city of kingston - municipal heritage committee agenda

19
Corporation of :he City ot KIIl gslor1 Heritage & Urban Design DIvIsion Pi anning & Develc pr nent Depart rnent Sustalnability and Growth Heri tag e & Urban Design Div ision 216 Ontario Street Kingst or Ontario K7L 22 3 Phone 61 3-546-429 1 Ext 184 4 Fax 6 13-542-9965 ' •. _1 Where h istory and innovation t hriv e RECEIVED I APPLICATION FOR A HERITAGE PERMIT UNDER T HE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT MA j 1 2 2013 T he accuracy and completeness of this application will assist staff in processi QFKINGSTON your application in a timely manner. DATE FILED: APPLICATION: - 2013 The undersigned hereby applies for a Heritage Permit pursuant to Section 33/34 and 42 of the Ont81io Heritage Act, RS O 1990, c.18 for alteration or demolit ion as described in this ap plication . 1. NAME OF OWNER r; Ok ST 0 'J t t:;-JG.e1l L I-f 0 s frrAL ADDRESS OF OWNER 7/" 5-r(/fJl1 -r f-r POSTAL CODE J( IL 2V7 EMAIL: "" < Iv s ki u. e k?>k . lear l 11<'+ 10 &1.,1. TELEPHONE NO: )( (. CELL NO: 013 - 328 - {. H'i EMAIL: M <- I 'J $ k, "- e 1<.:3 h _ kc ",,- 2. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: CIVIC ADDRESS 7 fo -r ,; ri d. l' S'T. LOT NO. and REGISTERED PLAN NO. \ e·_ /, die J' I .Ad"'" / t ,"" ASS ES SMENT ROLL NO, ______________________ __ 3, NAME OF AG ENT (I F AN Y) Lil/« 6 te ;j 1 L It> v litl LnJ. ADDRESS" OJ j "liN.> ON }) 1. J r-/-;- POSTAL CODE ,--7 L 2B £ 3-,- .. '----.3313 TELEPHONE NO . . __ ___ ._CELL NO. EMAIL .rlG ,_0>,-, 80

Upload: others

Post on 01-Oct-2021

6 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

T ~lE Corporation of :he City ot KIIl gslor1 Heritage & Urban Design DIvIsion

Pianning & Develcprnent Departrnent Susta lnability and Growth

Heritag e & Urban Design Div ision 216 Ontario Stree t

Kingstor Ontario K7L 223 Phone 61 3-546-429 1 Ext 1844

Fax 6 13-542-9965 ' •. _1 ~

Where history and innovation thrive RECEIVED I

APPLICATION FOR A HERITAGE PERMIT UNDER THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

MAj 1 2 2013

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ The accuracy and completeness of this application will assist staff in processi QFKINGSTON your application in a timely manner.

DATE FILED: M~.~~ 12,201 ~ APPLICATION: l>\!i'- ~~5-0Z'i - 2013 The undersigned hereby applies for a Heritage Permit pursuant to Section 33/34 and 42 of the Ont81io Heritage Act, RSO 1990, c.18 for alteration or demolit ion as described in this application .

1. NAME OF OWNER r; Ok ST 0 'J t t:;-JG.e1l L I-f 0 s frrAL

ADDRESS OF OWNER 7/" 5-r(/fJl1 -r f-r

POSTAL CODE J( IL 2V7 EMAIL : "" < Iv s ki u. e k?>k . lear l 11<'+ 10 i\-sA~ - &1.,1.

TELEPHONE NO: )( ~L"I (. CELL NO: 013 - 328 - {. H'i EMAIL: M <- I 'J $ k, "- e 1<.:3 h _ kc",,- ~ -e.+

2. LOCATION OF PROPERTY:

CIVIC ADDRESS 7 fo ~ -r,; rid. l' S'T. LOT NO. and REGISTERED PLAN NO. \ e·_ ~.+j-. /, die J' I .Ad"'" / t ,"" ASSES SMENT ROLL NO, ______________________ __

3, NAME OF AG ENT (I F ANY) Lil/« 6te ;j 1 L It> v litl ,~CJ LnJ. ~

ADDRESS" OJ j "liN.> ON }) 1 . J r-/-;-

POSTAL CODE ,--7 L 2B £ ~ 3-,- .. '----.3313

TELEPHONE NO . . __ ~ ___ ._CELL NO.

