Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2018-06-05Heritage Kitchener Agenda Tuesday, June 5, 2018 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Office of the City Clerk Conestoga Room Kitchener City Hall nd (Main Floor) 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 - Kate and/or David Schooley Item 2 - Jonathan Balt, Forefront Home Solutions Item 3 - Tim Bezner, Westmount Signs & Printing Co. Item 4 - Frank Voisin, Voisin Capital - Tracey Swift, SRM Architects Item 5 - Nick Bogaert, MHBC Planning - Peter Stewart, George Robb Architect Item 6 - Christina Karney, mcCallum Sather Architects Discussion Items 1. DSD-18-034 - Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-012 (10 min) - 920 Orr Court - Proposed 2-storey front porch and rear covered deck 2. DSD-18-041 - Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-V-015 (20 min) - 17 Dill Street - Proposed 2-storey front verandah 3. Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-016 (15 min) - 137-147 King Street East - Installation of New Sign 4. DSD-18-038 - Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-011 (20 min) - 48 Ontario Street North (former Legion Building) - Repair and Alteration 5. DSD-18-037 - Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-010 (20 min) - 710 Huron Road (Grant House) - Demolition of Additions, Masonry Repair and Reinforcement, Relocation of Farmhouse to Future 68 Saddlebrook Court 6. Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 10 Duke Street West (25 min) To view the HIA in its entirety please visit the following website: www.kitchener.ca ** 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 ** Heritage Kitchener AgendaPage 2June 5, 2018 Discussion Items 7. Status Updates - Sub-Committee Updates (10 min) - Open Forum/Heritage Best Practices - Heritage Impact Assessment Follow-ups 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: June 5, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning 519-741-2200, ext. 7306 PREPARED BY: Alison Bucking, Student Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7074 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5 DATE OF REPORT: May 11, 2018 REPORT NO.: DSD-18-034 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-012 920 Orr Court Proposed 2-storey front porch and rear covered deck RECOMMENDATION: THAT pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-012be approved to permit the construction of a 2-storey front porch and rear covered deck on the property municipally addressed as 920 Orr Court, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: 1.That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Location Map: 920 Orr Court *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 1 BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018- IV-012 which is seeking permission to build a 2-storey front porch and a rear covered deck at the property municipally addressed as 920 Orr Court, also known as the Robert Orr Farmstead. REPORT: The subject property is located on the north side of Huron Road, east of Ludolph Street, at the end of Orr Court. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The th property contains a one-and-a-half-storey late 19 century yellow brick farmhouse built in the Ontario Gothic architectural style. The property is recognized for its design, associative and contextual value. The property has is an Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Designation By-law 2016-024 identifies the following applicable exterior heritage attributes of the farmhouse as being of cultural heritage value or interest: yellow (buff) brick exterior of the main block and kitchen tail of the farmhouse; location, shape and size of all original window and door openings;and, all original exterior wood trim (including east side porch posts and brackets). Planning application requirements to develop the surrounding lands into a residential subdivision included the preparation of a Conservation Plan for the subject property, which provides guidance in the consideration of any alteration requests. This plan contains provisions pertaining to the replacement of the missing front porch. Applicable excerpts from the Conservation As such, a Heritage Permit Application is required to add a 2-storey front porch and a rear covered deck. Review and recommendation by Heritage Kitchener is required. A Building Permit is required for these alterations. Construction of 2-Storey Front Porch The applicant is proposing to construct a modest 2-storey front porch using wood materials. Each storey of the porch will be approximately 3.37 square metres (11.05 square feet) in size. The applicants proposed porch design references the previous historic front porch as mentioned in the Conservation Plan and as shown below.The Conservation Plan mentions that the replacement porch should be built using corbels, an interior stair railing, bannisters and newel posts similar to those seen on the porch in the period photo. It is important to note that the applicant does not propose to replicate the exact style of the original front porch. The applicant is proposing that rather than using traditional posts, corbels and banisters, to implement simple square posts and balusters to reflect the vernacular style of the dwelling. Staff is in the opinion that while the proposal does not match the porch replacement plan outlined in Section 4.4 of the Conservation Plan, the proposed design is compatible with the of the 1 - 2 dwelling. This proposed design will be a representation of the original front porch and adds to the historic aesthetic of the dwelling. The applicant proposes to paint the trim, railings, balusters and posts of the porch to match the existing trim on the dwelling. Original 2-Storey Front Porch Circa 1920 Construction of the Covered Rear Deck The applicant is proposing to construct a rear covered deck which follows the footprint of the previous wood shed. After the removal of the woodshed, the rear door now opens to a drop in the ground with no steps. The addition of the rear covered deck will increase the functionality and safety of the rear of the dwelling. The posts of the rear covered deck will match the material, style and colour of the posts proposed for the front porch. The proposed asphalt shingle roof of the deck will match existing asphalt roof of the dwelling. The proposed rear covered deck will connect to the existing east side porch. In order to provide a subtle distinction between the deck and east side porch, the floor of the deck will be designed and oriented in a different direction than the floor of the east side porch. The proposed application meets the respect for original fabric - repair with like materials - return the resource to its prior condition, without altering its integrity; and, legibility new work should be distinguishable from old buildings or structures should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. 