HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2017-12-05Heritage Kitchener
Agenda
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Office of the City Clerk
**HR Learning Room**
Kitchener City Hall
nd
(Second Floor - Note Room Change)
200 King St.W. - 2 Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
Page 1 Chair Ms. A. Reid Vice-Chair Mr. S. Hamoen
Delegations
-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum
of 5 minutes.
Item 1 - Vanessa Hicks, MHBC Planning
Item 2 - Maaike Asselbergs
Item 3 - Vaughn Bender, RBJ Schlegel Inc.
Discussion Items
1. CSD-17-098 - Heritage Permit Application - HPA-2017-V-035 (30 min)
- 51 David Street
- Construction of Six Storey Multi-Residential Building
A Heritage Impact Assessment has been submitted along with the HPA, which can
be viewed at the following website: www.kitchener.ca
2. CSD-17-101 - Heritage Permit Application - HPA-2017-V-036 (20 min)
- 22 Ahrens Street West
- Replacement of Front Stoop
3. CSD-17-103 - Notice of Intention to Demolish Portions of the Building (20 min)
- 1940 Fischer Hallman Road
4. Heritage Best Practices - Sub-Committee Updates (10 min)
- Open Forum
Information Items
Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet
Dianna Saunderson
Committee Administrator
** Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to
take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 **
REPORT TO:Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: December 5, 2017
SUBMITTED BY:Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning
519-741-2200, ext. 7648
PREPARED BY:Leon Bensason,Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
519-741-2200, ext. 7306
WARD(S) INVOLVED:Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT:October 19, 2017
REPORT NO.:CSD-17-098
SUBJECT:Heritage Permit Application HPA-2017-V-035
51 David Street
New Construction (Six Storey Multiple Residential Building)
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT pursuant to Section 42of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2017-V-035beapprovedto permit the construction of a sixstorey multiple
residential building on the property municipally addressed as 51 David Street, in
accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application
and subject to the following condition:
That the final building permitdrawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by
Heritage Planning staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
Location Map: 51 David Street
1 - 1
BACKGROUND:
The Community Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2017-V-
035. The applicant is seeking permission to construct a new six storey multiple residential
building at the property municipally addressed as 51 David Street.
Vacant Property at 51 David Street
REPORT:
The subject property is currently vacant and located on the east side of David Street between
Courtland Avenue West / Jubilee Drive and Joseph Street within the Victoria Park Area Heritage
Conservation District(VPHCD). The property previously housed two single detached dwellings
which were approved for demolition in 2014 after having fallen in extreme disrepair and
declared unsafe for occupancy. Currently, thewest side of the David Street is characterized by
linear plantings of mature trees on a slight rise of land adjacent Victoria Park, while the east side
of the street where the subject property is located, is dominated by multi-unit residential
developments.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 6 storey 30unit stepped-back multiple residential
ththth
building fronting David Street (being stepped back at the 4, 5and 6storeys). The building is
contemporary in design and uses a combination of metal and glazing materials of neutral tones.
1 - 2
Proposed New 6 Storey Multiple Residential Building
The Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan contains New Buildingpolicies in
establishing how development should conform to conservation principles and contribute to the
character of theVPHCD.
Public Realm:New buildings shall contribute to the public realm of Queen Street South, which
is perceived as an historic, gracious and tree-lined thoroughfare.
Pedestrian Scale:New building shall emphasize a human scale that creates a comfortable,
safe and livable streetscape. Ground floor uses which can animate and enliven the public street
are encouraged.
Design:Contemporary design of a high quality shall be achieved that iscomplementary to the
historic character of the area in terms of massing, materials and scale.
Location: New building shall be located to create streetscape continuity and pedestrian scale.
Density:Every effort shall be made to blend new high rise building with neighbouring low rise
residences. This could include varied building heights and elevations and the breaking up of the
building mass.
Height:Design treatments to lessen the perception of height in the new high rise development
shall be considered, such as façade setbacks, mansard roofs, gables and varying building
finishes and textures.