EMAIL .rlG b':'_'~'-'._._\-"j' ,_0>,-,

80

Page 2: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

Notice of Collection: Persona l informat ion, as defined by the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) , is col lected on this application under the authority of the Planning Act, R. S.O. 1990, and in accordance w ith MFIPPA. The persona l information w il l be used to assist in making a decision on this matter. All names , addresses, opinions and comments w ill be made available for public d isclosure. Quest ions regarding this collect ion should be forvvarded to the Di rector , Planning & Development Department, City of Kingston, 21 6 Ontario Street, Kingston , Ontar io, K7L 2Z3, te lephone (61 3) 546-4291 , Ext.3252.

4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE UNDERTAKEN

/("'f I",c~ e.. ~ i\ ?i (lj ""'oJ. >v, dM n o " +~ " ,de "t I~( \.J,,1-k.~, ~i~j or r. IJ./i.

Description of w ork attached e The Bu ilding is: v'" existing

Request is to: L al ter

5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION

_ proposed

dem olis h remove

The writer must provide a complete written description of all work to be approved. This description should complement photos , drawings, detailed construction plans, and any other sketches submitted with the application. Please complete the description on any standard 8 112 x 11 paper, either by computer or other means, but in any case in a legible manner and attached to the application.

6. CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SKETCH PLANS, SCALE DRAWINGS Alon g w ith construction drawings and scale drawings . the applicant may also (but not in liell of) submit a sketch of any alte rations made over a photo or free hand Please note this is a requirement of the Heritage approval process and may not be required by other City of Kingston approval agencies

Drawings to sca le ind icating the existing build in g must inclu de: 1 overall dimensions ; 2. specific sizes of build ing elements (signs windows. awnings etc. l 3. detail information including tri rn , sid ing, mold ings. etc, including

sizes and profiles 4 electricallmechanical lnformatlo l) . If applicable 5 materials to be used (these must also be included in ttle writtf:rl

description of the proj ,~ctl hut shu..J ld be noted on dl']v{ings to i[x itc3te their location a rld construction methods and means of attachm8nt (tilese mllst 1)1;7

inclLlded in the w ritten descnpticr ")f n': E: prOI(:;;;;t)

81

Page 3: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

7. PHOTOGRAPHS Photographs of the build ing inclLJd ing general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, the facing streetscape, and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the spec ific areas-that may be affected by the pro posed change or alteration must be included ,

8. PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assis tance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect. architectural technologist. preservation specialist. or others fami liar with the unique requirements of designated heritage build ings.

9. BUILDING CODES AN D BY-LAWS It is the applicant's respons ibil ity to add ress issues relating to public safety and correct building practices and by-law regulations.

10. OTHER APPLICATIONS Do you have any cgncurrent applications (i.e. Committee of Adjustment)? YES_ NO_V_

If YES, Please List

11 . DECLARATION:

I (we) the undersigned solemnly decla re that ali of the statements contained in Ihis applicalion for (property description/ address) 710 S f'v/i re- y S7 and all the supporting documents are true, and I (we), make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and complete, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath , by vi rtue of the CANADA EVIDENCE ACT. I agree to allow the Corporation ollhe Clly of K ingslon. ils employees and agents to en ter upon the subject land for the purpose of conduclm9.~e mspecllon as may be necessary 10 process Ihis application

~E O~ SIGNATURE OF AGENT fI [( , McLvi<ie.

