City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

Transcription

City of Kingston
Report to Municipal Heritage Committee
Report Number MHC-16-001
To:
Chair and Members of Municipal Heritage Committee
From:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
Resource Staff:
Paige Agnew, Director, Planning, Building & Licensing Services
Date of Meeting:
December 7, 2015
Subject:
Application for Heritage Permit under the Ontario Heritage Act
752 King Street West
File Number P18-244-089-2015
Executive Summary:
An application for alteration under Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act (File Number P18-244089-2015) has been submitted to request approval to relocate and repair the gazebo located on
the Providence Care facility grounds at 752 King Street West.
The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through By-Law
Number 8497. The gazebo has been identified as a significant heritage attribute in previous
cultural heritage evaluations of the property. Originally, the gazebo was located in the
landscaped area between the Rockwood Villa and Asylum, but was later relocated north of the
former Westwood administrative entrance. This existing location which faces onto paved roads
is less compatible than its original, landscaped, context.
The application requests approval to relocate the gazebo to a “Healing Garden” courtyard on the
southwest corner of the Providence Care facility and to rehabilitate the structure to facilitate its
use and enjoyment.
Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to the conditions outlined herein, as the
proposed rehabilitation will conserve the structure and the relocation will better facilitate the
historic use and enjoyment of the gazebo feature.
23
December 7, 2015
Page 2 of 7
Recommendation:
That it be recommended to Council that alterations to a designated property at 752 King Street
West, be approved in accordance with details described in the application (File Number P18244-089-2015), which was deemed complete on October 22, 2015, with said alterations to
include the following:
1. Relocation of the gazebo from a location northeast of the front entrance of the
Providence Care facility to a location within the “Healing Garden” courtyard on the
southwest corner of the Providence Care facility;
2. Rehabilitation of the gazebo structure including:
i.
Replacement of decayed wood components with white cedar, including full
replacement of the wood steps leading into the gazebo;
ii.
Reinstatement of missing wood members and finials to match original profiles;
iii.
Application of a clear wood sealant to provide a consistent colour and finish on
both the existing and replacement wood components;
iv.
Repointing the joints of the relocated stone piers; and
That the approval of the alterations be subject to the following five conditions:
1. That the applicant consider painting the gazebo as opposed to staining it, using a neutral
background colour with a contrasting accent colour to highlight certain details and that
Planning staff be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed
colouring;
2. The masonry work be completed in accordance with the City’s Policy on Masonry
Restoration in Heritage Buildings;
3. An encroachment permit be obtained for any repair activities (i.e. scaffolding, dumpsters,
etc.) requiring use of the City right of way;
4. In the event that deeply buried or previously undiscovered archaeological deposits are
discovered in the course of development or site alteration, all work must immediately
cease and the site must be secured. The Cultural Program Branch of the Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport (416-314-7132) and the City of Kingston’s Planning, Building
and Licensing Services Department (613-546-4291 extension 3180) must be immediately
contacted; and
5. In the event that human remains are encountered, all work must immediately cease and
the site must be secured. The Kingston Police (613-549-4660), the Registrar of
Cemeteries and Crematoriums Regulation Unit of the Ontario Ministry of Government
and Consumer Services (416-326-8404), the Cultural Program Branch of the Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport (416-314-7132), and City of Kingston’s Planning, Building
and Licensing Services Department (613-546-4291 extension 3180) must be immediately
contacted.
24
December 7, 2015
Page 3 of 7
Authorizing Signatures:
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY COMMISSIONER
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer
Consultation with the following Members of the Corporate Management Team:
Cynthia Beach, Corporate & Strategic Initiatives
Not required
Denis Leger, Transportation, Facilities & Emergency Services
Not required
Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston
Not required
Desiree Kennedy, Chief Financial Officer & City Treasurer
Not required
25
December 7, 2015
Page 4 of 7
Options/Discussion:
Proposal/Background
The subject property is owned by the Province of Ontario and is located on the south side of
King Street West. The property is developed with a number of buildings, including the former
Rockwood Lunatic Asylum. The entire property is identified by the Province of Ontario as being
of cultural heritage value. The subject property includes a cultural heritage landscape, which
was recognized through a special policy in Section 7 of the City’s Official Plan. The property is
also designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Province of Ontario, through Infrastructure Ontario, has undertaken a number of studies
specifically related to the heritage value of the entire property at 752 King Street West. A
Heritage Impact Statement (2013) prepared by MTBA Associates Inc. relates to the subject
application and was previously submitted as part of the Providence Care facility redevelopment
proposal (File Number P18-244-003-2014). The 2013 Heritage Impact Statement (HIS)
describes a gazebo of built heritage value on the subject property and contemplates a future
relocation of this structure. The heritage permit approved by Council on December 17, 2013
included the demolition of the Providence Care Hospital and the construction of a new hospital,
but did not include the relocation of the gazebo in the resulting scope of work.
The subject application requests approval to relocate the gazebo from its existing location at the
northeast entrance of the Providence Care facility, to the southwest corner of the facility, within
the “Healing Garden”. The proposed relocation and rehabilitation of the structure is described
further in Exhibit A to this report. The gazebo is constructed out of original cedar and pressure
treated spruce which was added as part of previous rehabilitation efforts. The proposal includes
replacing deteriorated wood with white cedar finished with a clear sealant to maintain the
original colour.
Further specifications on the gazebo relocation and rehabilitation are included as Exhibit B;
specifically, the steps are noted as requiring replacement. Missing wood components and finials
will be reinstated. Once the gazebo has been relocated, the stone piers at the base will be
repointed. The proposed work also includes staining the entire gazebo in order to restore a
consistent colour and finish on both the existing and new gazebo elements.
It is expected that the proposed location of the gazebo will facilitate additional use and
enjoyment of the structure, and therefore the proposal includes wood replacement where wood
pieces are exhibiting greater than 10% decay.
Reasons for Designation
The subject property is owned by the Province of Ontario through Infrastructure Ontario. A
heritage assessment, prepared by Julian Smith & Associates for the Province in 2004,
documented a cultural heritage landscape on the subject property (Page 5 of Exhibit C Background – 2013 Heritage Impact Study (Providence Care Redevelopment)) and called it the
“Kingston Asylum Cultural Landscape”. It included approximately 50 hectares of the open
landscaped area from King Street West through the central portion of the property to Lake
Ontario. Within this Cultural Landscape are a number of culturally significant heritage buildings,
namely the Rockwood Villa (1841); Beach Grove Infirmary (1893); Leahurst Nurses’ Residence
(1902); Rockwood Asylum (1859); South Cottage (1882); Greenhouse (1907); Horse Stable
26
December 7, 2015
Page 5 of 7
(1841); a number of workshop, utility buildings and landscape features including the McLeod
Basin (1894). The City of Kingston Official Plan recognizes and protects this Cultural Heritage
Landscape with the inclusion of special policy Section 7.3.D.5.
According to research prepared by BRAY Heritage (2011), the gazebo is recognized as being a
heritage attribute of the property.
Previous Approvals
P18-244-43-97 (Replace roof at South Cottage)
P18-244-26-01 (Repairs to retaining wall and landscaping)
P18-244-32-05 (Repairs to Rockwood House & landscaping works)
P18-244-62-05 (demolish asphalt ramp and replace with concrete & roofing upgrades on kitchen
& dining wing at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital)
P18-244-71-05 (install air monitoring equipment at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital)
P18-244-01-06 (road and sidewalk upgrades)
P18-244-05-06 (window replacement at South Cottage)
P18-244-10-06 (repair soffits, facia and masonry at South Cottage)
P18-244-003-2014 (demolition of the existing Providence Care Hospital and the construction of
a new hospital)
Comments from Agencies and Business Units
The following internal departments were circulated on this application:
Building: Based on observations at a site visit on November 24, 2015, there are no building
permit requirements to relocate the gazebo and for the restoration. The current gazebo has a
foundation of stone piers on grade. Since the foundation will be kept and there is no current
excavation and no planned future excavation, the building code does not require a permit.
Property Standards: No open property standards cases at this address.
Engineering: Should any of the repair activities i.e. scaffolding, dumpsters etc., require use of
the City right of way, an encroachment permit will be required. The encroachment permit can be
obtained from the City’s Engineering Department by calling 613-546-4291 extension 3130. The
encroachment permit application can be found on the City website at
http://cityofkingston.ca/pdf/engineering/app_encroachment.pdf.
Built Heritage Analysis
Staff reviewed the application in relation to the heritage designation by-law, applicable policy in
the City’s Official Plan, and in relation to the recommendations of the MTBA Heritage Impact
Study (2013) prepared as part of the Providence Care Hospital redevelopment (Exhibit C).
Research prepared by BRAY Heritage (2011) and Jennifer McKendry (2010) indicates that the
gazebo was an original feature of the subject property. The gazebo is estimated to have been
built during the turn of the 20th century. The original location of the gazebo is understood to have
been within the landscaped area between the Rockwood Villa and the Rockwood Asylum, in a
park-like setting. While previous studies have recommended returning the gazebo to its original
site as a landscape component, the 2013 HIS concludes that relocating the gazebo to the
southwest corner of the Providence Care facility will increase the use and enjoyment of the
27
December 7, 2015
Page 6 of 7
structure, and is an appropriate location. Staff supports the proposed relocation, but consistent
with conservation recommendations from previous studies, have relayed to the applicant that
returning the gazebo to its original location should be considered into the future.
The proposed rehabilitation of the structure is not intended to change the appearance of the
gazebo, although the wood components are proposed to be replaced where there is 10% decay
evident. Staff note that a key principle in the conservation of built heritage is respect for historic
material, and to repair rather than replace building materials and finishes except where
absolutely necessary. The gazebo still contains some original cedar, according to the
application, but has also been repaired with some pressure treated pine in the past. Staff
support the replacement with like material (i.e. cedar) in this case. While the threshold for wood
replacement is low, staff supports the intent of the rehabilitation, which is to ensure the safety
and functionality of the structure in order to facilitate the use and enjoyment of the gazebo.