1 - 3 Rear View of 920 Orr Court and Door Drop The proposed application meets the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Histor: conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place - make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place; and, replace missing features from the restoration period with new features whose forms, materials and detailing are based on sufficient physical, documentary and/or oral evidence. In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; the project intends to replace missing features of the dwelling based on physical and documentary evidence; the project intends to conserve the character of the home while improving the functionality of the dwelling; the proposal follows the relevant Built Heritage Prthe relevant Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; and, the project will not adversely affect the character of the property nor the heritage attributes of the building. 1 - 4 ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommendation of this report supports the trategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM This report has been posted council / committee meeting. CONSULT Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. REVIEWED BY: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage & Policy Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning 1 - 5 APPENDIX 'A' 1 - 6 1 - 7 1 - 8 1 - 9 1 - 10 1 - 11 1 - 12 1 - 13 1 - 14 1 - 15 1 - 16 APPENDIX 'B' 1 - 17 1 - 18 1 - 19 1 - 20 1 - 21 1 - 22 1 - 23 1 - 24 1 - 25 1 - 26 1 - 27 REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 5, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage & Policy Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: May 17, 2018 REPORT NO.: DSD-18-041 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-V-015 17 Dill Street Proposed 2-storey front verandah RECOMMENDATION: THAT pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-V-015be approved to permit the construction of a 2-storey verandah at the property municipally addressed as 17 Dill Street, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: 1.That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Location Map: 17 Dill Street *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 2 - 1 BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018- V-015 which is seeking permission to build a 2-storey verandah at the property municipally addressed as 17 Dill Street. REPORT: The subject property is located on the south side of Dill Street between Victoria Park and David Street within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD). The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property contains a one- and-a-half-storey Berlin Vernacular style residence. The original building featured a full width 2-storey verandah. The Berlin Vernacular style is common in the Victoria Park Area. According to the VPAHCD Plan, and 1920, these are fairly plain, front-gabled red or buff brick Some of the distinguishing features of this style that should be conserved include: the full width painted wood verandah; wood columns or brick piers; decorative wood shingle handrail; and, wood steps. Photo of 17 Dill Street (Google, 2014) Original Incomplete Heritage Permit Application The owner originally submitted a Heritage Permit Application (HPA) in November 2016 requesting permission to demolish the verandah. The owner explained that the demolition was required to address safety concerns. The owner was advised that the application was incomplete and that additional information was required. In particular, Heritage Planning staff advised the owner that they would need to submit confirmation that a new verandah would be built and that the new construction would comply with the policies and guidelines of the 2 - 2 VPAHCD Plan. Additional information was not submitted, the HPA remained incomplete, and no decision was made to approve or refuse the application. Photo of 17 Dill Street (Owner, 2016) The applicant contacted Heritage Planning staff in September 2017 to ask for an update on the status of the HPA. The applicant was advised that additional information was required and never submitted therefore the application was not processed. Heritage Planning staff met on site with the applicant on September 19, 2017 to discuss the draft elevation drawing for the proposed new verandah (see below). The draft elevation drawing proposed a full width 2- storey verandah built primarily with maintenance free materials such as aluminum, composite products (TREX) and stone. Draft Elevation Drawing (September 2017) Heritage Planning staff advised that revisions to the draft elevation drawing would be required along with additional information to respond to the following: consideration of a verandah design that repairs the original brick piers; provision of a sample of the proposed stone; 2 - 3 removal of the upper level verandah extension over the stairs; a design where the guard system is directly attached to the structural posts; consideration of the double top rail design for the upper level guard; and, confirmation that the proposed verandah will be a similar size as the original. Building staff were also able to meet on site and advised that: the brick piers supporting the verandah have shifted; the brick pilasters attached to the house are in good condition; and, the wood framing of both the deck and roof is showing signs of rot and water damage. Building staff did not identify any life safety concerns that would have required the immediate demolition of the verandah. Instead, Building staff advised that: the brick piers should be removed and re- built; the brick pilasters may be reused to support the proposed new verandah; and, all wood framing should be replaced. Demolition of Verandah The applicant advised on April 17, 2018 that the original verandah had collapsed under the weight of the snow in the winter. As a result, the applicant proceeded to demolish the verandah without a Building Permit or HPA. The applicant was advised that a Building Permit and a HPA was still required to respond to the collapse prior to full demolition. New Heritage Permit Application The applicant submitted a new HPA on April 27, 2018 requesting permission to construct a new full width 2-storey verandah. The application included revised drawings (see below) showing that the proposed verandah would have a similar footprint as the original but be fully constructed in composite products (TREX). A review of this application by Building staff confirmed that the composite products could not be used for the guard system. As a result, Heritage Planning staff advised that revisions and additional information would be required, including: a revised design