Please pr int name legibly

j MPrtl. '-If 2. 0 13 Date

Please print name legibly

Date If the appIICa;liJ'l I~ signEd t .. y .?I ll agent the owner S ,,,,nnE n ClLlttlOriZatkln for Ult> !gent 10 ad must accon :pan'/ this 3ppllcatior'

82

Page 4: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

To Be Completed By City Staff

DESIGNA TED PROPERTY ~r LISTED PROPERTY DESIGNATING BY-LAW NO. 8~ - 27.5 · 87 -17'1

NO NO

Property Listing in Buildings of Architectural and Historical Significance VOLUME: V I PAGE NO· 236·2.3>8

HERITAGE DISTRICT ____ ________ _

Staff Date

83

Page 5: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

I KINGSTON GE NERAL HOSP ITAL

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR KI~GSTON GENERAL HOS I'ITAL

All and singular lilal cert' lin parcel or tracl of land and premises, situate lying and being in the

Province of On t tl ri o and in the City of Kingston. comprising all of AbSlr<lcl Block "D" in 5.1iJ City

us luid oul on Fann Lot 24 in Concession I (fomlcriy Kingston Towll!.hip) SA VE AND EXCEPT

PA RT 1 011 REFERENCE PLAN No. 13 R 6751 by David T. Humphries. Ontario Land SlITycyor,

dmed the 18th April 1986. and SAVE AND EXCEPT PA RT I on REFERENCE PLAN No. 13 R

6752 b) David T. Humphries. Ontario Land Surveyor, da ted the 16111 April 1986, which said Plans

were deposited in the Land Registry Division of Frontenac (No. 13) on the 24th April 1986, which

said plans [ann a part of this legal descri pt ion .

84

Page 6: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

TO: Chair, Members and Clerk, MHC FROM: Shirley Bailey, Manager, Heritage and Urban Design APPLICATIONS: P18-355-024-2013 LOCATION: 76 Stuart Street DEEMED COMPLETE: March 14, 2013 DATE OF MEETING: April 8, 2013 90 DAY EXPIRY DATE: June 16, 2013

SUBJECT: An ‘Application for Alteration under the Ontario Heritage Act’ – Application

P18-355-024-2013 requesting approval of alterations at 76 Stuart Street to replace the existing windows on the north side of the original 1835 building and Watkins Wing addition of Kingston General Hospital.

THAT it be recommended to Council that alterations to a designated property at 76 Stuart Street BE APPROVED in accordance with details described in Application P18-355-024-2013 which was deemed complete on March 14, 2013, with said alterations to

RECOMMENDATION:

1. replace the existing windows on the north/ Stuart Street side of the original 1835 building and the Watkins Wing addition of Kingston General Hospital; and

THAT the approval be subject to the following condition:

i. That the window replacement be completed in accordance with the City’s ‘Policy on Window Renovations in Heritage Buildings’.

PROPOSAL

:

The application consists of a proposal to replace the existing windows, which were installed in the 1930s, on the north/ Stuart Street side of the original 1835 building and the 1862 Watkins Wing addition of Kingston General Hospital with new aluminum units. The reason the applicant is proposing this material is because of the overall cost, longer life expectancy, ease of maintenance and superior thermal performance. The units have a low profile that is very similar to the existing units, with glass dimensions reduced by one half inch at each edge. The applicant provided a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) dated March 2013, prepared by Bray Heritage, in support of this application (distributed separately to the Committee). The HIS recommends that the windows on the north facade be replaced with the proposed new aluminum units.

REPORT TO MUNICIPAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE

85

Page 7: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

76 Stuart Street of the Kingston General Hospital (KGH) was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1984 by By-law 84-275 and 100 Stuart Street of the Kingston General Hospital was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1987 by By-law 81-179. KG H is also a National Historic Site; information on the National Historic Site designation will be distributed separately. The buildings included in the National Historic Site designation are the original hospital building (Main Building, 1833-5) and its two lateral wings (The Watkins Wing, 1862 and the Nickel Wing, 1890-1), the Fenwick Operating Theatre (1895), the Doran Building (1892-4), the Ann Baillie Building (1903-4) and the Empire Wing (1914; 1924-4).