Materials:Materials typical of the historic area such as brick, shall be used.
Roofs:Roofs shall be designed to create an attractive skyline and screen roof equipment.
Windows:The appearance, placement and proportion of windows shall be complementary to
historic windows in the area, if possible.
1 - 3
Verandahs:Verandahs shall be incorporated, wherever possible, to continue an historic
tradition in the area.
Colours:Colours of paint and materials shall be complementary to the historic character of the
area.
Conservation: Policy applies to the integration of on-site historic buildings and is not
applicable.
Landscaping:Landscaping should enhance new building and the Queen Street South
streetscape. Landscaping should create continuity in the streetscape between adjacent
properties where possible. Plant material, where appropriate, should be used to soften building
size, mass and edges to maintain a human scale for pedestrians. Landscaping should screen
and buffer services areas, parking, open storage and other unsightly areas where required.
Landscaping should buffer high density buildings from low density where required.
Demolition: Policy applies to the removal of on-site historic buildings and is not applicable.
Heritage Impact Assessment
A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated July 2017 and prepared by MHBC Planning
consultants was undertaken to provide input to the submission of theHeritage Permit
Application as well a Site Plan application made in regardsto the proposed development. The
HIA served to evaluate the proposed development in terms of potential impacts to cultural
heritage resources located on-site and adjacent to the subject property, and to determine
whether the proposed development conforms to the policies of the VPHCD Plan. In regard to
the Site Plan application, the HIA concludes that the proposed development will not result in
adverse impacts to adjacent cultural heritage resources including the David Street streetscape;
and in regard to the Heritage Permit Application, that the development conforms to the policies
of the VPHCD Plan regarding new development. The HIA cites the following in supportofthe
latter conclusion:
The proposed new building will not obstruct or interrupt the existing character of the
David Street streetscape, and will frame views along the north and south along David
Street, which is currently occupied by contemporary residential development along the
east side of David Street.
The proposed design animates the streetscape at pedestrian level through a high quality
design which includes an emphasized stringcourse/horizontal canopy which separates
an entry door (to an interior amenity area / lounge) and garage door at street level from
the residential units above.
The design is complementary to the character of the streetscape as its scale and
massing is 6 storeys towards the interior of the lot, being stepped back after the third
storey. This is subordinate and complementary to the 4 storey multi-unit residential
building located to the north at 31-43 David Street and the 14 storey apartment building
located to the south (which provides an underground parking entrance fronting David
Street). The design of the proposed development effectively blends in the mixed
densities and building heights of the immediate area through the use of a stepped-back
roofline above the third storey and the use of various textures and fenestration, which
breaks up the vertical visual impact of the building.
1 - 4
The proposed design of windows, doors, balconies and other elements are
contemporary and are complementary to the character of the immediate area, which is
dominated by other contemporary multi-unit residential buildings of various time periods
th
of the 20
century.
The location of the subject property and its context adjacent other contemporary
buildings supports the use of contemporary building materialsincluding metalcladding,
steel and glazing and which will feature a neutral colour palette.
While the size of the lot restricts the space available for verandahs at street level, the
design incorporates 3 terraces / balconies above the third storey thereby animating the
David Street streetscape.
The new building proposes a 3 metrefront yard setback which is consistent with the
setbacks of the existing buildings located along the east side of David Street. The
property located at 31-43 David Street (north of the subject property) provides a setback
of 3.8 metres, while the underground parking entrance of the apartment building to the
south is setback 2.5 metres from David Street.
The proposed development includes a small low-lying landscaped area at the building’s
frontage, complementing the existing landscape along David Street.
The HIA was presented and discussed at the September 5, 2017 meeting of Heritage Kitchener.
While the HIA was generally favorably received, aconcern was expressed regarding the choice
of contemporary materials where the VPHCD Plan calls for more “traditional” materials such as
brick to be used in new construction.
The HIA was also submitted as supporting documentation to the Heritage Permit Application. An
excerpt from the HIA is attached to this reportwith the Heritage Permit Application, and the
complete HIA will be posted to the City’s website together with this staff report and agenda
ahead of the December 5, 2017 meeting of Heritage Kitchener.