A number of Archaeological Assessments have been undertaken on the subject property and
throughout the entire Provincial Campus site. Confirmation has been received from the Ministry
of Tourism, Culture and Sport that the Providence Care portion of the property has been
documented and cleared of all archaeological resources. As a caution, staff recommends the
inclusion of the City’s standard archaeological conditions regarding undiscovered archaeological
resources, as conditions of the Ontario Heritage Act approval.
Conclusion
That the Ontario Heritage Act application number P18-244-089-2015, be approved, subject to the
conditions outlined herein, as the proposed rehabilitation will conserve the structure and the
relocation will better facilitate the historic use and enjoyment of the gazebo feature.
Existing Policy/By-Law:
Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. O.18. (Province of Ontario)
City of Kingston Official Plan
Policy on Masonry Restoration in Heritage Buildings
By-Law Number 2013-141 Procedural By-Law for Heritage
By-Law Number 8497 By-Law to Designate Kingston Psychiatric Hospital Grounds and
Rockwood House
Notice Provisions:
Pursuant to Section 33(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), notice of receipt of a complete
application has been served on the applicant. As per Section 33(4)(b) of the OHA, notice of the
decision must be served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust.
Accessibility Considerations:
Not applicable
28
December 7, 2015
Page 7 of 7
Financial Considerations:
Not applicable
Contacts:
Paige Agnew, Director, Planning, Building & Licensing Services 613-546-4291 extension 3252
Stacey Forfar, Manager, Development Approvals 613-546-4291 extension 3253
Amy Didrikson, Heritage Planner, Development Approvals 613-546-4291 extension 3288
Other City of Kingston Staff Consulted:
The application has been circulated to internal departments for review and comment.
Exhibits Attached:
Exhibit A
Description of Relocation and Rehabilitation of Gazebo
Exhibit B
Specifications of Proposed Rehabilitation
Exhibit C
Background – 2013 Heritage Impact Study (Providence Care Redevelopment)
29
Exhibit A
Application for Heritage Permit – Heritage Gazebo, 750 King Street, Kingston, Ontario 1. Proposed Location The existing gazebo is currently located to the
northeast of the front entrance of the existing
Providence Care Facility. During the redevelopment
CURRENT of the facility, the location for gazebo was studied and
LOCATION as per the Providence Care Heritage Impact
Statement, a site was selected that would provide a
location that would “beautify the grounds”. The
location was carefully selected to provide a siting
appropriate for the unique quality of the structure
and returns the gazebo to a place of importance
within the landscape. It is proposed to be relocated
HISTORIC to the southwest corner of the facility, within to the
LOCATION Healing Garden and immediately south of the exterior
Dining Patio. These two exterior courtyard spaces
are designed to welcome visitors, clients and staff of
the Providence Care Facility, as well as visitors from
Historic Gazebo Location, by Jennifer McKendry (2010) the adjacent Lake Ontario Park.
The specific Healing Garden courtyard was selected as this is a contemplative garden, where staff and visitors come to have a respite from the daily hospital environment. Similar in use to the original siting in the Rockwood Villa, the gazebo will be a focal point in the garden and balances with the trees in the northern portion of the garden. The base of the gazebo is set within a low shrub bed, accenting the entry points and providing a unique resting place for staff and visitors. The gazebo will also provide the visitor a panoramic view of Lake Ontario. This is in keeping with the recommendation of the Heritage Impact Statement as it will “function similar to its original function and be used by a greater number of people” (page 15‐ MTBA 11/4/2013). 30
Exhibit A
2. Proposed Rehabilitation Proposed Gazebo Location Current status of roof The gazebo has undergone previous restoration work, and the proposed works for this project will be to rehabilitate and stabilize the current deterioration. In general, the works shall include the following: State of previous repairs completed on Gazebo a. Visual inspection of all the members Prior to the commencement of work, an inspection of all the wood members will be completed to determine the extent of replacement. All members that are displaying greater than 10% decay is recommended for replacement. This was based upon the following factors: 31
Exhibit A
 The repairs that were previously completed are now also in a state of decay and require further repair;  It is anticipated that the relocated gazebo will receive a significantly higher quantity of use, and needs to be safe and secure for visitors. b. Rehabilitation Currently the wood is a combination of the original cedar and pressure treated spruce, assumed to be utilized during the previous rehabilitation works. The proposed works will be to complete the repairs with white cedar and a clear sealant applied to maintain the original colour and reduce future decay. 32
Exhibit B
SECTION 06 15 06
HERITAGE
E GAZEBO REHABILITATION
Providenc
ce Care Hospiital
Kingston,, ON.
Part 1
Generral
1.1
RELA
ATED SECTIONS
.1
1
Section 06 10 00 – Rough Carpe
entry
REFER
RENCES
1.2
.1
1
CSA Group
.1
CSA-O141--05(R2014) ‘S
Softwood Lum
mber’
.2
2
Nation
nal Lumber Grrades Authoriity (NLGA) 3
.3
‘Standard Grading Rules for Can
nadian Lumbe
er (2005) Edittion’.
1.3
SAMP
PLES
.1
1
Submiit samples of wood posts, beams, joistss, decking, etcc. proposed fo
or the work off this
n for review by Contract Ad
dministrator p rior to comm
mencement of work.
section
SOUR
RCE QUALITY
Y CONTROL
1.4
.1
1
Pre-Installation Mee
etings: condu
uct pre-installa
ation meeting
g to verify projject requireme
ents,
ation instructions, and warranty requirem
ments. Comp
ply with Section 01 33 26.
installa
.2
2
Labour: provide forreman and labourers skille
ed in carpentrry and capable of completing
the req
quirements off this specifica
ation.
SCHEDULING OF FINISH WOR
RK
1.5
.1
1
Sched
dule the rehab
bilitation work of this sectio
on to occur in a timely man
nner.
Part 2
Produ
ucts
2.1
MATE
ERIALS
.1
1
Wood:: To meet and match existting materialss of the Gazeb
bo. All wood to be natural, with
d sealer to match existing.
stained
.2
2
Wood to be smooth
h on four sides, moisture coontent 19% or less, Kiln drried, to NLGA
A
standaard grading ru
ules for Canad
dian Lumber.
2.2
FAST
TENERS
1
.1
Brackeets: galvanizeed; .2
2
Carriage Bolts: galv
vanized; .3
3
Spikess: galvanized;;
.4
4
Screws: deck screw
ws (brown) appropriate lenggth and gaugee for the wood members.
PA
AGE 06 15 06 - 1
CSW Landscape Architects Limited July 28 2015
33
Exhibit B
SECTION 06 15 06
HERITAGE
Providenc
ce Care Hospiital
Kingston,, ON.
.5
5
Stain Sealer: Sikke
ens ProLuxe exterior wood
d stain or approved equal. The Contracctor
n and colour fo
or review prio
or to proceediing.
provide product datta information
.6
6
Two mil polyethylen
ne sheets
.7
7
Aggreg
gates: Scree
ened granite - rounded pea
a pebbles in fo
ollowing prop
portion:
.1
100% - 18 mm and less
.2
75% - 12 mm and less
50% - 9 mm and less
.3
Part 3
ution
Execu
3.1
GENE
ERAL WORKM
MANSHIP
.1
1
The Contractor sha
all provide a crew experien ced in carpen
ntry, and capa
able of completing
the heritage rehabillitation of the gazebo.
.2
2
Notify Contract Adm
ministrator at least seven d ays in advan
nce of operatio
on start-up.
.3
3
Each operation mus
st be done co
ontinuously an
nd completelyy within a reasonable time
period.
.4
4
Equipm
ment and matterials should
d be stored on
n site in appro
oved location..
.5
5
Collec
ct and dispose
e of debris or excess mate rial on daily basis.
6
.6
Obtain
n acceptance in writing from
m Contract Ad
dministrator with detailed description off work
eted, prior to submission of progress cla
aims.
comple
3.2
EXIST
TING CONDIT
TIONS
.1
1
The Contractor sha
all complete a visual inspecction of the exxisting gazebo
o to determine the
cluding:
extent of works, inc
.1
.2
.3
.4
2
.2
3.3
Replacement of all wood
d pieces exhibbiting a maxiimum of 10%
% decay;
Installation
n of new wood
d step(s) leadiing into the gazebo. The step(s) to exteend
between thee two column
ns;
Reinstatem
ment of missin
ng wood mem
mbers and finiaals to compleete the
reinstatemeent;
onal items of work requireed to provide a sound and safe structure.
Any additio
The Contractor shalll submit the work plan ideentifying the scope of the work and exteent of
rehabilitation to thee Contract Ad
dministrator pprior to comm
mencement of work.
REHA
ABILITATION
.1
1
Remov
ve all the piec
ces of wood which are exh
hibiting rot or decay in exce
ess of 10%. .2
2
Remov
ve existing electrical junction box and w iring.
.3
3
Protec
ct all the existing wood mem
mbers to be r etained. 4
.4
Install new wood members and pieces as req
quired to rehabilitate the ga
azebo.
PA
AGE 06 15 06 - 2
34
Exhibit B
SECTION 06 15 06
HERITAGE
Providenc
ce Care Hospiital
Kingston,, ON.
.5
5
Clean all existing members to be
e retained to r emove all de
ebris, mold, ettc. prior to
ng.
stainin
.6
6
Stain complete gazebo to provid
de a consisten
nt colour and finish on both
h the existing and
azebo elemen
nts.
new ga
3.4
RELOCATION
.1
1
The Contractor sha
all relocate the
e rehabilitated
d gazebo to th
he Healing Garden, as
wings.
indicatted on the Landscape Draw
.2
2
To pre
epare the site prior to the re
elocation of th
he gazebo, th
he contractor shall complette the
following:
.1 .2
.3
.4
Install a 150
0 mm granula
ar A base, compacted to 98% SPD, enssure a minimu
um of
eyond the loca
ation of the re
elocated stone
e base and 50 mm below
150 mm be
ade to accommodate peag
gravel surface
e treatment.
finished gra
Install the polyethenlyne
e sheets.
Relocate ex
xisting stone piers and rem
mortar the join
nts, as per the
e original loca
ation.
Install 50 mm peagravel surfacing to the outside edge of the sto
one piers. En
nsure
a consisten
nt line betwee
en the piers.
.3
3
Relocaate existing gaazebo to finall location on site.
.4
4
Repairr any damages to the gazeb
bo, and touchh up stain as reequired.
3.5
ACCE
EPTANCE
.1
1
Contra
act Administra
ator will inspe
ect the gazebo
o prior to final acceptance for review of all
ork of this sec
ction.
the wo
END OF SECTION
N
PA
AGE 06 15 06 - 3
35
Exhibit C
Heritage Impact Study
Providence Care Hospital Redevelopment
November 4, 2013 Final Issue
MTBA MARK THOMPSON BRANDT ARCHITECT & ASSOCIATES INC.
for EllisDon Corporation and City of Kingston
T 613.244.2323
F 613.244.3602
112 NELSON STREET STUDIO 102
36
OTTAWA CANADA
K1N 7R5
MTBARCH.COM
Exhibit C
PROVIDENCE CARE HOSPITAL
HERITAGE IMPACT STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................1
1
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................2
2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................3
2.1.
Current Owner Information ................................................................................................................................3
2.2.
Proponent Information .......................................................................................................................................3
3
Property Description ....................................................................................................................................................4
4
Heritage Resource Property Description .....................................................................................................................5
5
Heritage Attributes ......................................................................................................................................................7
5.1.
Buildings ..............................................................................................................................................................7
6
Description of the Proposed Development..................................................................................................................9
7
Summary of conservation objectives .........................................................................................................................12
7.1.
Overall Conservation Objectives .......................................................................................................................12
7.2.