REASONS FOR DESIGNATION:

The Reasons for Designation read as follows:

The Central original section of Thomas Rogers' hospital building 1833-35, now a National Historic Site, served as the Parliament Building from 1841-1843, and since 1845 has been the Kingston Hospital. 100 Stuart: Built about 1869 for James Richardson, this red brick dwelling was given to his granddaughter Eva, wife of Thomas Ashmore Kidd, who was MLA, speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario 1930-34 and in 1945 was elected to the House of Commons. The hip roofed, square, symmetrical dwelling has a central front gable rising from the projections which contains the entrance.

COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES AND BUSINESS UNITS:

Building:

No objections. A permit application is not required where no structural alterations are proposed.

Property Standards: No comments received.

Engineering: No comments received.

Environment: No comments received.

Fire & Rescue: No objections.

Built Heritage: On August 8

Planning and Development Department:

th, 2011 an application including the replacement of the North and South façade of the Watkins Wing was considered by the Municipal Heritage Committee. The committee did not approve the north façade windows replacement and a request to defer the matter for consideration of new information was requested by the agent for the applicant. The motion at the following meeting included the condition that “it be understood that the north façade windows will not be replaced”. The application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. An application was submitted in 2012

86

Page 8: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

(P18-355-029-2012) for alterations to the south facing windows. This application was approved on June 5, 2012.

The windows on this building are not listed as heritage attributes, nor are they noted as part of the reasons for designation. According to the City’s ‘Policy on Window Renovations in Heritage Buildings’, “Where a window is not a Period Window on a Protected Heritage Property … its replacement should be considered.” The Window Policy goes on to state that replacement windows, in this situation, “should be designed to replicate a Period Window”, however the policy does not require it. The proposed window replacement will maintain the same glazing pattern and colour scheme as the existing windows. The new windows propose to replicate the existing windows quite closely, which have existed for the past 80 years, while also improving their thermal performance and functionality. Staff have no objection to this proposal.

CONCLUSION:

That the OHA application P18-355-024-2013 should be approved, subject to the necessary conditions, as there are no objections from a perspective of built heritage and no concerns have been noted by the relevant internal departments.

87

Page 9: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

MARCH 2013

l l)o 51""-7 Sf

Pi'f;- ")5)

Kingston General Hospital:

Watkins Wing Window Upgrade Project (North Facade)

HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT

PREPARED FOR, PREPARED BY:

Kingston General Hospital BRAY Heritage

with :

Shoal Is & Zoback Architects LId.

88

Page 10: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

2 Heritage Value .........•••••..•••.•....•..••..................................................................................... 1

2.1 Heritage Significance .................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Heritage Impact Statement (2007) .......................................................................................... 3

3 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................................•...•... 4

4 Policy Context ......... ............................................................................................................ 6

5 Options Considered ........................................................................................................... 7

6 Proposed Intervention ....................................................................................................... 7

7 Conservation/ Mitigation Strategy ................................................................................. 9

8 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 9

89

Page 11: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to seek the City's approval for the replacement of the existing windows on the norlh face of the Watkins

Wing of Kingston General Hospital. The following report is on update of

the Heritage Impact Statement prepared by my firm for the Kingston

General Hospita l Moster Pion (2008·2026), dated May, 2007. The report also summarizes subsequent correspondence with the City and the Kingston Municipal Heritage Cornmi«ee and a pre-consultation report

prepared by my firm.

In the inTerim, Ihe Hospital hos received permisSion from Ihe City to

replace the windows on the south face of the Watkins Wing, and this

alteration hos been compleTed. The Hospital is now applying to undertake

the some process for the norlh face, using the some repla cement aluminum double g lozed, sash window unit. The reasons for the replacement a re similar to those given for replacement of the south windows, namely:

• The existing wooden windows ore deteriorating·

• The existing combination of wooden sashes and aluminum storms does not provide a sufficient therma l seal and does not meet KGH standards for thermal e fficiency

In the context of conside ring life cycle costs for window operation and maintenance, the Hospital needs to consider replacement of the existing units.