Merits of the Application
In reviewing the VPHCD Plan, it is clear in the introduction to the New Buildingpolicies (see
Appendix ‘B’)that the Plan envisions that major new building may be expected along the Queen
Street South corridor. As such, the policies are weighted toward how new development shall
enhance the historic and civic character of Queen Street South, which is characterized by
examples of traditional historic development of varying type and density.
The subject property at 51 David Street and the east side of David Street between Courtland
Avenue West / Jubliee Drive and Joseph Street, do not share the same qualities and character
as the Queen Street South corridor within the heritage district. As has been noted, the subject
property is vacant, and the David Street streetscape in the area of the subject property is
th
dominated by late 20century multi-unit residential development, most of which is
contemporary in design and construction. The subject property is immediately surrounded by
surface parking or driveways, and unlike the Queen Street South corridor and other areas of the
heritage district, there is a lack of“historic” buildings in the area from which to draw influence.
1 - 5
Rendering of proposed development within context of the David Street streetscape.
In taking a strict interpretation of the VPHCD Plan, it could be statedthat the proposed
development meets most but not all of the New Buildingpolicies. One may argue that the
proposed building materials (metal and glazing rather than brick) and windows (contemporary
rather than historic in appearance) do not conform.Such view however, does notconsider the
perspective from which the New Building policies were written (focusedon Queen Street South)
and the context in which the new 6 storey building is proposed to be developed.
It is the opinion of staff that the siting, height, mass, scale, density and contemporary design of
the proposed 6 storey multiple building conform to the New Buildingpolicies of the District Plan.
Further, staff agree with the conclusions of the HIA that the subject property is locatedwithin a
context which supports the use of contemporary materials and window design, and a neutral
colour palette that complements the immediate streetscape. Specific features of note include:
The building height and mass will contribute to the public realm along David Street and
will not dominate the skyline when viewed from Victoria Park.
The stepback design and podium helps to achieve a pedestrian scale.
The setback and location creates streetscape continuity along DavidStreet.
The contemporary design and use of modern building materials is consistent with the
existing streetscape character.
The building design achieves a transition and gradual blending of building height and
density along the street.
The material colours are of a neutral and complementary tone.
It is staff’s conclusion that the proposed development conforms to the New Buildingpolicies of
the VPHCD Plan by contributing to the David Street context in a way which respects the
integrity of the VPHCD.
In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the
Ontario Heritage Actshall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of
Kitchener or legislation, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code
and Zoning By-law.
1 - 6
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City’s strategic vision
through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM - This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
Heritage Kitchener committee meeting.
CONSULT - Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit
Application.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
APPENDIX A:Heritage Permit Application HPA-2017-V-035 with excerpt from HIA for 51 David
Street dated July 2017 and prepared by MHBC Planning Consultants.
APPENDIX B:New Building Policies from the VPHCD Plan
1 - 7
1 - 8
1 - 9
1 - 10
1 - 11
1 - 12
1 - 13
1 - 14
1 - 15
1 - 16
1 - 17
1 - 18
1 - 19
1 - 20
1 - 21
1 - 22
1 - 23
REPORT TO:Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: December 5, 2017
SUBMITTED BY:Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning, 519-
741-2200 ext. 7648
Leon Bensason,Coordinator,Culturaleritage Planning
PREPARED BY:
519-741-2200 ext.7306
WARD(S) INVOLVED:Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT:November 8, 2017
REPORT NO.:CSD-17-101
SUBJECT:Heritage Permit Application HPA-2017-V-036
22 Ahrens Street West
Alteration (Replacement of Front Stoop)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT pursuant to Section 42of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2017-V-036be approvedto permit the replacement of the existing front stoop with a
new front stoopon the property municipally addressed as 22 Ahrens Street West, in
accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application
and subject to the following condition:
1.That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance
provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
Location Map: 22 Ahrens Street West
2 - 1
BACKGROUND:
The Community Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2017-V-
036requesting permission to replace the existing front door with a new door, and the existing
front stoopwith a new front stoopon the propertymunicipally addressed as 22 Ahrens Street
West.The subject property is located on the north side of Ahrens Street West between Young
Street and Queen Street North, within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation
District (CCNHCD). The CCNHCD Study and Plan rates the property as Group ‘A’ orof major
heritage significanceand describes the property as a 2 storey Italianate building built circa
1880.