Site Development Criteria .................................................................................................................................12
7.3.
Recommended Landscape Land Uses ...............................................................................................................13
8
Impact of Proposed Development .............................................................................................................................14
8.1.
9
Impact on Individual Heritage Resources ..........................................................................................................15
Additional Studies Required .......................................................................................................................................16
11
Precedence & Limitations ......................................................................................................................................17
12
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................17
B
Appendix: Cultural Landscape Significance: Statement ...........................................................................................21
C
Appendix: Excerpts of N00723 – Kingston Psychiatric Hospital Site-Specific Report (2004) ..................................23
D
Appendix: Excerpts of Conservation .........................................................................................................................25
E
Appendix: City of Kingston Heritage Impact Statement Requirements ...................................................................27
F
Appendix: Province of Ontario Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies (2005) 2.6 ...........................................29
G
Appendix: Author Qualifications ...............................................................................................................................31
H
Appendix: Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................33
T 613.244.2323
F 613.244.3602
112 NELSON STREET STUDIO 102
37
OTTAWA CANADA
K1N 7R5
MTBARCH.COM
CONSERVATION
Appendix: Proposed Re-development Visual Documentation ..................................................................................18
URBANISM
A
MARK THOMPSON BRANDT ARCHITECT & ASSOCIATES INC.
Opportunities for Mitigation .................................................................................................................................16
ARCHITECTURE
10
Exhibit C
1
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) provides an update to the Heritage Impact Statement: Providence Care
Hospital Updated Master Plan prepared by ERA Architects (2012). This previous report was based on a master plan
with a demonstration plan prepared by HOK Architects (Master Plan) and Shoalts and Zaback Architects
(Demonstration redevelopment). The subject block or "hospital" block is a parcel of land within the larger Kingston
Provincial Campus. It is referred to in this report as the “subject property” where the redevelopment of the
Providence Care Hospital is being proposed.
This report has been prepared based on the demolition and construction proposed by the Integrated Team
Solutions Scheme (with Parking Architects Ltd and Adamson Associates Architects). This scheme includes full
working drawings for the phased demolition of the existing Providence Care facility of the site and the construction
of the proposed facility, largely to the south of the existing buildings.
The subject property is located within the Kingston Provincial Campus located at 752 King Street in Kingston,
Ontario. It occupies approximately 12.2 hectares of the overall 49 hectares campus which also includes the
"Kingston Asylum Cultural Landscape (Infrastructure Ontario). The Master Plan and Block Plan for the Kingston
Provincial Campus, prepared by planningAlliance (June 2011), provided an overall optimal use strategy for the
Campus, while the HOK Architects/Shoalts and Zaback scheme further refined the of the 2011 plan, specifically for
the redevelopment lands. Most notably, the planningAlliance scheme realigned the redevelopment area further
south, roughly bounded by the south edge of the high ground; beyond which the land slopes down towards Lake
Ontario.
This Heritage Impact Statement evaluates the proposed construction documents for the redevelopment of the
Westwood Hospital Complex in relation to the demonstration plan for the immediate site with the HIS prepared by
ERA Architects Inc. (2012).
Generally, this HIS finds that the proposal is respectful of the Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), located
immediately adjacent to the affected lands, and the CHL's heritage character. The proposed development remains
within the "modern hospital zone" identified in the 2011 master plan. Furthermore, the overall massing and scale
is generally sympathetic to the aims of the Conservation Plan
mtbarch.com
11/4/2013 | PROVIDENCE CARE HOSPITAL
38
Exhibit C
2
3
INTRODUCTION
This Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) has been requested by the City of Kingston to evaluate the proposed
redevelopment of the Providence Care Facilities at 752 King Street, located in the Portsmouth area of Kingston,
Ontario. The proponents are Integrated Team Solutions (EllisDon Inc with Fengate Capital Management); the
architects are Parkin Architects Ltd and Adamson Associates. This report accompanies the proposed
redevelopment documents prepared by the above-listed proponents in response the requirements outlined in the
City of Kingston Site Plan Control Guidelines, which state:
Heritage Impact Study is required for development or redevelopment proposals on lands adjacent to a
protected heritage property. The proposed development is required to be evaluated and the report is to
demonstrate how the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved, and what
mitigative measures or alternative development approaches may be required to protect the resource.
Full descriptions of the City of Kingston HIS requirements, are included in Appendix E.
The proposed development is within the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital Complex Cultural Heritage Landscape which
has a Conservation Plan (last updated in 2008 by Julian Smith & Associates Architects). Further development
studies have been completed to date including the 2011 PlanningAlliance Kingston Provincial Campus Master Plan,
accompanied by the associated HIS prepared by BRAY Heritage and the 2012 HOK/Shoalts & Zaback demonstration
redevelopment for the "hospital block", and the associated HIS prepared by ERA Architects Inc. These documents
form the basis for this HIS as they consider the relationship between the "modern hospital block" and the adjacent
Cultural Heritage Landscape (Rockwood Asylum (Penrose) and Villa complete with the adjacent landscape
components).
This report is an update to the 2012 HIS (prepared by ERA Architects Inc.) and will therefore follow the same
format with sections originally presented within that document indicated in italic font. New research and reviews
of applicable documents since the writing of the ERA HIS will be incorporated herein complete with an evaluation
of the latest proposal. All new material prepared by MTBA is noted in regular font.
2.1.
Current Owner Information
Infrastructure Ontario
9th Floor, 777 Bay Street
Toronto Ontario, M5G 2C8
2.2.
Proponent Information
Integrated Team Solutions
Ellis Don
98 Queensway West, Suite 700
Mississauga, ON L5B 2V2
Fengate Capital Management
5000 Yonge St., Suite 1805
Toronto, ON M2N 7E9
This HIS was prepared with respect to:
 City of Kingston’s Site Plan Control Guidelines;
 Infrastructure Ontario Heritage Management Process Handbook;
 Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition; and
 The Province of Ontario’s 2005 Provincial Policy Statement for the Regulation of Development and Use of
Land.
mtbarch.com
39
Exhibit C
3
4
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The proposed development is located at 752 King Street in the Portsmouth area of Kingston, Ontario. It is part of
the larger Kingston Provincial Campus (KPC) which is a 49 hectare property containing the three primary elements,
each representing three different construction period and approaches to psychiatric healthcare through physical
infrastructure: the Heritage Core (Rockwood), the Beechgrove complex and the Westwood Complex.
The Rockwood Asylum (Penrose) and the Rockwood Villa combined with landscaping to the north and west are the
key components of the Heritage Core have been defined as a cultural heritage landscape of provincial significance
in the ORC (now IO) Heritage Assessment prepared by Julian Smith in 2004. The report was updated in 2008 and
this characterization was reaffirmed. In the Preferred Block Plan (prepared by Planning Alliance in 2011) the
Heritage Core includes open space and re-use of protected heritage buildings. The proposed development does
not physically impact this area.
Located to the east of the CHL, the Beechgrove Complex, was constructed in the 1970s as a children's psychiatric
facility; a function it no longer serves. In the Preferred Block Plan (prepared by Planning Alliance in 2011) the
Beechgrove Complex is identified as future block 2a. The proposed development does not physically impact this
area.
The Westwood Complex, land subject of proposed development is located on a slight rise "high ground" to the
west of the CHL. It is currently occupied by the existing Providence Care Hospital, originally constructed as the
Kingston Psychiatric Hospital in the 1950s. Its building's are largely characterized by low (2-3 storey) buff brick
with grey stone accents facades, arranged in a series of narrow wings arranged in a roughly symmetrical plan,
centered on the administration building. Unlike the Rockwood lands, the landscape is simple with limited tree
cover, primarily covered by lawn with paved parking areas located along the eastern and southern edges.
mtbarch.com
Figure 2 Preferred Block Plan (planningAlliance 2011)
40
Exhibit C
4
5
HERITAGE RESOURCE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The 2004 Heritage Assessment of Cultural Landscape Significance, prepared by Julian Smith and Associates as part
of the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital: Site Specific Report, determined a portion of the Kingston Provincial Campus
(KPC) was a cultural landscape, worthy of recognition as a Cultural Heritage Landscape with a series buildings and
landscapes within it, each contributing to the whole in various ways. While the entire KPC property documents the
evolution of physical infrastructure devoted to psychiatric treatment, the 1950s (Westwood) and 1970s
(Beechgrove) complexes are excluded from the Cultural Landscape of Heritage Value. The Core Heritage
Landscape, bordered to the south by Lake Ontario, includes the historic Cartwright estate, with the Rockwood
Asylum (Penrose), Rockwood Villa and landscaping to the surrounding landscape (refer to below). Smith defines its
heritage value as follows:
The Kingston Asylum Cultural Landscape represents, in its setting and in its collection of individual
architectural and landscape resources, key ideas about the care and treatment of individuals with
1
mental illnesses and conditions in Ontario from the mid-19 th to the mid-20 th century.
Modern Hospital Zone
Expanded Modern Hospital
Zone
Figure 3 Cultural Landscape of Heritage Value. Dark grey zone indicates cultural landscape indicates cultural landscape of provincial
significance. Expanded Modern Hospital Zone included in the 2011 Master Plan + Block Plan Report (planningAlliance 2011)
Julian Smith, Heritage Assessment of ORC Mental Health and Developmental Services Facilities
N00723 Kingston Psychiatric Hospital: Site-specific Report, (Ontario Realty Corporation (now Infrastructure
Ontario), 2004), 18
41
mtbarch.com
1
Cultural Landscape of
Heritage Value
Exhibit C
6
Refer to Appendix for full Statement of Cultural Landscape Significance.
For the Modern Hospital Zone, (Westwood Complex) the Statement of Landscape Significance identifies no
heritage value associated with the buildings or landscape. However, encourages a wholistic approach for the
entire grounds (Westwood, Rockwood, Beechgrove) as each complex exists in continuum with the previous
illustrating the evolving approach for psychiatric treatment starting with Rockwood in 1854, Westwood in 1950s
and finally Beechgrove in 1970s. The Westwood complex is the only portion of the site that serves a psychiatric