2 Heritage Value 2.1 Heritage Significance

The following text is taken from the Bray Heritage pre-consultatioo report (20 11 ),

The Watkins Wing is the oldest part of the Kingston General Hospital (KGH) compieJC. It contains the original Main Building, constructed in '835 to the designs of architect Thomas Rogers, as well as what was originally called the Walkins Wing, constructed in 1862 to the designs of architect William Coverdol&, and subslontia"y redesigned and enlorgftd following a fire in J 897, to the designs of architect William Newlands.

The building has several heritage d&signotions. It is part of a Notionol Historic Site that includes the mo;ority of Kingston General Hospital's J9 f111

and early 20'" century buildings. Reasons for national designation are "lengthy a uociation with the origins 01 hospitals as inslihltions lor poor reliel in the pre-Confederation era" (HSMB January J 7, 1996).

• A condition assessment af the entire ho,piIQI, ""bmilted in November, 2010 by VFA Inc. at BaIlon, MA concluded in ils ellHulrve wmmory (p. 5) thai lne uilting uteriOl' windowi ...-ere 'o9f!d8 and ~beyOfld useful ' ;'e~ ond recommended "prO<1ctive repJacemen/".

Watkins Wing: North Window Repklcement HIS Bray Heritage I Page 1

90

Page 12: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

Page 2 I Bray Heritage

It ;s also designated under Port IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. City of Kingston By.law No. 84·275 Clouse 4, Report 105 states the reaso ns for designation of "the original building on Stuort Street" as follows: "The central, original sedion of Thomos Rogers' hospital building J 833-35, now o Notional Historic Site, served as the Parliament Building from J 84 J and 1843, and since 1845 has been the Kingston Hospital."

WATKINS WING, NO~TH ElEVATION, CA. EARlY 20"' CENTURY

WATKINS WING, NORTH ELEVATION, CA.. 1940

Watkins Wing: North Window Replacement HIS

91

Page 13: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

WA TK.INS WING, CURRENT NORTH ElEVATION

8 I I

As for municipal reasons for designation, 0 pion al/oched fa the February,

1987 Planning Committee report dealing with further designations on the KGH site indicates that the designated portion of Watkins Wing includes not only the "original" Rogers' building but also the Watkins Wing and Fenwick Operating Theatre designed by Newlands. It is ossumed, therefore, that the wording of the designating by-low means thol #he Main Building and Watkins Wing both have municipal designations.

It is importont to note, however, that in neither cose do the national or

municipol reasont for designation include architectural significance but instead foc!)s on associations with previous ond continuing institvtionol uses

and, in the municipal designation, orchifed Rogers. Windows are nol

mentioned as heritage attributes/character de fining elements . As a result, o llerolions to lhe windows on lhe Walkins Wing will not affect lhe reasons far designation and do not impact the heritage attributes/character defining

elements.

2.2 Heritage Impact Statement (2007)

Broy Heritage and Jennifer McKendry prepared a Heritage Impact

Statement (HIS) for KGH in 2007. The HIS wos presented to the KMHC and approved.

The report covered all of Kingston General Hospital and provided

summar ies of the heritage significance and character defining elements of

each building. The HIS noted that the Wotkins W ing (including the Main Building) is the most historically significant of all the hospital buildings but thot only the facode and a small portion of the interior remain intoct following renovations conducted in the 20'" century, especially the

Watk ins Wing' Narth W indow Re placement HIS

8 I I

8ray Heritage I Poge 3

92

Page 14: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

Page 4 I Bray Heritage

comprehensive interior renovotion undertaken between 1929 ond J 93 1 in which most of the interior fabric was rep/aced and extra storeys added. A

combination of fires (especially the J 897 fire) and renovotions have altered or removed pre-20111 century fabric. The renovated entrance and lobby are sympathetic alterations to the building and, as such, have historic merit. The HIS evaluated the Watkins Wing original exterior (1835 and 1897) as "Excellent" and the renovated entrance and lobby as "Very Good".