22 Ahrens Street West – Front Elevation
Astoopis a common term used to describe a set of stairs leading to a platform or landing,
typically uncovered. It is a type of porch and is common in Italianate architecture. The CCNHCD
Plan establishes that porch / verandah replacement, removal or additionrequires a heritage
permit. The Plan also establishes that door replacements in existing openingsis permitted
without requiring a heritage permit. Therefore the proposed replacement of the front door does
not require heritage approval and will not be included in the consideration of the subject
Heritage Permit Application.
REPORT:
The existing front stoopmeasures approximately 6’-3” wide with a depth of 7’-5” and height of
2’-6.5”. The steps and landing are of poured concrete constructionandpainted a light grey to
match the paint on the front façade of the house. The guard and railing on the stoopis wrought
ironpainted black. The applicants advise that the stoopis in poor condition. The steps and floor
are worn, and the railings are rusted through beyond repair and are unsafe. While the applicants
have attempted to maintain and repair the stoopover several years, the open design of the
stoopand its exposure to the sun and elementspresents a maintenance challenge.
2 - 2
Existing Stoopat 22 Ahrens St. W.Deterioration of Floor
Deterioration of Wrought Iron Railing
Proposed New Front Stoop
The applicants propose to remove and replace the existing front stoop. The new stoopwould be
the same height as the existing, but would be slightly wider measuring 7’-1” (rather than 6’-3”) and
less deep at 6’-6.5” (rather than 7’-5”). The wider dimension would serve to better align the width of
the stoop and placement of the new railings with the existing decorative wooden door surround.
2 - 3
Side View of Proposed StoopDesign
Plan View of ProposedStoopDesign
Given concerns with ongoing maintenance related in part to the open design and exposure of the
stoop, the applicants propose to use primarily composite materials in the construction of the steps,
floor and railing system. Composite materials are produced by mixing ground wood particles and
heated thermoplasticresin or plastic fibres. The combination results in a product that can be made
2 - 4
to have the appearance of wood, but with greater resistance toheat and moisture damage.
Specifically, the applicants propose to use Azek (Timberteck brand) tongue and groove composite
floor boards for the stairs and landing. The floor boards would measure 1”x 3.25”, would be grey in
colour to match the house, and textured with a wood grainfinish.
Image of sample Aztek
composite floorboard.
The applicants also propose to use composite (Timberteck) materials in building part of the railing
system. As the Canadian Construction Materials Centre (CCMC) has yet to certify the use of
composite materials in the construction of railings and guards,the City of Kitchener Building
Division will only allow guards and railings to be constructed of composite materials where such
material is applied over a wood structural member. To address this, the applicants propose to use
the Timberteck RadianceRailsystem, which applies a composite sleeve and top handrail over
structural wood, andaluminum balusters fastened to a metal bottom rail. Balusters constructed
only of composite material is currently not permitted in Kitchener.
Detail image of sample RadianceRail
guard with composite end postand
handrail sleeve and aluminum
balusters.
2 - 5
Like the Azek floorboards, the RadianceRailcomposite materials will be textured to have the
appearance of wood, andtogether with the square aluminium balusters would be black in colour to
match other elements on the front façade of the house, including the window sills and shutters.
Dissatisfied with the appearance of the RadianceRailend post cap, the applicants propose to have
a custom wood cap made (painted black) to establish amore authentic appearance to the
components of the railing system.
CCNHCD Plan
The proposal to remove and replace the front stoop at 22 Ahrens Street West is considered to
be an alteration. The CCNHCD Plan provides the following guidelines in regard to making
alterations to the façade ofbuildings visible from the public realm.