with a lower and upper level guard system constructed with either wood balusters or a shingle design; confirmation of the proposed materials, sizes, shapes, and colours; confirmation of the details for the junction between the lower and upper level; and, confirmation of the details for the underside of the upper level. Revised Elevation Drawing (April 2018) 2 - 4 A complete HPA was received on May 15, 2018 along with an addendum describing the proposal and a final elevation drawing (see below). The applicant is proposing to construct a full width 2-storey verandah on the approximate footprint of the original verandah. The design of the new verandah will feature: A combination of materials, including: wood, composite products (TREX) and aluminum; Only two colours (white and grey); A painted wood guard system (square balusters affixed between the bottom and top rail) directly connected to the supporting posts; 6x6 pressure treated posts with a wood wrap; nstructed with composite products (TREX); Treatment of the junction between the lower and upper level with a simple flat fascia board with an eaves trough that sits just above a simple step-moulding; and, A vented aluminum soffit on the underside of the upper level to provide for a similar look as a tongue and groove ceiling. Final Elevation Drawing (May 2018) In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: the subject property is located in the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; the original full width 2-storey verandah was demolished; the owner and applicant have revised their plans to respond to Heritage Planning comments; the proposal will reintroduce a new full width 2-storey verandah generally in keeping with verandahs on Berlin Vernacular buildings; 2 - 5 the proposal will reintroduce a new full width 2-storey verandah with a similar footprint as the original but with different design details, materials and colours; the proposed design details, materials and colours are generally in keeping with verandahs found elsewhere in the VPAHCD; the primary materials are wood and composite products with a wood grain; the primary colours are white, which is already found on the house, and grey, which is a neutral colour that will not detract from the architecture of the building; and, theproposal will not detract from the character of the property, the integrity of the Dill Street streetscape, nor the character of the VPAHCD. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall 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. In this regard, staff confirm that a Building Permit is required to carry out this work. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM council / committee meeting. CONSULT Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning 2 - 6 2 - 7 2 - 8 2 - 9 2 - 10 36 Secord Ave. Kitchener, ON 519.635.6618 To: City of Kitchener Planning Division, Heritage Planning c/o Michelle Drake Job Site: 17 Dill St, Kitchener Date: May 15, 2018 RE: Addendum to Heritage Permit Application ŷĻ ƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķ ŭǒğƩķƭ ŅƚƩ ƷŷĻ ƓĻǞ ƦƚƩĭŷ Ʒƚ ĬĻ ĭƚƓƭƷƩǒĭƷĻķ ğƷ ЊА 5źƌƌ {Ʒ ğƩĻ Ʒƚ ĬĻ ƦğźƓƷĻķ ǞƚƚķĻƓ Ʃğźƌƭ͵ ƚƦ ğƓķ ĬƚƷƷƚƒ Ʃğźƌƭ ğƩĻ Ʒƚ ĬĻ ƩƚǒƷĻķ ƚǒƷ Ʒƚ ğĭĭƚƒƒƚķğƷĻ ƭƨǒğƩĻ ĬğƌǒƭƷĻƩƭͲ ǞźƷŷ ŅźƌƌĻƩ ƭƷƩźƦƭ źƓƭƷğƌƌĻķ ĬĻƷǞĻĻƓ ƷŷĻ ĬğƌǒƭƷĻƩƭͲ ƷƚƦ ğƓķ ĬƚƷƷƚƒ͵ ŷĻ Ʃğźƌƭ ğƩĻ Ʒƚ ĬĻ ĭƚƓƓĻĭƷĻķ ķźƩĻĭƷƌǤ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷźƓŭ ƦƚƭƷƭ͵ ŷĻ ƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķ ĭƚƌƚǒƩ ŅƚƩ ƷŷĻ Ʃğźƌƭ ğƓķ ƦƚƭƷƭ źƭ //ΏЍЉͲ .ĻƓƆğƒźƓ aƚƚƩĻ /ƌƚǒķ ǞŷźƷĻͲ ğ ǞğƩƒ ǞŷźƷĻ Ǟŷźĭŷ Ǟźƌƌ ĬƌĻƓķ ǞĻƌƌ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ ĻǣźƭƷźƓŭ ƩĻķ ĬƩźĭƉ ğƓķ ƷŷĻ ƩĻǣ tĻĬĬƌĻ DƩĻǤ ƚƓ ƷŷĻ ƌƚǞĻƩ ŅğƭĭźğͲ ƭƷƩźƓŭĻƩƭ ğƓķ ƭƉźƩƷźƓŭ͵ ŷĻ ƦƚƭƷƭ ğƩĻ Ʒƚ ĬĻ ЏǣЏ ƦƩĻƭƭǒƩĻ ƷƩĻğƷĻķ ƦƚƭƷƭ ƦĻƩ ƷŷĻ ƭƷƩǒĭƷǒƩğƌ ƦƌğƓͲ ǞźƷŷ ǞƚƚķĻƓ ĭƚƌǒƒƓ ǞƩğƦƭ͵ ŷĻƭĻ ǞƩğƦƭ ŷğǝĻ ğ ƭźƒƦƌĻ ƩğźƭĻķ ƦğƓĻƌ ķĻƷğźƌ ǞźƷŷ ğ ƭƨǒğƩĻ ƦƩƚŅźƌĻͲ ğƓķ ğ ƭƷƩğźŭŷƷ ĬğƭĻ ƒƚǒƌķźƓŭ ğƓķ ğ ƭƷƩğźŭŷƷ ƷƚƦ ƒƚǒƌķźƓŭ ĬƚƷŷ ǞźƷŷ ğ ƭźƒƦƌĻ ĭŷğƒŅĻƩ ΛƭĻĻ ğƷƷğĭŷĻķ ƭƉĻƷĭŷΜ źƭ w9– {ĻƌĻĭƷͲ źƓ ƷŷĻ tĻĬĬƌĻ DƩĻǤ ĭƚƌƚǒƩ ΛƭĻĻ ƭğƒƦƌĻ ƦƩƚǝźķĻķΜ CƚƩ ƷŷĻ ƆǒƓĭƷźƚƓ ĬĻƷǞĻĻƓ ƷŷĻ ǒƦƦĻƩ ğƓķ ƌƚǞĻƩ ƌĻǝĻƌƭ ǞĻ ƦƩƚƦƚƭĻ ğ ƭźƒƦƌĻ ŅƌğƷ Ņğƭĭźğ ĬƚğƩķͲ ǞźƷŷ ğƓ ĻǝĻƭ ƷƩƚǒŭŷ ƷŷğƷ ƭźƷƭ ƆǒƭƷ ğĬƚǝĻ ğ ƭźƒƦƌĻ ƭƷĻƦΏƒƚǒƌķźƓŭͲ Ʒƚ ĭƩĻğƷĻ ƭƚƒĻ ķĻŅźƓźƷźƚƓ ĬĻƷǞĻĻƓ ƷŷĻ ǒƦƦĻƩ ğƓķ ƌƚǞĻƩ ƦƚƩĭŷ ƌĻǝĻƌƭ͵ ΛƭĻĻ ƭƉĻƷĭŷΜ CƚƩ ƷŷĻ ǒƓķĻƩƭźķĻ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƦƚƩĭŷ ǞĻ Ǟźƌƌ ĬĻ ǒƭźƓŭ ğ ǝĻƓƷĻķ ğƌǒƒźƓǒƒ ƭƚŅŅźƷ Ʒƚ ŭźǝĻ ƷŷĻ ƚǝĻƩΏğƌƌ ƌƚƚƉ ƚŅ ğ ƷƚƓŭǒĻ ğƓķ ŭƩƚƚǝĻ ĭĻźƌźƓŭͲ ƩğƷŷĻƩ ƷŷğƓ ğƓ ƚƦĻƓ ĭĻźƌźƓŭͲ ƭƚ ğƭ Ʒƚ ĭƚƓĭĻğƌ ƷŷĻ ƆƚźƭƷƭ ğƓķ ŷğƩķǞğƩĻ ŷĻ ƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķ ǝĻƩƷźĭğƌ ƭƉźƩƷźƓŭ ƭŷğƌƌ ĬĻ ĭƚƒƦƚƭźƷĻ ķĻĭƉźƓŭ ŅƩƚƒ ƩĻ Њ 2 - 11 2 - 12 2 - 13 Date: May 23, 2018 To: Heritage Kitchener From:Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage & Policy Planner cc: Subject: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-016 137-147King Street East Installation of new sign The Development Services Department received a Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV- 016 on May 23, 2018.The applicant has advised that the new sign is to facilitate a new use that is anticipated to open in early June. It is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the proposed alteration is minor and does not need to be delayed for consideration until theAugust 14, 2018 Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. Heritage Planning staff have outlined a brief description of the application and property below. The application form and supporting materials are attached. Heritage Planning staff will provide th a presentation at the June 5 Heritage Kitchener committee meeting outlining the proposed alteration, the merits of the application and a staff recommendation. Description of application The applicant is seeking permission to install a new sign at the property municipally addressed as137-147 King Street East. The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Generally the designating by-law refers to the front and side elevations and specifically includes the precast masonry storefront. 