The HIS recommended a conservation approoch thot preserved the original farode (including the full length windows and reor windows) and rehabilitated the remaining exterior and interior. This approach focuses on the remaining original or early portions of the Main Building and Watkins Wing.

The HIS noted the two large round-arched windows in the south wall of the entrance lobby, eoch with ornamental tracery muntins in the upper portion. These windows oppeor to be of on earlier design. They may not have been repJaced in the 1929-3 1 renovations and could dote to on earlier sfoge of the building's consfrudion, most likely the reconstrudion following the 1897 fire. These windows are certainly of herifoge value and meril retention and

repair.

However, they are not the subject of this application, which deols solely with the north face windows.

3 Existing Conditions The north face windows are 1/ 1 double hung sash wooden sash windows, with chrome steel hardware and aluminum or wooden storms. From historical research and site investigations, it appears that these window units would have been replacements for earlier windows, installed as port of renovations in the 1929-31 period. The wooden sil ls are generally free from rot and the wooden surrounds intact. The encasing stonework appears to be sound.

The window units are in fair condition but have lost their counterweights in most cases, making them difficult to raise and lower. They ore difficult to deon and o re single glozed and reliant on e:derior storms for thermal performance.

Watkins Wing: North Window Replacement HIS

93

Page 15: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

WATK.INS WING, NORTH ({(VATION, 1930S SHOP DRAWINGS SHOWING REPLACEMfNTOF THEN .lXISTlNG WINDOWS WITH CURRENT UNITS

JNTUIOR VIlW Of EX ISTING WINDOW UNIT

Walkins Wing: North Window Replacement HIS Bray Heritoge I Page 5

94

Page 16: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

Page 6 I Bray Heritage

4 Policy Context As slaled in Appendix A o f the City o f Kingston's Application for

Alteration of a Designated Property, Ihe KM HC "encourages the retention, repair and the rma l upgrade of original windows and doors in historic buildings". II is assumed ,ha l this would especially be the case in buildings where windows hod been identified as character defining

elements within the reasons for designation.

In the case of Ihe Walkins Wing, the municipal designating by-low gave

no architectural reasons for designation other 'han the association with

Thomas Rogers. Windows were nol mentioned. Similarly, Ihe Notional

Historic Site designation did not mention architectural features, including

windows.

As for the Oty's recently amended "Policy on Window Renovations in

Heritage Buildings" (Council-approved December 18, 2012), the policy

notes that "both original and appropriate replacement windows help

define a building 's character, integrity and cultural neritage value". It

specifies thot "where windows are identified as a Heritage Attribute, the

City of Kingston requires the retention o f Period Windows and

recommends they be repaired in accordance with this policy", In this

policy, "Period Windows" are defined as "original window{s) or those

replacement windows tho t ore historically and architecturally appropriate

10 the cultural her ilage value of Ihe building and property."

In the case of the Watkins Wing north face windows, they are not

identified as a heritage a llribute, and the policy makes cleor that

replacement windows are acceptable if they fit the heritage character of

the building. Since architectural cha racter is not a reason for designation

in this case, and since the existing windows are also replacement windows

tha t seem to fit the building's cha racter, their replacement with a similar

unit would appear to meet the intent of the policy. Also, if the existing

windows can be considered as "Period Windows", then the policy for

windows that are not heritage allributes on Protected Heritage Properties

can apply, wherein "the replacement window should be designed to

replicate the Period Window as closely as possible". The proposed

replacement windows do so (see Section 6, below).

WCltkins Wing: North Window Replacement HIS

95

Page 17: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

5 Options Considered The 2011 pre-consultation report initiolly recommended fibreglass

window units because of their superior life expectancy and thermol

performance. However, cost and the bulky surrounds of the proposed units were nol deemed acceptable by the KMHC and alternatives were

assessed. Slill at Ihe pre-consultation stage, on alternative approach of using aluminum-dad wooden windows was proposed in a leller from my

firm to Ihe City's heritage planner (August 4, 2011) but the Hospital did nof proceed with thai application. Since then, the Hospital discussed various options wi,h Ihe City and received agreement in principle 10

replace the soulh face windows. The Hospital then proceeded with a proposal call for window suppliers and contractors to propose

replacement units, and on aluminum double hung 1/1 unit was selected.