Research the original style and appearance of the building to determine “authentic limits”
of restoration or alteration so that the appropriate style is maintained.
In the absence of historical data, use forensicevidence available from the building itself
to suggest appropriate restoration or alteration.
Seek similar properties (same age, same design, and same builder) for evidence of
details that may still exist as samples of reconstruction.
Avoid “new” materials and methods of construction if the original is still available.
Retain and restore heritage attributes wherever possible rather than replacing them,
particularly for features such as windows, doors, porches and decorative trim.
Where replacement of features (e.g.- doors, windows, trom) is unavoidable, the
replacement components should be of the same general style, size, proportions and
material whenever possible.
Incorporate similar building forms, materials, scale and design elements in the alteration
that exist on the original building.
Avoid concealing or irreversiblyaltering original heritage attributes of buildings, such as
entrances, windows, doors and decorative details when undertaking alterations.
If in doubt, use discretion and avoid irreversible changes to the basic structure.
Keep accurate photos and other records, and samples of original elements that have
been replaced.
Heritage Planning Staff Comments
In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following:
The existing front stoop is not original; is constructed in part with materials that are not
traditional in appearance (poured concrete); and is in disrepair.
The location, style and dimensions of the proposed stoop are consistent and compatible
with the Italianate design of the house.
2 - 6
While the guidelines for alterations in the CCNHCD Plan recommend avoiding “new”
materials and methods of construction if the original is still availablethe open design and
southern exposure of the front stoop presents a maintenance challenge. The composite
product proposed to be used is of a design which resembles painted wood and is
manufactured to resist deterioration, including heat and moisture damage.
Thevisual impact of using aluminium balusters should be muted given the short length of
the rail; the perpendicular orientation of the rail to the sidewalk/road; the thin profile of the
balusters; and their colour (black), which will match the rest of the railing system.
Given the small scale of the stoop, complementary design, and choice of materials
which will resemble painted wood; the proposed alteration will not impair or negatively
impact the integrity of the property, the character of the Ahrens StreetWest streetscape,
or the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District.
In accordance with the preceding comments, heritage planning staff supportthe application to alter
the front stoop on the property municipally addressed as 22 Ahrens Street West subject to the
standard conditionas provided in the report recommendation.The approval of an application under
the Ontario Heritage Actshall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of
Kitchener or legislation, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code
andKitchener’s Zoning By-law.In this regard, the applicant is advised that a buildingpermitis
required.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision
through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM - This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
Heritage Kitchener committee meeting.
CONSULT - Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit
Application.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
APPENDIX A:Heritage Permit Application HPA-2017-V-036
2 - 7
2 - 8
2 - 9
2 - 10
2 - 11
2 - 12
2 - 13
2 - 14
2 - 15
2 - 16
2 - 17
2 - 18
2 - 19
2 - 20
2 - 21
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: December 5, 2017
SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning
519-741-2200, ext. 7648
PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage & Policy Planner
519-741-2200 ext. 7839
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT: November 15, 2017
REPORT NO.: CSD-17-103
SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Demolish Portions of the Building
1940 Fischer Hallman Road
RECOMMENDATION:
That, in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the written Notice of
Intention to Demolish dated October 20, 2017 regarding the property municipally
addressed as 1940 Fischer Hallman Road, be received for information and that the notice
period run its course.
Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-07205(1940 Fischer Hallman Road) & Becker Heritage
House (Block 1, Stage 19)
3 - 1
BACKGROUND:
The Community Services Department is in receipt of aNotice of Intention to Demolishportions
of the building municipally addressed as 1940 Fischer Hallman Road, which islisted as a non-
designated property of cultural heritage value or intereston the Municipal Heritage Register.
1940 Fischer Hallman Road (including south porch)
REPORT
The building is a former farmhouse built circa 1870 in the Victorian Gothic style. The farmhouse
is located within the draft approved plan of subdivision 30T-07205, commonly referred to as
Becker Estates. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was submitted in 2008 and a
Conservation Plan (CP) was submitted in 2009 as part of the review of the proposed
subdivision. Both documents identify the farmhouse as a significant cultural heritage resource.