3 - 1 3 - 2 3 - 3 3 - 4 3 - 5 3 - 6 3 - 7 3 - 8 REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 5, 2018 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: 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 11, 2018 REPORT NO.: DSD-18-038 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-011 48 Ontario Street North (former Legion building) Repair and Alteration RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-011 be approved to permit the cleaning of existing masonry walls; repair of existing masonry through repointing and selective brick replacement; repainting of previously painted masonry; repair and replacement of existing brownstone features; replacement of all existing windows and doors; introduction of five new window openings; repair of the existing roof; replacement of the parapet flashing; and the repair and restoration of the interior staircase and terrazzo floor, located on the property municipally addressed as 48 Ontario Street North, in accordance with the supporting information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: 1.That a test panel be prepared to the satisfaction of heritage planning staff in regard to the cleaning of the exterior masonry and the staining of the new mortar before proceeding with said work. 2.That original brownstone features be cleaned and repaired as recommended by a qualified mason having experience working with natural stone, and to the satisfaction of heritage planning staff; and that in the event original brownstone features are beyond reasonable repair as determined by the mason and as confirmed by heritage planning staff, such features be replaced with pre-cast concrete matching the form, design and colour of the original brownstone features, to the satisfaction of heritage planning staff. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 4 - 1 3. That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. BACKGROUND: The subject property known as the former Legion building is municipally addressed as 48 Ontario Street North and is located on the west side of Ontario Street North between King Street West and Duke Street West in Downtown Kitchener. It contains a two-storey Classical Revival style building constructed c.1910 by the Bell Telephone Company, and was later used as the headquarters of Branch 50 of the Royal Canadian Legion. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and is recognized for its design, physical, historical, associative, and contextual values. Location Map The physical attributes of the building identified in the designating by-law include: On the exterior: red brick walls including basement level brick rustication and pilasters; all window openings, sills, lintels and brick voussoirs; all exterior door openings; roof and roofline; and decorative brownstone features (banding and belt courses, sills and lintels, pilaster capitals and bases, and entrance doorcaseand frontispiece with scroll brackets and entablature). 4 - 2 In the Interior: front entrance terrazzo floor; front staircase including: o slate treads and metal risers, and o wood handrails with paired metal balusters and metal newel-posts. Current condition of front (East) elevation and roof The property is currently vacant and is owned by the City of Kitchener. In 2017, the City issued a Request for Proposals for the sale and development of the property. Conservation of the Legion building was a consideration in the conditional approval of the sale to the applicant. The applicant is required to obtain a building permit to proceed with development on the property within a short time frame as a condition of the sale. The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the former Legion building for office use which willinvolve repairing, replacing and altering certain heritage features, and requires heritage approval prior to issuance of a building permit. REPORT: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018- IV-011 seeking permission to clean the existing brick masonry walls; repair the existing masonry through repointing and selective brick replacement; repaint previously painted masonry; repair and replace existing brownstone features; replace all existing windows and 4 - 3 doors; introduce five new window openings; repair the existing roof; replace the parapet flashing; and repair and restore the interior staircase and terrazzo floor, all on the property municipally addressed as 48 Ontario Street North, also known as the former Legion building. Windows and Doors Heritage attributes referenced in the designating by-law include the existing window and door openings but do not include existing windows and doors which vary considerably in age, style and design. Existing windows on the side (North facing) facade facing the parking on the property include a mixture of non-operable fixed windows and operable hung windows, some of which have divided lites. Windows on the front (East facing) facade include a mixture of fixed metal windows and some wood windows without divided lites. The applicant intends to maintain the dimensions of all existing window and door openings and to replace all existing windows and exterior doors. New replacement windows will be fixed and will feature graphite coloured vinyl or aluminum frames. Most of the replacement windows on the side and rear facades are to feature simulated divided lites. Several of the window openings on the front (East) facade are narrow andlikely would not have originally featured divided lites. In order to achieve a consistent appearance across the facade, replacement windows on the front (East) facade will not feature divided lites. Basement window openings along the front (East) façade which have been enclosed with brick, will be re-opened and glazed to match the original window opening. Three new windows are proposed on the side (North) façade, two of which will match the size and elevation of the two existing windows closest to Ontario Street on the same façade. One new window is proposed between the first floor windows toward the rear of the site, to match the size and type of the two windows on either side. A single wide opening on the lower level of the side (North) facade currently filled-in with exposed waterproofing material, is proposed to be filled in with recessed brick that will match the brick on the facade. On the rear facing West façade, two new openings are proposed, both on the second floor. The new window openings will line up with the existing first floor window openings, and the windows will match the size, type and finish of the windows to be installed below. The front entrance door which is not original to the building, will be replaced with a new pre- finished graphite coloured aluminum door and frame to match the new windows. Remaining exterior doors will be replaced with aluminum frame doors with full glazing. Elevation drawings showing existing conditions and proposed changes together with colour renderings are and illustrate the changes proposed to be made to the windows and doors. Window Sills The applicant is in receipt of a preliminary report from G&B Masonry, identifying deficiencies in the condition of some brownstone features including sills. The applicant proposes to clean the existing brownstone window sills under the guidance of a qualified mason having experience 4 - 4 working with natural stone.As the preferred method of cleaning the brownstone sills has yet to be determined, the details regarding the method of cleaning are to be reviewed and approved by heritage planning staff through the completion of a test panel. Where brownstone window sills have deteriorated beyond