function as it was originally designed to.
Given the absence of architectural heritage value, the 2004 Conservation Guidelines (Smith) place limited
restriction on redeveloping the Westwood Complex (Modern Hospital Zone) except for possible height limits.
Height limits are intended to minimize disruption to the surrounding landscape, which is critical to the character of
the entire ground, while best relating to the scale of the existing heritage buildings.
The 2011 Master Plan (planningAlliance) expands the 2004 Conservation Plan boundaries for the Modern Hospital
Zone to include lands to the south of the existing buildings terminating at the approximate top of the high land,
following a historic farm lane. The 2012 ERA HIS states "Due to the connection to the site’s natural and cultural
heritage, this HIS accepts the validity of the extension of the redevelopment zone to the south." This HIS concurs
with the conclusion as the developable area is restricted the high ground thereby maintaining interrelationships
similar to the current arrangement, while avoiding disturbing the significant woodlands and erosion prone areas
located to the south and southeast of the Modern Hospital Zone.
Figure 4 Natural Heritage Features included in the 2011 Master Plan + Block Plan Report (planningAlliance 2011)
mtbarch.com
42
Exhibit C
5
HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES
5.1.
Buildings
7
All buildings indentified as having heritage value, as defined by Smith's assessment of the Kingston Provincial
Campus (2004) are located within the Cultural Heritage Landscape. Identified built structures, most significantly
include Rockwood Villa, Rockwood Asylum Building (Penrose), Beech Grove Infirmary and Leahurst, among others
(full list provided in the Cultural Landscape Significance: Statement included in Appendix B).
The area affected by the proposed development subject, the 1950s Westwood Complex, features a number of low,
interconnected buildings spread across a reasonably treeless landscape with no architectural significance as
defined by the Cultural Landscape Significance Statement. This complex is reasonably self-contained, located to
the west of the CHL. Its primary source of heritage value is its connection to the historic core's original use as a
psychiatric facility and the site's evolving development to accommodate more current approaches.
43
mtbarch.com
Figure 6 Oblique aerial view with Westwood Complex and Rockwood Complex beyond illustrating relationshop between two components of
the grounds. Image taken in 2000 (in Jennifer McKendry (2010))
Figure 5 1958 aerial view of the construction of Westwood Complex looking north (in Jennifer McKendry (2010))
Exhibit C
8
Figure 7 An example of the architectural massing and detailing featured throughout the Westwood Complex (in Jennifer McKendry (2010))
5.1.1. Gazebo
For an extensive discussion regarding the heritage character, evolution and importance of the gazebo refer to ERA
HIS 2012. Of particular note, the gazebo was previously moved from its original location between the Rockwood
Asylum and Rockwood Villa to the lawn north of the main entrance to the Westwood administration entrance.
This new context, differs greatly from its original location characterized by significant amount of tree cover.
Figure 8 State of gazebo shown in Westwood Complex context in 2010. Physical condition requires rehabilitation to avoid continued
deterioration (in Jennifer McKendry (2010))
mtbarch.com
44
Exhibit C
6
9
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development is the partial implementation of the Kingston Provincial Campus Master Plan within
the area indentified as the "Westwood zone, specifically the "hospital zone". The other two zones, the central
zone and the Beechgrove zone are outside the scope of the proposed development. The central zone is the area
within the campus identified as a Cultural Heritage Landscape.
This HIS is based on concept renderings, drawings and plans, dated June 27, 2013 provided by Adamson Associates
Architects with Parkin Architects Ltd. The following description of the proposed development is provided by
Adamson Associates Architects:
Providence Care Hospital (“PCH”) will provide a unique opportunity to create a state of the art medical
facility in the vibrant community of Kingston. Forming an integral part of the Kingston Provincial
Campus (“KPC”), PCH will serve as a focal point for this community as well as a catalyst for future
development. PCH shares special relationships with both the cultural and environmental fabric of its
immediate context. Both physical and philosophical connections to landscape open space, Lake
Ontario, the heritage rich residential and civic architecture within Portsmouth Village and the City of
Kingston proper, in conjunction with the relationships PCH shares with St. Lawrence College and
Queen’s University, will all serve to inform the site and building design. The new hospital will sit on
approximately 30 acres of land and will be bounded by Lake Ontario Park to the west, Heritage Lands
to the east, a “Buffer” block to the north and Lake Ontario to the south. In addition to the current
built condition, it is acknowledged that the northern edge of the KPC site, west of Kph Drive will be
developed as a combination of mixed use commercial/residential(3-8 stys) and medium density
residential development(3-4 stys). Topographically, the campus is relatively level on the northern half
of the site – with only slight undulations sloping gradually towards the lake, with a grade change of
approximately 10 meters between the south side of King Street West and the top of the bank at the
lake. The shore of the water’s edge is approximately 10 meters below the top of the bank. In addition,
it is understood that the site is located on a limestone plain, with little soil cover, and bedrock is very
close to the surface.
Access to PCH can be made in many ways: walking, transit, cycling, or by car via the intersection of
King Street and Kph Drive. The entry sequence to the site begins at this point, and as a result this
entrance will incorporate highly visible landmarks, that will form part of a “gateway” system to the
PCH site. The procession from King Street, south along Kph drive and onward to the Hospital will see
the well considered streetscape system that creates a sense of place and security, in addition to
special landscaped “moments” along the route that offer pedestrians areas for rest and repose, views
to the Lake to the south and the Heritage Lands to the east.
45
mtbarch.com
The internal streetscape / roadway system establishes the framework for an intuitive way finding
system with clear site sightlines to the Hospital, its main entrance and parking areas while offering
motorists and pedestrians alike, views to both the Lake to the south and the Heritage Lands to the
East. A subtle, curvilinear principal drive, inspired by the winding roadways of the Heritage Lands, is
designed to gently aid motorists as they transition from Kph Drive onto the campus proper. The
principal drive links into the main allée that leads to the highly transparent Main Entrance of the
Hospital. Along this route, access can be made to the parking area as well as the patient transfer zone
prior to entering a fully accessible passenger lay-by zone which accommodates an access bus and
The site design for PCH is predicated on sound urban design principles that respond not only to the
programmatic requirements of the Hospital, but also the needs of the surrounding community and the
Greater Kingston region. Central to the design is the concept of a universally accessible, walk able,
healthcare campus that respects and establishes a connection with its immediate man-made and
environmental context.
Exhibit C
10
shelter as well as bicycle parking. The culmination of allée is the Entry Plaza, a public space that
grounds the main entrance sequence and is filled with various landscape tones and textures and
provides users with areas for waiting, intermingling or respite. The internal roadway also incorporates
separate routes to the less-public areas of the site. The Loading dock, Maintenance Building and
Electrical Sub-stations have been located at the Western and North Western edges of the site, far
removed from the pedestrian streetscape and public realm areas. The Loading Dock has been
discretely removed from the pedestrian streetscape and public realm and overlooks to the docks will
be mitigated through a combination of grading and landscape elements. The Patient Transfer Area is
not visible from the main pedestrian and vehicular routes, ensuring dignity and privacy for those using
this entrance. The Sally Port entrance is strategically located below grade and is accessed via an access
road along the eastern edge of the site ensuring no views from any public area. It should be noted
that, while no transit vehicles (buses) are anticipated to access the site, the principal drive leading to
the main entrance is designed to accommodate this type of vehicle. Moreover, a 6m wide, perimeter
access way has also been provided on all sides of the Facility. This access way is designed to
accommodate a fire truck and encourage patient, visitor and staff use. Finally, a connection to the
Heritage Lands has been made at Gable Lane.
Reminiscent of the heritage buildings to the east, PCH will be a building set within the landscape
complete with a “formal” landscaped forecourt. With its critical mass nestled in the south western
quadrant of the site, the building is ideally orientated to maximize the potential for views to and from
the lake, as well as to the abundant landscaped open space on either side of the site. In addition, its
orientation will permit the Hospital to capitalize on the use of sunlight for exterior areas such as the
therapeutic gardens and for the purposes of providing day lighting within the building while
minimizing exposure to extremes in solar gain and glare to any one area. The more private areas of the
hospital such as the In-patient towers, their associated neighbourhoods and therapeutic gardens are
configured along the southern edges of the site, capitalizing on benefits of potential for sunlight while
minimizing sightlines to and from major public zones. Moreover, the Forensics program is located
along eastern edge of the site, further removing this area from the potential for overlooks to and from
highly active public areas such as those that can be found in Lake Ontario Park.
mtbarch.com
46
Exhibit C
Figure 9 Aerial view from south looking north
Figure 10 Pedestrian view from Lake Ontario looking north
Figure 11 Forensics secure court
Figure 12 Main Entrance
11
Beechgrove
Cultural Heritage Landscape
"Rockwood"
All visual material on this page by Parkin/Adamson
47
mtbarch.com
Figure 13 Site plan
PCH
(formerly Westwood)
Exhibit C
7
SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES
7.1.
Overall Conservation Objectives
12
The current conservation objectives are well stated as it relates to the subject property in previously complete
Heritage Impact Studies and Conservation Guideline Documents which stated:
Modern hospital (Westwood) zone: REDEVELOPMENT (unrestricted other than height limits and other
locational and massing boundaries, as described in the current master plan/block plan urban design
guidelines)
Lying the west of the Cultural Heritage Landscape, the redevelopment lands play a secondary role to perceived
value of the Cultural Heritage Landscape. As such the redevelop should be designed to maintain and/or enhance
heritage value. It is with this in mind that site development criteria were develop to guide future development in
the BRAY report (2011).
7.2.
Site Development Criteria
The goal of the site development criteria were to guide development in a manner that is sympathetic to the
heritage value of the Cultural Heritage Landscape. These criteria indicated new development within the former
Westwood Complex site should generally respect the existing site boundaries and inward orientation. While the
BRAY recommendations, which restate and expand on the Smith recommendations for developing the lands within
the entire complex, they can be applied to the redevelopment in question, with varying levels of applicability. The
most pertinent recommendation are included below as criteria to evaluate the ability of the proposed
redevelopment to respond the heritage character of the Cultural Heritage Landscape.