The HIA was discussed at the February 3, 2009 Heritage Kitchener committee meeting.
Work to develop the subdivision has not proceeded since sanitary servicing was not available
for the area. Services to the area are now imminent and the applicant has submitted an updated
Conservation Plan, which confirms how the building will be conserved in the short-term,
including the works required to facilitate future interim and permanent uses of the building. In
order to proceed with the proposed conservation works, certain structures and portions of the
building located at 1940 Fischer Hallman Road require demolition. In accordance with the
3 - 2
Ontario Heritage Act, the owner has submitted a formal notice of the intention to demolish these
structures and portions of building.
Ontario Heritage Act Provisions
Part IV, Section 27(3), of the Ontario Heritage Actprovides certain protections to properties
Listed as non-
Restriction on demolition, etc.
(3) If property included in the register under subsection (1.2) has not been designated under
section 29, the owner of the property shall not demolish or remove a building or structure on
the property or permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure unless the owner
to demolish or remove the building or structure or to permit the demolition or removal of the
building or structure.
In accordance with the Act, Council has 60 days from October 20, 2017 (date of receipt of the
Notice of Intention to Demolish), to act, if it so chooses, on this Notice of Intention to Demolish.
The 60 days provides Council with the time it requires to issue a Notice of Intention to Designate
the property as a means of preventing the demolitions.
Merits of Notice of Intention to Demolish
The former farmhouse is in near original condition with the exception of the south porch and the
th
north masonry/stucco addition. The south porch was altered in the mid-20 century and the
north addition was added circa 1950. Other exterior features of the farmhouse are in need of
repair or replacement, including the east porch and the west cellar entrance. The east porch
floor and roof have been altered and the wood posts, brackets and trim require replacement.
The west cellar entrance requires repair/replacement. The CP identifies a number of
conservation works that are required to rehabilitate and protect the building and its heritage
attributes. The conservation works include the proposed demolition of the south porch, north
addition, east porch and the west cellar entrance. In the immediate short-term, these
demolitions will facilitate: (1) the repair and replacement of exterior masonry and related works
such as the repair of the frieze and the replacement of the roof; and, (2) the repair of the stone
foundation and related works such as the installation of damp proofing and weeping tile.
North Addition (garage and wood shed)
3 - 3
East PorchWest Cellar Entrance
The Notice of Intention to demolish letter dated October 20, 2017 and prepared by Carson
Woods Architects Limited on behalf of the property owner , outlines the
following specific structures and portions of buildings as proposed to be demolished:
th
Demolish the south porch, which was altered in the mid-20 century. The HIA
recommends restoring to its original style. The CP recommends constructing a new
south porch with wood posts, brackets and trim that match the details of the original east
porch. The demolition will also facilitate work required to repair the exterior masonry
walls and the stone foundation.
Demolish the north addition, which was added circa 1950. The HIA recommends
demolishing to facilitate a future addition. Heritage Design Guidelines will be developed
to guide the location and design of a future addition. The demolition will also facilitate
work required to repair the exterior masonry walls and the stone foundation.
Demolish the east porch because the floor and roof have been altered and the wood
posts, brackets and trim require replacement. The CP recommends that the owner store
the wood posts, brackets and trim to facilitate the construction of a new east and south
porch with wood posts, brackets and trim that match the details of the original east
porch. The demolition will also facilitate work required to repair the exterior masonry
walls and the stone foundation.
Demolish the west cellar entrance, which requires repair/replacement. The CP
recommends that the entrance be rebuilt to match the existing. The demolition will also
facilitate work required to repair the exterior masonry walls and the stone foundation.
3 - 4
Under the Ontario Heritage ActNotice of
Intention to Demolish. Rather, the following:
1. request further information;
2. receive the Notice of Intention to Demolish, allowing the notice period to run its course,
at the end of which the Building Division may issue a demolition permit as early as
December 18, 2017; or
3. Council may issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, at which point Council would have
the authority to deny demolition.