The Hospita l chose the aluminum window for its combination of

appearance, quality, ease of operation, and price.

6 Proposed Intervention The proposed alvminum replacement units were selected becavse of their

lower overall cost, longer life expectancy, ease of maintenance and

acceptable Ihermal performance. The units have a low profile that is very

close to that of the existing units, reducing the gloss dimensions at each

edge by only one half inch. They are also the some 1/ 1 configuration.

The vnit is a double glozed insulated window with frames that are

thermally broken, thus improving thermal performance.

The design of Ihe new units - with the top sash counterbalancing the lower

sash - is a simple mechonism that is easy to operate and allows insertion

of air conditioning units (the full length screens are detachable) as well as

allowing cleaning to be undertaken from inside of the building. Should the

Hospital decide in future to retrofit the building with on internal HVAC system, these window units will be suitable for that cooling system also.

In terms of air circulation, the new unit is a true dooble hung window that

provides ventilation at both top and bottom when the window is open.

With the limit to on opening of four inches (the OSC requirement), this

means that the new units provide twice the air flow as the existing

windows when opened to the some (maximum) amoont.

Replacement units for the existing full· length windows opening onto

balconies will be similar in appearance to those now in place, with the

horizontal members in the same locations. The bottom panel will be fixed

with on operable window unit installed above. The unit otherwise shore

Ihe some characteristics of materials and constrUCfioo as the rest of the

proposed replacement units.

Watkins W ing: Norlh Window Replacement HIS Sray Heritage I Poge 7

96

Page 18: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

-- .... II _J 1 L - - - - -

, I I II ]1 II I II U U U U U U U

[ --~ I I~ I

--'=: I~ q~ ~

~ " ~ - ~ --' Q I

I ~:-, I WATKINS WIN(;, PlJoN VIEW SHOWING fXTfNT OF WINDOW RfP1ACfMlNT

COMPARISON Of EXISTING W ITH PROPOSfD l/(ptACfMINr UNIT

Page 8 I Bray Heritage Walkins Wing: North Window Replacement HIS

97

Page 19: City of Kingston - Municipal Heritage Committee Agenda

7 Conservation/ Mitigation Strategy

Generally speaking, the existing window surrounds are in good condition

and will be conserved. The existing single g lazed double hung sashes will be removed and the units and hardwore salvaged, where feasible, for resole ond reuse e lsewhere. Insertion of the proposed units allows the

existing wooden frame to be relained ond only requires removal of the existing operable sashes. Most of the existing window assembly can remain, including Ihe sash weights (although Ihey wil l not be operable).

The replacement unit instoliotion process olso includes on air column

between the existing wood frame ond the new aluminum window, thus

allowing ony tropped moisture 10 drain away before i, con rol the frame

and damage Ihe slone surround.

8 Conclusions and Recommendations

The existing windows are not original and date from a major renovation

in the 19305. They are at 'he end of their useful life. Because they are

wooden units, they require maintenance approximately every five years

and are difficult to paint as well as clean and repair. They are single

g lazed and require exterior storms. In most cases, lhe sash weights are

broken, making the windows very difficult to open and close. Attempts to

repair the window assemblies must address the existing lead point on the

frames and, if repairs of the stooe surround ore needed, the likely

presence of asbestos there must also be dealt with.

The proposed replacement units offer superior performance, longevity

and cost-efficiency, with minimal Intervention in the ex isting building

fabric. They a re the same as the replacement unils thai have been

installed in the soulh face of the Watkins Wing where they have been

very successful in meeting the Hospital's needs while respecting Ihe

character of the existing building.

The recommendation of this report is to permit the replacement of the

existing windows on Ihe north face of the W atkins W ing with the

proposed new units.

Watkins Wing: North Window Repiclcemenl HIS Bray Heritage! Page 9

98