48
mtbarch.com


Approach the site holistically, as a cultural landscape, emphasizing the inter-relationship of the component
parts.
Areas of greatest development potential flank this zone, on the sites and in the vicinity of the 20th century
building complexes (Westwood and Beechgrove)
The original Picturesque design intent of the central zone should be respected in future development
planning, especially as it pertains to access to the main groupings of buildings within this zone (Smith
proposes a revised entry sequence that merits serious consideration).
New development should follow the existing configuration of buildings oriented internally, away from King
Street and the waterfront.
The rolling topography of the site should be respected, with grading kept to a minimum and new
development sited on high ground.
Development outside of the core zone should introduce new plantings that continue the park-like setting
of the core, with specimen tree plantings and an open understorey.
Views between existing buildings, views of the lake, and panoramic views across the site from King Street
should be preserved.
Any redevelopment of the property must also consider the story of mental health care in Ontario (at least
through interpretation of this theme).
The site was designed to be a self-contained operation, set apart from the city, reliant largely on its own
resources for food, light, heat and power, and with outside supplies delivered by water (coal dock) as well
as by road: this implies that future development might consider infrastructure that is not completely
reliant on municipal services.
The site was also related functionally to adjacent farmlands to the west and north, and to the east to
Portsmouth Village, thus suggesting opportunities for future physical links and operational partnerships.
The buildings are placed in the landscape, thus giving the landscape a powerful role in establishing the
site’s character, and giving the site visual “porosity”: this restricts the amount of buildable space
available within the core of the site but provides strong cues for building and landscape design in the
block plans for the west and east parcels.
Exhibit C
7.3.
13
Recommended Landscape Land Uses
The 2011 Master Plan for the Kingston Provincial Campus indentified the subject property as "hospital block" use.
The Integrated Team proposal for the Providence Care property maintains the current hospital institutional use
and as such is sympathetic was the recommended uses provided in the HIS. Furthermore it is consistent with the
proposal evaluated in the ERA HIS (2012).
7.3.1. Conservation Criteria for Individual Heritage Resources
Criteria provided by the BRAY report (2011) for individual heritage resources directly affected by the proposed
redevelopment include the following:
Gazebo
Current Use/Location: Landscape element Westwood Complex, lawn to the northeast of the Main Entry
Original/Former Location: all signs indicate that this was part of the 1870's campaign to beautify the grounds; it
2
was formerly located on the parterre below the villa.
Conservation Recommendations: The gazebo should be returned to its original site as a landscape component.
Figure 14 Current gazebo (square) relative to original
location (circle) (in Jennifer McKendry (2010))
Julian Smith, Conservation Plan, Kingston Psychiatric Hospital Complex, Kingston Ontario (Ontario Realty
Corporation (now Infrastructure Ontario), 2008), 66
49
mtbarch.com
2
Exhibit C
8
14
IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Integrated Team proposal for the Providence Care Hospital includes the redevelopment of the existing Providence
Lands in a manner which generally supports the ongoing conservation and rehabilitation of the Cultural Heritage
Landscape which includes the Rockwood Asylum and Villa and its associated landscape grounds.
The placement, massing and circulation associated with the proposed redevelopment are in keeping with the park-like
setting of the adjacent Cultural Heritage Landscape while maintaining the self-contained nature of the overall site's
three identified component pieces. The proposal in question is also largely in keeping with the HOK proposal, which
was subject of the ERA HIS (2012) with modifications to the orientation and massing to better protect the
distinctiveness of the Cultural Heritage Landscape. While largely successful, a series of mitigative measures are
provided under Section 9 Opportunities for Mitigation, below. This assessment evaluates the effectiveness of the
Integrated Team proposal vis-a-vis the Site Development Criteria in section 6.2 above.
Response
Proposed development respects the park-like setting of
the of the overall complex maintaining. Circulation is
provided to enhance the entry of the CHL.
The proposed development is located within the
boundaries of the Hospital Zone in the 2012 HIS.
The rolling topography of the site should be
respected, with grading kept to a minimum, and new
development sited on high ground.
6.
Development outside of the core zone should
introduce new plantings that continue the park-like
setting of the core, with specimen tree plantings and
an open understorey.
7.
Views between existing buildings, views of the lake,
and panoramic views across the site from King Street
should be preserved.
Any redevelopment of the property must also
consider the story of mental health care in Ontario (at
least through interpretation of this theme).
The site was designed to be a self-contained
operation, set apart from the city, reliant largely on
The proposed development takes advantage of views
towards Lake Ontario from patient rooms, while not
impacting views from King Street towards the CHL.
The proposed development is a further evolution of
approaches to mental health and long term care
institutional facilities.
The proposed development is designed as a selfcontained structure that features both patient rooms, an
8.
9.
50
mtbarch.com
5.
The siting, landscape strategy and parking location are
compatible with the Heritage Character of the CHL. By
providing access to the winding road through the Heritage
Core Area visitors to the Rockwood Asylum are provided
with a more inclusive processional experience when
arriving at the CHL.
The proposed development is sited well back from King
Street, while its porous southern edge rests within the
high ground maintaining the buffer discussed in the 2012
HIS
The proposed development occupies the high ground.
Grade differences over the site are addressed largely
using soft landscaping which is distinguishable, but in
keeping with the rolling topography found throughout the
complex.
Landscaping within the proposed development functions
as an integral element recognizing the benefits of access
to the outdoors for patient care. Landscaping also
mitigates the monotony of the parking areas.
Site Development Criteria
1. Approach the site holistically, as a cultural landscape,
emphasizing the inter-relationship of the component
parts.
2. Areas of greatest development potential flank this
zone, on the sites and in the vicinity of the 20th
century building complexes (Westwood and
Beechgrove)
3. The original Picturesque design intent of the central
zone should be respected in future development
planning, especially as it pertains to access to the
main groupings of buildings within this zone (Smith
proposes a revised entry sequence that merits
serious consideration).
4. New development should follow the existing
configuration of buildings oriented internally, away
from King Street and the waterfront.
Exhibit C
its own resources for food, light, heat and power, and
with outside supplies delivered by water (coal dock)
as well as by road: this implies that future
development might consider infrastructure that is not
completely reliant on municipal services.
10. The site was also related functionally to adjacent
farmlands to the west and north, and to the east to
Portsmouth Village, thus suggesting opportunities for
future physical links and operational partnerships.
11. The buildings are placed in the landscape, thus giving
the landscape a powerful role in establishing the
site’s character, and giving the site visual “porosity”:
this restricts the amount of buildable space available
within the core of the site but provides strong cues
for building and landscape design in the block plans
for the west and east parcels.
8.1.
15
array of service and support spaces and direct access to
the outdoors with various degrees of supervision.
The siting of the proposed development maintains the
possibility for enhanced connections to green and
amenity spaces located adjacent to complex as discussed
in the 2011 HIS. New landscaped trails within the
development are directly connected to existing trails
leading from adjacent properties. The hospital's primary
entrance remains KPH drive.
The massing and arrangement of the proposed
development invites the landscape into the overall spatial
composition using a number of strategies including
contained interior courtyards, controlled upper level
terraces and very large openings between portions of the
development which are landscaped to by distinct while
providing visual continuity from the landscape beyond.
Impact on Individual Heritage Resources
The gazebo was identified as the single heritage character element affected by the redevelopment proposal. Originally,
this elements was located between the Rockwood Villa and Asylum, but was relocated to its current position north of
the current Providence Care Hospital entrance. Given the proposed redevelopment, it is not desirable to maintain the
gazebo in this location.
51
mtbarch.com
Figure 15 PCH with new gazebo location noted
We agree with the assessment provided by the 2012 HIS that the gazebo should be Restored to the historic images of
the structure documented in Jennifer McKendry’s architectural history of the Kingston Provincial Campus (p119-121).
Furthermore, while the preferred approach would be to return the gazebo to its original location, use is an important
consideration when considering the most appropriate location. The proposed development integrates the gazebo
within the "Spiritual Care Courtyard". This is an appropriate location as it allows the gazebo to function similar to its
original function and be used by a greater number of people. Given the elemental nature of the gazebo opportunities
may exist to return it to its original location once the Rockwood Villa adaptive reuse and rehabilitation is completed.
Exhibit C
9
16
ADDITIONAL STUDIES REQUIRED
No additional studies are anticipated to be required at this time.
10
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MITIGATION
A. Increase landscaping density around service structure at the eastern edge of the property or relocate these
structures away from KPH Drive. The goal is to minimize visual impact on procession to core Heritage Area.
B. Increase landscape density, in keeping with the density of the historic core, where KPH Drive and Estates Lane
come in close contact with each other.
C. Recommend that the various stakeholders for the overall Kingston Provincial Campus grounds find consensus
on best means to protect/enhance the approach experience associated with the Cultural Heritage Landscape
(Rockwood). Associated measures are considered to be outside the scope of the current project, nevertheless
they are worthy of mention to reiterate the aims of the 2008 Conservation Plan:
a. Close Hospital Road through the north greenspace portion of the core Historic complex and
reintegrate with adjacent greenspace;
b. Reopen diagonal winding road (running northeast/southwest) through the north portion of the
historic core. Adjust eastern extent to connect with Heakes Lane at Beechgrove Lane;
c. Provide comprehensive interpretive program within the Cultural Heritage Landscape.
D. Install signage and wayfinding appropriate to locations within the current project (PCH) that clearly articulates
the various portions of the Cultural Heritage Landscape at access points leading from KPH Drive. This signage
should be developed as part of a larger interpretive program. Larger interpretive program for the Cultural
Heritage Landscape (see C. above) is outside the scope of the current project, while this signage is considered
to be part of the current project (PCH).
52
mtbarch.com
Figure 16 Site plan illustrating selected areas for Opportunities for Mitigation
B
A
Exhibit C
11
17
PRECEDENCE & LIMITATIONS
On a project-by-project basis, heritage conservation planning must consider related planning issues and broader
Municipal objectives in order to be relevant and effective. When the design of a proposed development is
evaluated, its merits are found by examining a matrix of elements and considerations. This evaluation is nontransferable on a “pick and choose” basis to another future development which may want to utilize some
attributes, but not others.
Planning issues beyond this specific mandate will be dealt with separately. Heritage planning is an overall
component part of community planning.
12
CONCLUSION
The proposed development occupies a site which is located immediately west of the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital
Complex Cultural Heritage Landscape (Provincially-recognized); however its site contains only one small structure
(gazebo) associated with the Cultural Heritage Landscape. As such the focus of this HIS is on the impact of the
proposed development on the adjacent property.
The proposed phased demolition and construction of a new Providence Care Hospital is in keeping with the
preferred master site plan (2011) and the building concept (2012). It is generally supportive of the Cultural
Heritage Landscape's heritage character, occupying a site similar to the current Providence Care Hospital and
remaining within the high ground within the complex. The massing, scale and porosity of the proposed structure
are sympathetic to the existing heritage structures providing opportunities for landscape integration; recognizing
its benefits in patient treatment and breaking down the development's scale.
The new integrated healthcare facility maintains the site's use lineage, offering a physical manifestation of a
further evolution in healthcare treatment. At the same time, the placement does not restrict the opportunities for
CHL to be adaptively reused.
mtbarch.com
53
Exhibit C
18
A
APPENDIX: PROPOSED RE-DEVELOPMENT VISUAL
DOCUMENTATION
Figure 17 Aerial view
from north looking
south
Figure 18 Aerial view
from west looking east
mtbarch.com
54
Exhibit C
19
Figure 19 View of
typical terrace court
(CCC-SGS)
Figure 20 View of
Lightwell
mtbarch.com
55
Exhibit C
20
Figure 21 Exterior Elevations
56
mtbarch.com
All Visual Documentation in Appendix A provided by Adamson Associates Architects and Parkin Architects. Other visual
material included in main HIS document.
Figure 22 Building sections with typical facade material arrangements
Exhibit C
21
B
APPENDIX: CULTURAL LANDSCAPE SIGNIFICANCE:
STATEMENT
Prepared By: Julian Smith, Included with Heritage Assessment of ORC Mental Health and Developmental
Services Facilities N00723 Kingston Psychiatric Hospital: Site-specific Report September 2004
Level of Significance: Kingston Asylum Zone: Provincial
Description of the Historic Place
The Kingston Asylum Cultural Landscape covers about 50 hectares of land from King Street on the north to the
shore of Lake Ontario on the south. The site includes the following buildings and their associated grounds: Beech
Grove Infirmary (B11136); Leahurst Nurses’ Residence (B11137); Rockwood Villa (B11139); Greenhouse (B18696)
and Greenhouse Storage (B11138); Rockwood Asylum Building (B11128); Ward 9 and Recreation Hall (B11129);
Paintshop (B17924); Workshop (B11133); Paintshop (B17924); Boiler House and Well Shop (B18697); Root House
(B18698); Industrial Building (B11132); South Cottage (B11135); and the Horse Stables (B11140). The drive and
lawns from Rockwood Villa to King Street are included within the boundaries of the cultural landscape.
Character-Defining Elements
The key elements that relate to the heritage value of the Rockwood Asylum Cultural Landscape are found in:
 the overall organization of the site around the Rockwood Villa and the Rockwood Asylum; the buildings
located within the cultural landscape
 the purposeful arrangement of buildings as extensions and additions to the function of the main asylum
building