In this case, Heritage Planning staff recommend Option #2 whereby Council receives for
information the Notice of Intention to Demolish and allows the notice period to run its course.
Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that no action to designate the property is warranted
at this time. The purpose of any heritage designation in this context would be to prevent the
demolition of the structures and portions of the building noted above. Preventing these
demolitions would frustrate the rehabilitation of the farmhouse, which has been vacant for years,
andis in need of repairs. It is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that these repairs must
proceed before/during the winter of 2017/2018 in order to maintain the integrity of the
farmhouse and prevent further deterioration. The owner has advised that they intend to proceed
and complete these repairs by the spring of 2018. The HIA and CP have confirmed that these
demolitions should proceed in order to rehabilitate the farmhouse. Original features such as the
wood posts, brackets and trim will be stored to facilitate the construction of a new south and
east porch. The HIA and CP have provided notes, drawings and photographs that document the
south porch, north addition, east porch and west cellar entrance.
The significant heritage attributes of the former farmhouse are being retained and conserved.
Conservation measures have been identified through the draft approved plan of subdivision to
ensure provincial, regional and municipal heritage policy and objectives are addressed.
Implementation of such conservation measures have and will be achieved through conditions of
the draft approved plan of subdivision. Addressing conservation objectives through the draft
approved plan of subdivision process and deferring a heritage designation to a time following
completion of the rehabilitation and development roach for other
subdivision projects.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM -
Heritage Kitchener committee meeting.
CONSULT - Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Notice of Intention to
Demolish.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
APPENDIX A: Notice of Intention to Demolish, dated October 20, 2017
3 - 5
October 20, 2017
Planning Division
City of Kitchener
PO Box 1118
Kitchener ON
N2G 4G7
Attention: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage & Policy Planner
Regarding: Notice of Intention to Alter and Demolish portions of the Becker House
located at 1940 Fisher-Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, 'listed' (non-
designated) on the City of Kitchener Heritage Register as per Section 27
of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Dear Ms. Drake,
Carson Woods Architects Limited is retained by the owner of the subject lands as
heritage consultant pursuant to the approved HIA dated October 24, 2008 and
Conservation Plan dated August 11, 2009.
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with notice in writing that the owner of the
subject lands intends to alter the building, which includes the demolition of some
features. Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act requires that the Council of a
municipality be given at least 60 days notice in writing of the intention to demolish as
follows:
Restriction on demolition, etc.
(3) If property included in the register under subsection (1.2) has not been
designated under section 29, the owner of the property shall not demolish
or remove a building or structure on the property or permit the
demolition or removal of the building or structure unless the owner gives
the council of the municipality at least 60 days notice in writing of the
owner's intention to demolish or remove the building or structure or to
permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure. 2006, c. 1 1,
Sched. B, s. 7 7 (2).
3 - 6
2
2
The purpose of the 60 days noticeis to give Council the appropriate time to consider the
requested demolition.
th
The stone farmhouse building has local cultural heritage value for the quality of its 19
Century Victorian Gothic architecture. However, the structure also includes a much
later and unsympathetic addition attached to it.
With the exception of some original east porch wood posts and decorative scroll work,
the proposed demolition will not adversely affect the heritage attributes as outlined in
the October 2008 HIA and subsequent 2009 Conservation Plan. The original wood
details at the east porch will be retained on site and used as a pattern for future
restoration of the east and south porches.
Please accept this letter on behalf of our client as formal Notice of Intention to
demolish portions of the building located on the subject lands as follows:
1.Demolish the unheated concrete block garage and attached shed on the
north side of the stone building.
2.On the west side, demolish the shed at the exterior Cellar door. This
wooden structure will be rebuilt to match the existing shed, on the
existing foundations, as part of later planned rehabilitation.
3.Demolish the east side porch and roof. Ensure that wooden porch posts
and decorative scroll work details are carefully removed and stored on
site.
