve, Committee Administrator 1. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2005-IV-018 -787 KING STREET WEST - KITCHENER WATERLOO COLLEGIATE AND VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE (KCI) - PROPOSED SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLATION The Committee was in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA 2005-IV-018, dated November 15, 2005 regarding the installation of a sprinkler system at KC!. Mr. L. Bensason advised that the applicant has revised the original design of Option 1, which now routes the sprinkler piping through the walls, concealing it from public view. He added that the revisions eliminate the need for large bulkheads and visual piping under the staircase, which were items of concern when the Committee last examined these designs on December 6, 2005. He stated that the applicant is also proposing to use a new style of sprinkler head, which will be flush to the wall and can be painted to match its mounting surface. Mr. Bensason noted that of the 3 design options both staff and the applicant prefer Option 1. Mr. Tim Schaner, applicant, The Walter Fedy Partnership, displayed examples of the proposed new style of sprinkler heads. On motion by Mr. K. Kirby - it was resolved: "That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA 2005-IV-018 (787 King Street West, Kitchener Waterloo Collegiate and Vocational Institute) be approved, to permit the installation of a sprinkler system and heads, outlined as Front Entrance Sprinkler Option 1 in the Walter Fedy Partnership detailed design drawings reviewed at the March 7, 2006 Heritage Kitchener meeting." 2. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2006-IV-002 - 437 PIONEER TOWER ROAD -INSTALLATION OF HYDROMETER AND PLUMBING VENTILATION PIPE - ADDENDUM TO HPA 2005-IV-001 - POSSIBLE CHANGE TO THE ADDITION SIDING The Committee was in receipt of Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-06-033, dated February 20, 2006 recommending installation of a hydrometer and plumbing ventilation pipe on the exterior of the drive shed at 437 Pioneer Tower Road be permitted. In addition, the Committee was in receipt of correspondence from Mr. John Ariens, dated February 22, 2006 requesting that HPA 2005-IV-001 be amended to permit the installation of vertical Cape Cod finished wood siding on the farmhouse addition at 437 Pioneer Tower Road, as an alternative to the originally approved stucco siding. Mr. Z. Janecki declared a pecuniary interest and abstained from all discussion and voting concerning this matter as he is employed by a corporation with interest in this property. Ms. S. Barber outlined the proposed locations for the plumbing ventilation pipe and the hydrometer, stating that originally staff had requested the applicant locate the hydrometer on the east or rear elevation, which are not generally visible to the public. She advised that due to structural integrity concerns relating to the stone foundation on the rear elevation, the HERITAGE KITCHENER MARCH 7. 2006 -14 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2006-IV-002 - 437 PIONEER TOWER ROAD -INSTALLATION OF HYDROMETER AND PLUMBING VENTILATION PIPE - ADDENDUM TO HPA 2005-IV-001 - POSSIBLE CHANGE TO THE ADDITION SIDING (CONT'D) applicant is proposing to locate the hydrometer on the west side of the drive shed. She noted that the applicant has agreed to enclose the hydrometer in a barn board box as a method of concealment. Mr. John Ariens, applicant, advised that the drive shed rear elevation stone foundation is virtually non-existent, which has made it necessary to affix the hydrometer to the west elevation and he would try to conceal it as best as possible. On motion by Ms. E. Gallaher - it was resolved: "That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA 2006-IV-002 (437 Pioneer Tower Road) be approved, to permit the installation of a hydrometer and plumbing ventilation pipe, which are to blend into their surroundings as best as possible, as outlined in Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-06-033. " Mr. L. Bensason then referred to the request to amend HPA 2005-IV-001, stating that when the application was originally considered, the stucco siding was deemed to be acceptable as it demonstrated an identifiable contrast between the historic farmhouse and the proposed addition. He pointed out that the Committee should consider if the proposed vertical wood siding continues to maintain an acceptable level of contrast. Mr. J. Ariens, applicant, advised that the stucco siding will cost approximately $10,000. to $12,000. more than the vertical wood siding making it cost prohibitive. He stated that in his opinion the contrast would still be present as the farmhouse has horizontal siding, while the proposed wood siding runs vertically. Mr. Ariens added that he is prepared to select a contrasting colour for the addition siding. He requested that the Committee entrust the City's Heritage Planner to review and approve the final colour scheme, as agreed upon when HPA 2005-IV-001 was originally approved. On motion by Mr. F. Bishop - it was resolved: "That Heritage Permit Application HPA 2005-IV-001 (437 Pioneer Tower Road) be amended to permit the farmhouse addition to be clad in vertical Cape Cod finished wood siding of either 1 x 8 Board and Batten or 1 x 6 V Joint design, as an alternative to the originally approved stucco siding design, with the final color scheme to be reviewed and approved by the City's Heritage Planner." 3. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2006-IV-001 - REQUEST TO DEMOLISH REMAINING PORTIONS OF 31 YOUNG STREET (FORSYTH BUILDING) The Committee was in receipt of the following documentation for consideration: · Heritage Permit Application HPA 2006-IV-001 - 31 Young Street (Forsyth Building); · Corporate Services Department report CRPS-06-023 - Retention/Removal/Remediation Options - Forsyth Complex; · excerpts from the February 13, 2006 City Council meeting and February 6, 2006 Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting; · John Forsyth Co. timeline and historic photos of the 1937 Art Deco Fa<;ade and Smyth Residence, prepared by Ms. E. Gallaher; and, · correspondence from the Ontario Heritage Foundation, dated March 6, 2006 concerning HPA 2006-IV-001. Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors C. Weylie and J. Gazzola were in attendance for this part of the meeting. HERITAGE KITCHENER MARCH 7. 2006 -15 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2006-IV-001 - REQUEST TO DEMOLISH REMAINING PORTIONS OF 31 YOUNG STREET (FORSYTH BUILDING) (CONT'D) Mr. L. Bensason advised that at the February 6, 2006 Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting Facilities Management staff, as the owner's representatives, were directed to make a heritage permit application to Heritage Kitchener for the demolition of both the Smyth Residence and the 1937 Art Deco Addition. Mr. Bensason stated that he salvaged 6 large art deco light fixtures from the 1937 addition and then reviewed the 4 options outlined in the staff report. He stated that each option calls for the disassembly and storage of the pre- cast concrete fa<;ade of the 1937 addition due to the erosion of the fasteners and ties holding the fa<;ade together. Mr. Bensason noted that the options to retain the buildings all contain costs relating to preservation and making the buildings weather tight. He added that an additional factor affecting the costs of each of the preservation options relates to the underpinning of each building to facilitate the installation of a proposed underground parking faci Iity. Mr. Glen Woolner, resident, spoke in support of retaining the remaining portions of the Forsyth Building and requested that they be incorporated into any potential designs of a library on that site. He stated that in his opinion he could not foresee the retention of the 2 portions costing as much as what has been outlined in the staff report. He advised that numerous studies conducted by the City, such as Culture Plan II, have placed an emphasis on the retention of the City's heritage buildings. Mr. Dale Holland, Circa Development, spoke in support of retaining the buildings and that they be properly maintained in the short term to allow incorporation into any future redevelopment of the Centre Block. He commented that redevelopment is likely to be delayed by appeals against the repealing of the original designating by-law to the Conservation Review Board. He expressed the opinion that it was a lack of stewardship, which caused the current condition of the buildings and requested that the buildings life saving elements be reinstalled to ensure preservation. Mr. Holland did not agree with the proposed cost estimate of $8.6M to retain both buildings and recommended that an independent consultant be engaged by the City. In response to questions, Mr. D. Holland advised that he had not inspected the remaining portions of the Forsyth Building and had no first hand knowledge of their current condition. He speculated that retention would only be about a tenth of what is being proposed and suggested that installation of the proposed underground parking garage could account for the high costs outlined by staff. He noted that he has no experience with the installation of underground parking facilities. Mr. L. Proulx advised that if Council decides to retain the remaining portions of the Forsyth Building, staff would expeditiously pursue weatherproofing. He noted that as the building is currently unoccupied, the Building Code does not require the installation of a life safety system as requested by Mr. Holland. He added that electricity and water would need to be routed to the buildings to enable the installation of a life safety system. Mr. K. Kirby expressed concerns regarding the disappearance of additional light fixtures from the 1937 Art Deco addition. Mr. L. Proulx stated that he consulted with the contractors who advised that they had no knowledge of any missing