landscape elements and circulation patterns that contribute to a better understanding of everyday life at the
asylum for patients and staff and the pre-asylum era of Rockwood Villa
57
mtbarch.com
Overall Arrangement
 the overall arrangement of the site with Rockwood Villa at the middle of the site facing King Street and the
Rockwood Asylum located near the lake facing King Street
 the winding drive extending from King Street to Rockwood Villa
 the organization of circulation patterns to maintain a purposeful distinction between the Rockwood
Residence, used as the residence of the superintendent, and the Rockwood Asylum complex
 the orientation of service buildings towards the lake, which was the primary transportation route until the
early 20 th century
 the location of buildings in proximity to the main asylum building according to the function of the building
Heritage Value of the Historic Place
The Kingston Asylum Cultural Landscape represents, in its setting and in its collection of individual architectural
and landscape resources, key ideas about the care and treatment of individuals with mental illnesses and
conditions in Ontario from the mid-19 th to the mid-20 th century. It contains Rockwood Villa, an historic building
of provincial value that is also connected to mental health history, as well as the Rockwood Asylum, the oldest
extant building of its type in Canada. All of the structures and grounds, including extensions to the main asylum
complex and outbuildings such as the Industrial Building and Workshop, were constructed to address the
treatment and care of patients. In their construction with the help of patient labour, the buildings and grounds also
provide insight into the extent to which political and social views aligned with medical theory in mental health
care. The cultural landscape is also of particular interest as a cultural artefact because its history is welldocumented in surviving written and visual records. In addition, the Kingston Asylum Cultural Landscape is an
intact example of a large, pre-Confederation public work, with a landmark building created by William Coverdale, a
leading architect of the period. Lastly, in its remarkable scale and in the quality of its design and construction, the
Kingston Asylum Cultural Landscape reflects Kingston’s importance as one of Canada’s leading government and
administrative centres in the mid 19 th century.
Exhibit C