4.Demolish c. 1940’s north porch, roof and brick piers.
5.Remove the T.V. antenna tower.
The purpose of demolishing these building elements is to expose the heritage stone
masonry for evaluation and restoration as part of needed and ongoing preservation
works.
It is our professional opinion that the proposed demolition is reasonable and can be
supported. The significant heritage attributes of the building will be retained and
potential adverse impacts, though minimal, can be mitigated. The proposed demolition
facilitates conservation of the heritage asset.
3 - 7
3 - 8
16-Oct-1716-Oct-1716-Oct-17
28-Aug-1725-Sep-1725-Sep-17
15-May-1715-May-17
28-Aug-17
Approved by Council
Dealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt
with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with
under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authority
WithdrawnWithdrawnWithdrawn
Dealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt
with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authorityDealt with under delegated approval authority
To be Considered at the December 5th HK MeetingTo be Considered at the December 5th HK Meeting
3-Oct-173-Oct-173-Oct-17
1-Aug-171-Aug-175-Sep-175-Sep-17
2-May-172-May-17
Waiting for info
Considered by Heritage Kitchener
Unanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous
Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous
Recommendation for ApprovalUnanimous Recommendation for Approval
Staff
Report #
CSD-17-020CSD-17-020CSD-17-021CSD-17-025CSD-17-025CSD-17-031CSD-17-043CSD-17-043CSD-17-056CSD-17-061CSD-17-067CSD-17-066CSD-17-077CSD-17-073CSD-17-078CSD-17-076CSD-17-085CSD-17-081CSD-17-086CSD-17-08
7CSD-17-088CSD-17-098CSD-17-101
Date
Jun 1/17
Mar 1/17Mar 3/17Mar 7/17
Jul 27/17Jul 27/17Jul 31/17
26-Jul-17
Apr 28/17
Jun 16/17Jun 23/17Jun 23/17Jun 20/17
Feb 24/17Feb 24/17Feb 24/17Mar 10/17Mar 21/17Mar 30/17Mar 29/17Mar 29/17
Nov 25/16Dec 29/1627-Jan-1727-Jan-1727-Jan-17
16-Aug-1711-Aug-1728-Aug-1724-Aug-17
Received
2017 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
4 Park St
44 Roy St
920 Orr Crt920 Orr Crt920 Orr Crt920 Orr Crt920 Orr Crt
51 David St
23 Henry St
20 Perth Rd
19 Roland St
37 King St W37 King St W
57 Heins Ave76 Heins Ave
37 Seneca Dr
14 Lorne Cres
195 Joseph St119 Joseph St163 Joseph St
32 Ahrens St W32 Ahrens St W22 Ahrens St W
64 Margaret Ave
176 Victoria St N176 Victoria St N
67 Schneider Ave45 Woodside Ave
128 Margaret Ave
399-411 Queen St S393-411 Queen St S
Property Address
59 Marianne Dorn Tr
1300 Doon Village Rd
330 Joseph Schoerg Cres
466, 474 and 484 Queen St S
Number
Application
HPA-2017-IV-001HPA-2017-IV-002HPA-2017-IV-003HPA-2017-IV-004HPA-2017-IV-005HPA-2017-IV-006HPA-2017-IV-007HPA-2017-V-008HPA-2017-V-009HPA-2017-V-010HPA-2017-V-011HPA-2017-V-012HPA-2017-V-013HPA-2017-V
-014HPA-2017-V-015HPA-2017-V-016HPA-2017-IV-017HPA-2017-IV-018HPA-2017-V-019HPA-2017-V-020HPA-2017-V-021HPA-2017-IV-022HPA-2017-IV-023HPA-2017-V-024HPA-2017-IV-025HPA-2017-IV-026HPA-2017-V-027HPA-201
7-V-028HPA-2017-V-029HPA-2017-IV-030HPA-2017-V-031HPA-2017-IV-032HPA-2017-V-033HPA-2017-V-035HPA-2017-V-036
123456789
#
101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839
IF1 - 1