repair, as determined by the mason and confirmed by heritage planning staff, the applicant proposes to replace the brownstone with tinted precast concrete sills that will match the brownstone in shape and design,and in color over time with weathering. Where existing concrete sills are present, sills will be cleaned and re-caulked. All new windows openings will be provided with new pre-cast concrete sills to match existing concrete sills. Roofing The applicant advises that the existing roof and clay parapet capping are deteriorated and in need of replacement. The roof is proposed to be stripped down to the deck layer and new insulation, and a TPO (rubber-like) roofing membrane is proposed to be installed. The clay parapet capping (which is not specifically identified as a heritage attribute) is proposed to be replaced with new black aluminum capping. The existing metal flashing running along the roofline is also proposed to be replaced with a matching aluminum profile. Masonry Work It is proposed that brick masonry on the front (East) façade be cleaned. As the preferred method of cleaning the brick has yet to be determined, the details regarding the method of cleaning the exterior masonry are to be reviewed and approved by heritage planning staff through the completion of a test panel. Where deemed necessary by a qualified mason, mortar Should the least invasive method of cleaning mortar joints prove ineffective, an alternative method to be approved by heritage planning staff will be considered. Such alternative method shall not employ sand blasting, water blasting or equivalent invasive methods. Newly applied mortar is proposed to be stained to match the cleaned existing mortar. Heritage staff will require that a test panel be prepared before completing such work. Re-parging of the lower level of the rear facing South façade is proposed in order to maintain the integrity of the building envelope and protect the exterior wall from the elements. Brick masonry units, particularly near the lower level of the side (North) façade have deteriorated beyond repair and require replacement. Matching red and yellow bricks have been sourced. Paint previously applied to the recessed portion of theside (North) façade is in need of maintenance, and the applicant proposes to repaint the previously painted masonry a cream colour. Brownstone Features Existing brownstone banding, lintels, pilaster bases and capitals on the front (East) façade are proposed to be retained. The proposal is to approach the conservation of these brownstone features in the same manner as the brownstone window sills, described earlier in this report. Features will be cleaned and repaired using methods consistent with recognized conservation principles and practice, and to the satisfaction of heritage planning staff. Where such brownstone features have deteriorated beyond repair, as determined by the mason and 4 - 5 confirmed by heritage planning staff, the applicant proposes to replace the brownstone with tinted precast concrete that will match the brownstone in shape and design, and color in time with weathering. The brownstone frontispiece that surrounds the entrance door was recently damaged in a vehicular accident. Sections of brownstone have been destroyed and are unsalvageable. Other areas are in need of significant repair and the overall integrity of this feature is unknown. Damaged brownstone frontispiece The applicant advises that the first approach to be taken in the conservation of the frontispiece is to investigate replacing the missing right frame and damaged scroll with matching brownstone, and to repair the cracked top. If such approach is deemed unfeasible by a qualified mason having experience working with brownstone, a secondary approach will be submitted for approval to heritage planning staff. The secondary approach would involve using the existing frontispiece elements to create a formwork that would be used in replicating the entire frontispiece in tinted pre-cast concrete. The applicant advises that the pre-cast units can be made to replicate the texture and design of the original brownstone, and that in time and 4 - 6 with weathering, the pre-cast units will take on a patina that will closely match the original brownstone elements on the façade. Exterior lighting and Signage The applicant intends to sign the municipal address above the door on the front (East) facade andinstall lighting and tenant signage on the side (North) façade as shown in the renderings Interior Heritage Attributes Interior features referenced as heritage attributes include the front staircase treads made of slate, stair risers, wood handrails, metal balustrade and newel post, along with the terrazzo floor on the main floor entrance. The applicant proposes to restore the terrazzo floors using a strip, sand and reseal process. The existing metal stair guards and stringers will be restored and repainted. Stair risers will be repaired, and where missing or damaged will be replaced to match. The existing slate treads and landing will be cleaned and a flexible anti-slip tape may be applied to the tread nosings for safety. Wooden handrails will be refinished. Front staircase and terrazzo floor 4 - 7 In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: The former Legion building has been vacant and unoccupied for several years. Its rehabilitation for new office space in the Downtown and expected occupancy will contribute significantly toward its long term conservation. The applicant is somewhat constrained in currently having only limited control over the building and having to obtain a building permit in a short period of time to close the sale. Until such time as certain trades have full access to complete thorough inspections and testing, it may be difficult to confirm a preferred conservation approach.The proposal to proceed by first pursuing aprimary approach of cleaning and repairing masonry with like materials, and moving to a secondary approach of replacement with new materials such as pre-cast concrete to match if the repair is not feasible, is reasonable subject to meeting conditions including that guidance is provided by qualified experts and confirmed by heritage planning staff. The proposal is consistent with the following relevant Ministry Guiding Principle in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties: respect for original fabric - repair with like materials - return the resource to its prior condition, without altering its integrity; and the following Parks Canada Standard for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada:replace missing features from the restoration period with new features whose forms, materials and detailing are based on sufficient physical, documentary and/or oral evidence. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall 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 Building Code and Zoning By-law. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. 4 - 8 CONSULT Heritage Kitchener will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning APPENDICES Appendix A: HPA-2018-IV-011 4 - 9 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Application No. City of Kitchener Community Services Department HPA-2018- th Planning Division, 6 Floor 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 (519) 741-2426 Nature of Application Exterior Interior Signage Demolition New Construction Alteration Relocation Subject Property Municipal Address: 48 Ontario Street North PLAN 401 PT LOT 7 Legal Description (if known): Building/Structure Type: Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Heritage Designation: Part IV Part V (HCD) Is the Property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? Yes No Property Owner The Corporation of the City of Kitchener Name: 200 King Street West Address: N2G 4G7 Kitchener City: Postal Code: Telephone (Home): Telephone (Work): 519-741-2200 x7230 brian.bennett@kitchener.ca Email: Agent (if applicable) Company: Contact Name: Address: City: Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: .com Email: Written Description Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. Repair and replacement of existing brownstone features (subject to Heritage Planning Committee Approval) Clean and repair existing masonry. Replacement of existing doors and windows, while maintaining existing openings. Provide 5 new window openings. Replacement of existing roof and parapet cap flashing. Restore interior stair and terrazzo floor finish to good condition. page 7 4 - 10 Review of City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work. This is the first step in renovating and restoring this building. Existing exterior features are in various states of disrepair from good condition to immediate need of replacement. Interior features have also suffered from a lack of maintenance. Work proposed will restore the stair and ground floor terrazzo finishes to a good condition. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan. The former Legion building has been recognized for its design, physical, historical, associative and contextual values. This proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law because it employs recognized conservation methods that will help ensure the building can maintain these values. Please refer to the "Maintenance of Cultural Heritage Value" section of the Heritage Report for more information. Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx) The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada was used as a resource in evaluating the work to be completed on this designated building. Please refer to the "Heritage Conservation Principles" section of the Heritage report for more information. 01-10-2018 01-07-2018 Expected Start Date: Expected Completion Date: (Day/Month/Year) (Day/Month/Year) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning staff? Yes No Leon Bensason If yes, who? Have you discussed this work with Building Division staff? Yes No Robert Schipper If yes, who? Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? Yes No Other Related Applications (Building/Planning):Application No. Acknowledgement The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for page 8 4 - 11 4 - 12 4 - 13 4 - 14 4 - 15 4 - 16 4 - 17 4 - 18 4 - 19 4 - 20 4 - 21 4 - 22 4 - 23 4 - 24 4 - 25 4 - 26 4 - 27 4 - 28 4 - 29 4 - 30 4 - 31 4 - 32 4 - 33 4 - 34 4 - 35 4 - 36 4 - 37 4 - 38 4 - 39 4 - 40 G&B Masonry Masonry construction. Restoration. Service work & repairs. From:Matt George GeneralManager G&B Masonry 54 Daimler Drive Kitchener, Ontario N2A-3W2 To: Date:Monday, April 23, 2018 Re:Sandstone Façade Elements of 48 Ontario Street North, Kitchener Dear Thank you for giving my firm the opportunity to investigate the repair and replacement of the sandstone components on the east facade of 48 Ontario Street North. We have reviewed the photos that you supplied and visited the site toinspect the sandstone. As you are aware, our firm has significant experience with heritage masonry restoration projects, and in particular I will draw your attention to the following recent projects that involved sandstone work: 1.New Apostolic Church160 Margaret AveKitchener 2.New Apostolic Church180 Lorraine Ave, Kitchener 3.St. Frances Church 49 Blueridge Ave, Kitchener From our review of the sandstone features of 48 Ontario Street North, we observed that all of the features are in varying stages of health, ranging from minimal decay to near complete failure and certain items were damaged or are missing as a result of a vehicle strike last year. 54 Daimler Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, N2A 3W2 || P 519.220.8437 E matt@gandbmasonry.ca F 519.896.2528 HST# 832458640 4 - 41 G&B Masonry Masonry construction. Restoration. Service work & repairs. I have highlighted the following categories in the photo of the façade that you provided for reference. See Appendix A. Category 1. Minimal Decay These items appear to have stood up well and are only slightly discoloured. We expect these to continue for 10+ years without posing danger to pedestrians or risk of damage to the building. Recommendation: Ongoing monitoring. Category 2. Moderate Decay / Chipping These items are heavily discoloured and the edges feature missing chips. This is a character of sandstone such that when it decays it quickly loses structural integrity and returns to its component element of sand. Missing chips indicates the early stages of structural failure. We expect these elements to decay rapidly over the coming years and pose a danger to pedestrians and risk of damage to the building. Recommendation: We recommend these elements be replaced with a different material more appropriate to the local environment. You suggested pre-cast concrete colour matched to the existing sandstone. We believe this is an excellent choice that will preserve the visual component of the heritage features. Under no circumstances should you attempt to patch any of the existing sandstone. Adding new sandstone patch to the face of sandstone in this stage of failure will increase the weight on the front face of the sandstone and exacerbate the issues of structural integrity. Patching areas of the face will not stop deterioration behind. Cavities are forming and adding extra weight stresses the sand around these cavities and will result in sudden failure. We believe this will pose a serious risk to pedestrians. We strongly recommend against replacing these components with new sandstone. Sandstone is the wrong choice for this facade given the changes to the immediate vicinity since the building was constructed. When this building was constructed, it is unlikely that the structure across the street was as large as the current municipal parkade. The consequence of the parkade being built at that scale and in that location is that the facade of 48 Ontario Street North is shaded for the vast majority of each day. The consequence of this shade is that the sandstone features are never given asufficient opportunity to dry, which has accelerated their failure. Replacing the failing sandstone with new sandstone will necessitate regular ongoing replacement due to the lack of direct sunshine. 