light fixtures. Mr. J. Countryman requested clarification as to the impact of the installation of the proposed underground parking garage on the costs outlined by staff. Mr. L. Proulx advised that the estimates include the costs required to underpin the buildings to prevent them from collapsing in on the proposed garage. Mr. Proulx estimated that of the proposed 350 parking spaces approximately 80 spaces might be located under the remaining portions of the Forsyth Building. He noted that it is very difficult to estimate the exact number of spaces without conducting a thorough site survey. Mr. G. Sosnoski noted that there is a considerable cost involved to shore up and brace the buildings to facilitate the installation of an underground parking garage. He noted that for the staff report the engineers focused strictly on the structural condition of the buildings and factored in the anticipated use of the site to reach their cost estimates. HERITAGE KITCHENER MARCH 7. 2006 -16 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA 2006-IV-001 - REQUEST TO DEMOLISH REMAINING PORTIONS OF 31 YOUNG STREET (FORSYTH BUILDING) (CONT'D) Several Committee members raised questions as to the integrity and comparability of the figures used. Ms. E. Gallager commented that she found the cost estimates to be confusing and inquired into the absence of line accounting. Mr. G. Sosnoski advised that the cost figures for the 4 options were provided by a nationally renowned engineer with considerable experience in this type of project. Mr. L. Proulx advised that with regard to the buildings structural integrity, the measures that have been taken to protect the remaining portions of the Forsyth Building were only intended to be short-term. He noted that the engineers have developed designs for wooden walls that would be installed to enclose the openings as a long-term means of making the buildings watertight. Mr. G. Sosnoski estimated that these measures would cost approximately $125,000., noting that this does not include the installation of a life safety system, water or electricity. Mr. Z. Janecki expressed the opinion that consideration of the HPA at this time is premature in the absence of a site plan application for the Centre Block redevelopment. He suggested that the buildings should remain standing until a site plan application has been submitted and proposed that the remaining portions be included as part of the City's Request For Proposals (RFP) for any future redevelopment of the Centre Block. He commented that in his opinion it is pertinent the City undertake measures immediately to protect the remaining portions of the Forsyth Building. A motion by Mr. K. Kirby was brought forward for consideration to refuse the HPA on the basis it is premature at this time given a site plan application for the redevelopment of the Centre Block has not been submitted; that the 1937 Art Deco Addition and Smyth Residence be included as part of any future RFP to redevelop the Centre Block; and, that the openings on the 1937 Art Deco Addition and Smyth Residence be totally covered to prevent any further deterioration to these buildings. At the request of Ms. J. Armstrong, it was agreed to amend the motion to specifically indicate that the Committee is recommending that the HPA be refused. The Committee agreed to amend the motion further by expanding the third paragraph to include a provision that the interim measures previously approved by Council on November 28, 2005 be undertaken and that the remaining buildings be made weather tight. Councillor M. Galloway advised that the recommendation of Heritage Kitchener will be considered at the March 20, 2006 Council meeting and he encouraged all members to attend. Mr. K. Kirby requested that staff register the members of Heritage Kitchener as a delegation for that meeting. On motion by Mr. K. Kirby - it was resolved: "That pursuant to Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA 2006-IV-001 (31 Young Street West) be refused, as it is considered premature at this time given no site plan application has been submitted for the redevelopment of the Centre Block properties; and, That the remaining 2 phases of the Forsyth Building designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, being the 1937 Art Deco Addition and Smyth Residence, be retained and included as a part of the City's Request For Proposals (RFP) to facilitate their incorporation into any future redevelopment that is to occur on the Centre Block; and further, That staff be directed to ensure the continued integrity of the 2 remaining phases of the Forsyth Building by: making certain that the openings created by the demolition are secured and boarded up; the fire alarm system is re-installed; and, the interim measures previously approved by Council on November 28,2005 are undertaken." HERITAGE KITCHENER MARCH 7. 2006 4. ADJOURNMENT -17 - On motion, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. CITY OF KITCHENER Colin Goodeve Committee Administrator