22
the tightly arranged complex of additions and outbuildings on the lake side of the asylum, that, from the
shore, illustrate the extent to which the asylum was a community within a community
views from the asylum to its sister institution, the Kingston Penitentiary.
Buildings and Landscape Elements
 surviving buildings, all of which were erected for purposes related to the site’s history as a private residence
and as a mental health hospital, including: Beech Grove Infirmary (B11136), Nurses’ Residence, Leahurst
(B11137), Rockwood Villa (B11139), Greenhouse (B18696) and Greenhouse Storage (B11138), Rockwood
Asylum Building (B11128), Ward 9 and Recreation Hall (B11129), Paintshop (B17924), Workshop (B11133),
Boiler House and Well Shop (B18697), Root House (B18698), Industrial Building (B11132), South Cottage
(B11135), and the Horse Stables (B11140)
 the consistent use of limestone in the construction of asylum buildings, including outbuildings such as the
Horse Stables
 the continuation of the Italianate Revival detailing of the main asylum building in the design of additions and
associated buildings, including the South Cottage and the Grove Infirmary
 the survival of special-purpose buildings, such as the Nurses’ Residence, the Grove Infirmary, the Recreation
Complex and the Workshop, each of which was an integral component in an ideal 19 th-century asylum
complex
 the transparency of the picturesque landscape, with an almost-complete lack of shrubberies, in keeping with
the need for staff to control patient activities on the grounds
 the McLeod Basin, a fountain designed and built by a patient in 1894
 extensive plantings established in the 19th century, include mature specimen trees.
Summary of Archaeological Potential
 Based on this study, several recommendations have been formulated. The key recommendations are as
follows:
 It is recommended that if any future archaeological assessments are required within the property they be
carried out as early as possible in the planning process. That would enable the results to better inform any
decisions with respect to the future disposition of the lands in question. If significant archaeological sites are
discovered, the timely implementation of the survey would also help ensure that mitigation by preservation
rather than salvage excavation was a viable option.
 It is further recommended that any future archaeological investigations that may be carried out within the
property be conducted by a licenced archaeological consultant, and that they be conducted in accordance
with current archaeological guidelines of the Ontario Ministry of Culture.
 To date, no detailed archival research has been carried out on the history of land ownership for the property.
In the event that any future severance or development should be considered for the property, it is
recommended that archival research be carried out. That would provide useful information on the history of
settlement and ownership in those lands.
 Finally, in the event that any portion of the property should be subject to future severance, it is recommended
that the Ontario Realty Corporation follow whatever current protocols that may apply to the proposed land
transfer at the time.
mtbarch.com
58
Exhibit C
23
C
APPENDIX: EXCERPTS OF N00723 – KINGSTON
PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL SITE-SPECIFIC REPORT (2004)
Prepared By: Julian Smith & Associates with Contentworks Inc. Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect D.R. Poulton &
Associates
Today, the following three zones are legible on the site:
1. the Rockwood area, which includes the circulation paths and grounds of the Rockwood Villa, the Rockwood
Asylum complex, and the outbuildings to the east of the Rockwood Asylum;
2. the modern hospital zone, anchored by the 1958 facility located on a slight rise of land to the west of the
Rockwood area; and
3. the 1970s Beechgrove complex, located in the northeast corner of the property.
The first zone, the most mature and intact, is the picturesque landscape that provides the setting for the original
early 19 th century Rockwood Villa and the large, mid 19 th century Rockwood Asylum complex. This part of the
site also includes a number of later outbuildings, most dating to the late 19 th century and the early years of the 20
th century. The main building and a number of the outbuildings are vacant; some, including the villa, have been
adapted for ongoing use. This part of the site has the most varied topography, a rolling picturesque landscape
sloping down to the lake. It also has the most impressive mature trees and other plant material, and a number of
features such as fountains, greenhouses, steps, and pathways related to the early evolution of the site. The original
curved driveway approach is no longer accessible from King Street.
The second zone is the previous farmland in the northwest corner of the site, adjacent to Highway 2, which was
converted in the 1950s to a relatively formal and simple setting for a modernist-style psychiatric facility. This is a
relatively low-scale complex of simple interconnected pavilions. It still functions as a mental health care facility.
The landscape is mostly lawn, with circulation and parking areas and a well-marked entrance drive. There are
relatively few trees or other mature landscape features.
P 10: more recent mental health complexes developed on site in the 1950s and 1970s read as separate facilities
because they are separated from the core area and shorter in height than the Rockwood building. They have
developed their own access and circulation patterns, which are relatively independent of the original site
organization
p.12 Following Buildings are of Heritage Interest:
Rockwood House (B11139) was municipally designated under Part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act on July 7, 1978. In
addition, the building is protected by the Cultural Heritage Protocol Agreement between the Ministry of Tourism,
Culture & Recreation and the Management Board Secretariat (Ontario Realty Corporation). Ten other buildings are
also protected by this agreement. They are: Bowling Green Hut (B11143); Beech Grove Infirmary (B11136); Boiler
House & Weld Shop (B18697); Paint Shop (B17924) and Vehicle Garage (B11140); Ongwanada – workshop
(B11133); Ongwanada-South Cottage (B11135); Ongwanada–Industrial Building; Green house (B18696) & Green
house Storage (B11138) and Ongwanada-Rockwood Bldg (B11128)
59
mtbarch.com
P.12: March 2004, the Kingston Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) passed a motion that “the designation of a
historical property known as the former Kingston Psychiatric Hospital be initiated, including the buildings known as
The third zone is the previous farmland in the northeast corner of the site, converted to a functional setting for the
1970s children’s psychiatric facility, Beechgrove. This facility no longer serves a mental health function; it has been
adapted for other community uses. The buildings are low-rise and the site is somewhat lower in elevation, with
extensive parking lots and utilitarian roadways.
Exhibit C
24
Asylum, South Cottage, Beechgrove, and Leahurst, features such as the gazebo, the fountain and the staircase,
and the lands, which provide a setting for the buildings and features.”
p.13 Landscape: The landscape is suffering from reduced levels of maintenance, particularly with the vacancies in
many of the Rockwood-era buildings. However, the major features of both the plantings and the hard landscape
have survived. Early features such as the stone stairs and greenhouse complex behind the Villa are still in place, as
are installations related to the Asylum period. The various historic circulation patterns are relatively legible,
although the oldest access road has been cut off.
p.17 Conservation Guidelines
Recommended mode of intervention
Rockwood zone: REHABILITATION within scope of conservation guidelines
Modern hospital zone: REDEVELOPMENT (unrestricted other than possible height limits)
Beechgrove zone: REDEVELOPMENT (unrestricted other than possible height limits)
Use existing paved areas for parking - if requirements are extensive, consider partial use of areas of site designated
as being of no significance (1950s hospital zone and Beechgrove zone).
p.17 Site and setting
Reopen historic road access as primary site entry to core area. Provide visual screening of any redevelopment on
adjacent parcels, through use of appropriate landscape buffers.
mtbarch.com
60
Exhibit C
25
D APPENDIX: EXCERPTS OF CONSERVATION
KINGSTON PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL COMPLEX, KINGSTON, ONTARIO
Prepared by: Julian Smith & Associates Architects with Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect, Fern Mackenzie and
Sandy Smallwood, Andrex Holdings
Pg. 3 The following are the primary findings and recommendations:
Overall
 The Kingston Psychiatric Hospital site lends itself to a cultural landscape approach to conservation. The
buildings and the landscape are intimately connected. Development initiatives are more likely to be successful
if they build on this interrelationship.
 The boundaries of the cultural landscape heritage zone set out in 2004 have been reviewed, and re-confirmed.
This zone is the focus of the present study.
 Successful redevelopment of the site needs to start at the centre and radiate outwards. This has been the
pattern since the creation of the original Rockwood Villa in 1841.
 Within this pattern of redevelopment, the least amount of change to the historic architecture and landscape
will occur at the core. The Penrose Building, the Rockwood Villa, and some of the smaller adjacent stone
buildings and their adjacent landscapes will remain relatively intact. Some infill may occur within the cultural
landscape heritage zone to the east.
 The greatest amount of change is likely to occur at the perimeter of the site, in the large Providence Care and
Beechcroft sites to the northwest and northeast. These areas have independent access to King Street, and can
be redeveloped either in conjunction with the core, or separately. The only restrictions are compatibility of
access patterns, land use, and massing.
61
mtbarch.com
Infill
 The area immediately east of the Penrose Building, and north of the Laundry Building, is a logical area for infill
if required to satisfy programming requirements
 The area could be redeveloped as a convention facility in conjunction with possible redevelopment of the
Penrose Building as a hotel. There is also the possibility of developing connections in this area between this
site and Portsmouth Village.
 For redevelopment or infill of the areas outside the heritage zone - the Providence Care facility site and the
Beechcroft site - the use and the building locations and massing should be compatible with the redevelopment
of the core.
Landscape
 The key landscape zones are to the north, west and east of the historic core.
 The landscape area to the north, stretching to King Street, has been the arrival zone since the original layout of
the site in the 1840s. It follows the welldeveloped principles of picturesque landscape design from the 18 th
and early 19 th Centuries, with a curved approach drive and mature plantings. It should once again become
the arrival zone for the core buildings.
 The landscape area to the west, stretching to Lake Ontario Park, is the most dramatic parkland area on site in
terms of topography and mature plantings. It should remain as a key parkland setting for the major limestone
buildings of the core, connecting the site to the Lake Ontario shore.
 The landscape area to the east is the most flexible for infill buildings or other development. However, it must
be carefully managed to reinforce the quality of the core, particularly the Penrose building.
 The access patterns throughout the cultural landscape heritage zone need to be adjusted to more clearly
reflect the original design intentions. The layering of the site should be more strongly expressed, with one
loop serving the Rockwood Villa, one loop serving the Penrose Building, and one loop serving the extensions
and outbuildings by the shore.
 The plantings can be maintained and developed to reinforce these subareas within the heritage zone.
Exhibit C
26
Pg. 34 RECOMMENDATIONS
Policy and Development It is suggested that the best way to deal with the historical significance of the site, the
high level of public interest, and the possibility for multiple uses and overlapping tenancies, is to design a
development strategy based on continuing ORC ownership. Partnerships could be developed through long-term
leases and other mechanisms. An alternative strategy is to work jointly with other parties to work out a long-term
development framework, and then to turn the site over to a public or public-private agency or foundation or
partnership.
The problem with a complete transfer of all or part of the site to private development interests is that their initial
requirement would be development of the open lands to possibly finance work on the historic structures. This
would lead to an uncertain future for the entire property, and would be difficult to match with public interest and
investment in the site.
The development plan needs to have buy-in from both the immediate neighbours - Lake Ontario Park to the west,
Portsmouth Village to the east and northeast, St. Lawrence College to the northwest – but also more generally
from the City of Kingston, the Kingston Economic Development Corporation, and neighbouring institutions such as
Queen’s University. The Cultural Heritage Resources portion (Section 7) of Kingston’s Official Plan contains overall
direction on treatment of cultural resources within the City, and specific guidelines on the Kingston Psychiatric
Hospital site. It is City of Kingston policy that the Rockwood Asylum Cultural Heritage Landscape identified in the
2004 study will be protected in any proposed development or site alteration.
These constraints are as much positive as negative. The City of Kingston is recognized for the richness of its
cultural resources, and in particular for the 19 th Century institutional complexes that gave the city its character. It
is more progressive than most Canadian cities in melding cultural resource management into overall planning and
development strategies. There will be considerable municipal and popular support for development strategies
that demonstrate such an approach.
Potential infill zones
The site plan indicates possible areas for infill. Within the designated cultural landscape zone, these areas are
limited by the existing architectural and landscape qualities of the site. They occur primarily to the east of the
central historic complex, where compatible uses might exist in support of adaptive reuse of the existing buildings.
Design of new facilities in this area would need to be carefully controlled to provide a distinct but sympathetic and
secondary presence.
The area on the plateau south of the existing psychiatric hospital facility could also absorb some carefully-designed
infill. Elsewhere, the areas outside the cultural landscape zone can be fully redeveloped, although there would be
limits on height and massing.
There have been discussions at the Kingston Economic Development Commission and elsewhere about the relative
merit of public or private ownership of properties such as the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital site. Many of the major
institutional landscapes in Kingston are in public hands – whether hospitals, defence establishments, colleges or
universities. There is an interest in seeing private sector involvement to support the residential, commercial and
tourism industries. At the same time, there is a recognition that public access and public enjoyment of key land
parcels is often easier when there is some form of public or semi-public ownership. In the case of the Kingston
Psychiatric Hospital site, it would seem that a public-private partnership might address this issue and allow a
variety of land uses and tenancies.
mtbarch.com
62
Exhibit C
27
E APPENDIX: CITY OF KINGSTON HERITAGE IMPACT
STATEMENT REQUIREMENTS
A Heritage Impact Statement is a required study to be submitted for development proposals where there is the
potential to impact to protected heritage properties. This could be the result of development or site alteration on
the property itself or on adjacent properties.
This document will identify how the cultural heritage significance of a protected heritage property will be affected
by the proposed works. This document should be prepared by a heritage professional (i.e. member of Canadian
Association of Heritage Professionals).
The authority for the Heritage Impact Statement is derived from the Ontario Heritage Act, Section 2(d) of the
Planning Act, and Section 2.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.
63
mtbarch.com
Heritage Impact Statement Requirements
The Heritage Impact Statement should include the following basic information:
a. Present owner contact information for property proposed for development.
b. Property description and documentation of cultural heritage resources on or adjacent (both sides of the
street) to the site including :
i. current photographs, from each elevation, and/or measured drawings.
ii. a location plan with indications of existing heritage resources, on or adjacent to the subject property, at
an appropriate scale.
iii. historical photos, drawings, or other archival material that may be available or relevant.
c. Statement of significance of the culture heritage resources on or adjacent to the subject property (historical,
architectural, contextual) drawing on either the Designation By-law or any relevant legal agreement.
d. Heritage assessment of the subject property’s existing conditions.
e. A brief outline of the proposed development and its context focusing on how it will impact the heritage
resources on or adjacent to the site.
i. This outline should address such issues as setbacks, massing, the relationship to built heritage features,
and recommended building materials. Conceptual drawings, including proposed materials, should be
included where appropriate.
ii. This outline should also address the influence of the development on the setting, character, and use of
lands in this part of Kingston including how activities -- such as deliveries, parking and pedestrian flow -may change and outline the potential impact of these changes
f. Summary of conservation objectives for recognized cultural heritage resources on or adjacent to the site,
including how retained historical elements or properties will be protected during any construction/demolition.
(See also the National Parks Service document Preservation Tech Notes: Protecting a Historic Structure during
Adjacent Construction. available online)
i. This summary should include a discussion of conservation principles to be used. Conservation principles
can be found within the following documents: Parks Canada - Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available online); Mark Fram - Well Preserved: The Ontario
Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation; Ministry of
Culture (Ontario) - Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (available online);
and Public Works Canada - Canada’s Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office Code of Practice (available
online).
g. The extent to which any proposed demolition represents a loss of culture heritage significance and its impact
on the streetscape and sense of place.
h. The ability of the proposed development to reinstate or enhance the cultural heritage value of the site.
i. Identification of additional studies required and how their recommendations are incorporated into the
schedule of work (i.e., a Bracing Plan for façade retention, archaeological assessment).
j. The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Statement.
Exhibit C
i.
28
The Statement should also include references for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted
during the study and referenced in the report.
Form revised: May 5, 2010
mtbarch.com
64
Exhibit C
29
F APPENDIX: PROVINCE OF ONTARIO CULTURAL HERITAGE
AND ARCHAEOLOGY POLICIES (2005) 2.6
Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plan for Heritage
Resources in the Land Use Planning Process
Heritage impact assessments and conservation plans as conditions of development and site alteration
With regard to cultural heritage and archaeological resources, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 issued under
the authority of the Planning Act defines “conserved” as “the identification, protection, use and/or management of
cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and
Integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment.”
To conserve a cultural heritage resource, a municipality or approval authority may require a heritage impact
assessment and/or a conservation plan to guide the approval, modification, or denial of a proposed development
or site alteration that affects a cultural heritage resource. To ensure implementation of a conservation plan, a
municipality may require an owner to post a letter of credit, bond or certified cheque as
Part of the development approval process.
This applies to all properties or geographic areas containing cultural heritage resources that are significant or
“valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a
people.” (PPS, 2005). Properties and geographic areas include: all listed, inventoried, mapped heritage properties
by local, provincial or federal jurisdiction(s); protected heritage property(s); newly identified cultural heritage sites
which may need further evaluation; and areas that can be identified as having known archaeological sites or
archaeological potential.
Using tools such as heritage impact assessments and conservation plans, municipalities and approval authorities
can further enhance their own heritage preservation objectives.
A conservation plan (or equivalent study) is a document that details how a cultural heritage resource can be
conserved. The conservation plan may be supplemental to a heritage impact assessment, but it is typically a
separate document. The recommendations of the plan should include descriptions of repairs, stabilization and
preservation activities as well as long term conservation, monitoring and maintenance measures.
What is the content of a heritage impact assessment?
A heritage impact assessment generally contains, but is not limited to the following information:
65
mtbarch.com
1. Historical Research, Site Analysis and Evaluation
If the available identification and description of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage
resource are inadequate for the purposes of the heritage impact assessment, or the cultural heritage resource is
newly identified, research, site survey and analysis, and evaluation are required. An explanation of the
A heritage impact assessment (or equivalent study) is a study to determine if any cultural heritage resources
(including those previously identified and those found as part of the site assessment) or in any areas of
archaeological potential, are impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration. It can also
demonstrate how the cultural heritage resource will be conserved in the context of redevelopment or site
alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development or site alteration approaches may be
recommended. For archaeological assessments, fieldwork must be undertaken by licensed professional
archaeologists in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act and its regulations. (refer to InfoSheet #3 entitled
Archaeological Resources and Areas of Archaeological Potential).
Exhibit C
30
methodology used must accompany a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the significance and heritage
attributes of the cultural heritage resource.
2. Identification of the Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Cultural Heritage Resource
This is usually a summary of the cultural heritage value or interest and the heritage attributes contained in a
heritage property municipal designation bylaw, heritage conservation easement agreement, or other listings. This
summary should clearly articulate the cultural heritage value or interest and heritage attributes of the heritage
resource. If the property is not a protected heritage property but is listed or is newly identified and may possess
heritage significance, statements of cultural heritage value or interest and the heritage attributes should still be
developed.
3. Description of the Proposed Development or Site Alteration
This description details the rationale and purpose for the development or site alteration, the proposed works and
graphical layout, and how the development or site alteration fits with the objectives of the municipality or
approval authority.
4. Measurement of Development or Site Alteration Impact
Any impact (direct or indirect, physical or aesthetic) of the proposed development or site alteration on a cultural
heritage resource must be identified. The effectiveness of any proposed conservation or mitigative or avoidance
measures must be evaluated on the basis of established principles, standards and guidelines for heritage
conservation.
5. Consideration of Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Methods
Where an impact on a cultural heritage resource is identified, and the proposed conservation or mitigative
measures including avoidance, are considered ineffective, other conservation or mitigative measures, or
alternative development or site alteration approaches must be recommended.
7. Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations
This is a description of:
• the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource;
• the identification of any impact that the proposed development will have on the cultural heritage resource;
• an explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration
approaches are recommended to minimize or avoid any impact on the cultural heritage resource;
• if applicable, clarification of why some conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site
alteration approaches are not appropriate.
6. Implementation and Monitoring
This is a schedule and reporting structure for implementing the recommended conservation or mitigative or
avoidance measures, and monitoring the cultural heritage resource as the development or site alteration
progresses.
mtbarch.com
66
Exhibit C
31
G APPENDIX: AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS
MTBA MARK THOMPSON BRANDT ARCHITECT & ASSOCIATES INC.
Heritage & Places of Significance
MTBA’s expertise in heritage development issues spans the full spectrum from Heritage Conservation District
(HCD) Studies, to Cultural Heritage Impact Statements (CHIS) to adaptive reuse, to advising on developing within
heritage environments or with heritage structures, to suit an existing context. MTBA has high level expertise in
heritage value and heritage intervention evaluations for sites considered to be places of significance.
Community & Consensus
MTBA works within both the planning and architectural environments, to most effectively deliver projects which
have a more complex nature, such as challenges with zoning or public relations or technical conservation. Working
creatively with property owners and developers, municipal and provincial heritage and planning professionals,
with community and special-interest groups, and a broad array of stakeholders, MTBA uses wide experience
facilitating workshops and design charrettes on both sides of development issues. MTBA have gained a reputation
as leading community & urban conservation experts in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec, including building
and community sustainability.
Summary of Relevant Cultural Heritage Impact Statements
MTBA: Mark Thompson Brandt Architect & Associates have complete numerous Cultural Heritage Impact
Statements or similar documents including the following:




1003 Prince of Wales Drive, Ottawa, ON
233 Armstrong Street, Ottawa, ON
453 Bank Street Proposed Mixed Use Development (with Contentworks), Ottawa, ON
233 Armstrong Proposed Mixed Use Development, Ottawa, ON
186 Frontenac Street Residential Addition, Kingston
Central Experimental Farm, National Historic Site, Building 50, Heritage Value Survey and Alterations
Review, Ottawa, ON
72 Crichton Street Residential Addition, Ottawa, ON
174 Bolton Street Multi-unit Residential Development, Ottawa, ON
Purdy's Mill Multi-unit Residential Development within close proximity to National Historic Site, Kingston,
ON
Barriefield HCD, Kingston, ON
Expertise
Mark Brandt, Senior Conservation Architect, OAA, RAIC, LEED AP BD&C, CAHP, APT, is a registered professional
Architect, Urbanist and Conservation Consultant with over 30 years of experience in these fields. Brandt has been
called as an expert witness for both the Ontario Conservation Review Board and the Ontario Municipal Board.
Clients from a range of both private and public sectors, such as Government of Canada, National Capital
Commission, municipalities, school boards, real estate developers, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and many others,
appreciate the broad expertise that Brandt and the Team at MTBA brings to a project, including natural and
cultural conservation.
67
mtbarch.com
Brandt earned Bachelor of Architecture and Bachelor of Environmental Design Science degrees from Dalhousie
University, Halifax. He completed a joint Dalhousie/University of Waterloo research thesis in architecture and
urban design at Rome, Italy (1981) and has undertaken postgraduate studies in Architectural Restoration and
Conservation with Dalhousie (1997). After eight years working as an Intern/Associate Architect, Mark completed






Exhibit C
32
over 14 years as a Partner in Thompson Brandt Architects, before evolving it into the sole proprietorship MTBA in
2003, to focus mainly on urban infill, adaptive reuse and conservation-related projects.
Mark has been Chair of the City of Ottawa Heritage Advisory Committee (LACAC) and a professor of Architectural
Design in the School of Advanced Technology at Algonquin College, Ottawa. He sits on the Boards of the
Association for Preservation Technology International (Co-Chair, Technical Committee for Sustainable
Preservation) and the Canadian Green Building Council Ottawa Region (Chair, Existing Buildings Committee). He is
a former Board Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and the Algonquin College
Architecture Advisory Committee, was awarded the Ontario Conservation Achievement Award and is Past
President of HODI Historic Ottawa Developments Inc, among many other professional and community positions
and awards.
Staff
The Firm runs a staff of seven people dedicated to all of our wide-ranging projects from technical analysis to
community design. We work at the nexus of natural & cultural conservation and specialize in the magic that occurs
when new meets old. Associate, Chris Warden, Intermediate Conservation Architect, Intern Architect, RAIC, LEED
AP BD&C has 6 years of experience at all levels of technical, design and research activities.
mtbarch.com
68
Exhibit C
33
H APPENDIX: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Reports
Bray Heritage and McKendry, Jennifer. Kingston Psychiatric Hospital, Kingston Provincial Campus Master Plan
Heritage Impact Statement. Toronto: Ontario Realty Corporation (IO), 2012.
ERA Architects. Providence Care Hospital Updated Master Plan Heritage Impact Statement. Kingston: Providence
Continuing Care, 2012
PlanningAlliance et al. Kingston Provincial Campus, Master Plan + Block Plan Report. Toronto: Ontario Realty
Corporation (IO), 012
Smith, Julian et al. Conservation Plan, Kingston Psychiatric Hospital Complex, Kingston, Ontario. Toronto: Ontario
Realty Corporation (IO), 2008.
Smith, Julian et al. Heritage Assessment of ORC Mental Health and Developmental Services Facilities N00723 –
Kingston Psychiatric Hospital Site-Specific Report. Toronto: Ontario Realty Corporation (IO), 2004.
Drawings/Renderings
Provided by Parkin Architects Limited and Adamson Associates Architects dated June 27, 2013 (Final RFP
Submission)
mtbarch.com
69

City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

Transcription

Similar documents

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

Xero House

enREDo International Design Network

For Adding to the World Heritage List

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Work on

Sustainable management of the World Heritage Site, Bryggen.

From: Lee Sexsmith [mailto:hecubuspg@telus

family matters summer 2016 - Heritage Family Credit Union

Summary Yesterday today

Scottish Natural Heritage Dualchas Nàdair na h-Alba