54 Daimler Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, N2A 3W2 || P 519.220.8437 E matt@gandbmasonry.ca F 519.896.2528 HST# 832458640 4 - 42 G&B Masonry Masonry construction. Restoration. Service work & repairs. Category 3. Serious Decay / Existing Failure Theseelements are heavily discoloured and have deep striations plainly visible on the face. This is indicative of ongoing complete structural failure. Rain and snow with the freeze-thaw cycle is eroding the sandstone and accelerating the return to the sand components. Recommendation: As for Category 2, we recommend these elements be replaced with a different material more appropriate to the local environment. This work should be done immediately given the advanced stage of failure. Category 4. Missing / Damaged Items These items are not available for review because this area is hoarded off. We have only reviewed photos of the area pre-and post-damage. Recommendation: We recommend these elements be replaced with a different material more appropriate to the local environment We hope this provides you with some insight based on our experience. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on any component of the above.If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Matt George 54 Daimler Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, N2A 3W2 || P 519.220.8437 E matt@gandbmasonry.ca F 519.896.2528 HST# 832458640 4 - 43 4 - 44 4 - 45 4 - 46 4 - 47 REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 5, 2018 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: 5 DATE OF REPORT: May 7, 2018 REPORT NO.: DSD-18-037 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-010 710 Huron Road (Grant House) Demolition of additions, masonry repair and reinforcement, and relocation of farmhouse to future 68 Saddlebrook Court RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Sections 30(2), 33 and 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-010 be approved to permit the demolition of all additions on th the 19 century stone farmhouse located on the property municipally addressed as 710 Huron Road, known as the Grant House; the repair and reinforcement of the original stone walls of the Grant House; andthe relocation of the original Grant House to the property to be municipally addressed as 68 Saddlebrook Court, in accordance with the supporting information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: 1.That the owner fulfill their obligations with regard to the relocation of the Grant House,in accordance with the heritage covenant agreement registered on title of 710 Huron Road, and 2.That the final details of the method of moving the stone farmhouse be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 5 - 1 Location Map BACKGROUND: The property currently municipally addressed as 710 Huron Road is located on the south side of Huron Road, east of the intersection of Huron Road and Plains Road. The 5.35 hectare th parcel of land contains a mid-19 century fieldstone farmhouse, known as the Grant House. In 2017, a Notice of Intention to Designate 710 Huron Road was passed by City Council, and planning approvals were granted for the development of a new plan of subdivision. As the current grade of the farmhouse is approximately 2 meters above the future finished grade of the new subdivision, approval was granted to move the original stone farmhouse from its current location to allow for regrading of the lands. As part of the plan of subdivision process, a Heritage Impact Assessment was prepared and recommended a preferred conservation option that would see the original farmhouse permanently relocated to a planned corner lot within the new subdivision. The new lot, situated only a few meters away from farmhouse, is to be municipally addressed 68 Saddlebrook Court. In order to secure the conservation of the farmhouse in the short-term and ensure the farmhouse is relocated in a timely manner and in accordance with good conservation practices, the owner has entered into a heritage covenant agreement under the Ontario Heritage Act. The covenant agreement obligates the owner to undertake a number of short term conservation measures including: to prepare measured drawings of the farmhouse; to make necessary repairs and structural reinforcements to the farmhouse so it can be moved safely; to relocate the farmhouse on a new foundation and make any necessary repairs should damage occur as a result of the relocation; 5 - 2 for such work to be completed under the guidance of qualified heritage experts; to provide a letter of credit equal to the value of completing said work; and, to obtain all necessary approvals and permits. In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, where a Notice of Intention to Designate has been passed, the subject property is afforded interim protection in regard to proposed alterations, demolition and removal as if the property is designated. As a result, formal approval under the Ontario Heritage Act is required for such work through the heritage permit application process. REPORT: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-010. The subject application seeks the approval of Council to undertake the th following work to the 19 century stone farmhouse located at 710 Huron Road: repair and reinforcement of the stone walls of the original farmhouse in order to prepare the structure for relocation; severing the original stone farmhouse from the existing additions, and then lifting and moving the farmhouse structure intact, first to a temporary location on the property, and then to a permanent location on a corner lot within the planned residential subdivision; salvage of the field stone from the former Summer Kitchen; and demolition and removal of all remaining additions from the property. It is expected that a separate heritage permit application will be made following the relocation of the farmhouse, to address its rehabilitation and plans to construct an addition and garage. Front elevation of stone farmhouse 5 - 3 Rearview of farmhouse showing multiple additionsto be removed Reinforcement of Stone Walls to Prepare the Farmhouse for Relocation An assessment of the original farmhouse has been undertaken by James Knight & Associates (C.A.H.P. certified Engineers). The assessment identifies areas along the exterior walls where stabilization is required, including the south east and south west corners where mortar joints are significantly void of mortar. The proposal is to clean such areas of residual sand, repoint with a 1-1- at window jambs. In addition, all window and door openings in exterior walls will be framed and cross-braced to stiffen exterior walls. The applicant advises that an experienced building mover will be responsible for ensuring the stability of the structure, together with an independent structural engineering consultant. Moving the Farmhouse th Several additions have been added to the 19 century farmhouse, including a sunroom, indoor pool and garage. A portion of a small stone building suspected to be a former summer kitchen has been incorporated and converted as usable area in the farmhouse. The approved HIA th concluded that the original 19 century farmhouse is of primary heritage value, and that the th additions, which mostly date to the latter part of the 20 century, are not of sufficient value to be retained or moved. Heritage attributes referenced in the Notice of Intention to Designate are th limited to features located on the original 19 century farmhouse only, and do not reference elements contained within any of the existing additions. The heritage architect advises that there are three points of contact plus the roof that need to be disconnected from the stone farmhouse before the farmhouse can be relocated. The westerly connection and the roof is a simple caulked joint to the glazed wood framed west wall of the Family Room and its roof. Where the means of connection are less clear, care will be 5 - 4 taken to open those areas under the guidance of the heritage architect and shoring will be undertaken where necessary to ensure stability. The architect advises that once the connections between the additions and the stone house have been severed, the house will be removed from its existing foundation. While a building moving company has yet to be retained and the exact method of relocation has yet to be confirmed, the heritage architect advises that the following general procedure for moving the farmhouse can be expected:A cut line will be established and then the existing foundation of the farmhouse will be exposed down to footing level. A steel support framework will be introduced under the house, created by first inserting two large beams running longitudinally through openings in the foundation, and supported at multiple points. These beams will then support smaller beams running the short direction, threaded through minimally sized openings roughly three feet on centre. After everything is shimmed, jacks are installed under the large beams. The stone cut is then made, and the building is jacked up and made free of the foundation. At this point, the beams can be dollied and the house moved. As the new foundation for the farmhouse also cannot be built until the land is regraded, the farmhouse will be moved to an interim holding location while regrading is undertaken and the new foundation is constructed on the corner lot. A haul route or temporary road will be constructed to accommodate the physical move of the farmhouse to its temporary and permanent location. The house will only remain in its temporary location long enough for the new foundation to be built and reach adequate strength to bear the load of the house. This is anticipated to be up to one month. All openings in the building will be hoarded to prevent unauthorized ingress. The site will be occupied by work crews during daylight hours, providing monitoring. Temporary fencing may be erected around the house during this one month period and additional security patrols could be arranged for outside of working hours if necessary Heritage design guidelines have been approved addressing the location of the new foundation on the corner lot and setbacks from the street and side yard. Provision has been made for the possible construction of a rear yard addition and garage. The exact method of placing the house on the new foundation will need to be determined in concert with the moving company. One possibility is building the new foundation but leaving pockets for the main beams to be "slid" into, allowing the house to be lowered onto the new foundation. Another method is to pour the foundation, temporarily fill it with granular material, position the house, and then build up from the top of the foundation to the underside of the house in concrete block. Demolition and Removal of Additions Demolition and removal of the remaining additions would proceed once the farmhouse has been moved to its interim location. Though the stone Summer Kitchen will not be retained, the east fieldstone wall of the Summer Kitchen will be removed by hand and will be salvaged and set aside for re-use. Photographic documentation and measured drawings have been undertaken. 5 - 5 Existing location of original farmhouse 1 (710 Huron Road) 2 Interim holding location Permanent location of farmhouse on corner lotfollowing its move 3 (68 Saddlebrook Court) In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: the relocation of the original stone farmhouse and removal of all additions was previously identified as the preferred conservation option in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment; the owner has entered into a heritage covenant agreement securing the relocation of the farmhouse in a manner consistent with recognized heritage conservation principles and practice; all aspects relating to the repair and reinforcement of the original farmhouse, its disconnection from existing additions, and its physical move to a temporary and permanent location within the planned subdivision, will be undertaken under the guidance of experienced heritage professionals; the original farmhouse will be relocated on a large corner lot having prominence within the planned subdivision and in accordance with approved heritage design guidelines; measures will be taken to ensure the original farmhouse is made secure and monitored at all times; fieldstone from the Summer Kitchen will be salvaged for potential re-use; photographic documentation and measured drawing have been completed; and 5 - 6 a separate heritage permit application will be submitted for approval, to address the rehabilitation of the stone farmhouse after its relocation. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall 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 Building Code and Zoning By-law. 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 will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning APPENDICES Appendix A: HPA-2018-IV-010 Appendix B: Planning Staff 5 - 7 5 - 8 5 - 9 5 - 10 5 - 11 5 - 12 5 - 13 5 - 14 5 - 15 5 - 16 5 - 17 5 - 18 $2!&4 /´³«¨­¤ 2¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ¥®± "´¨«£¨­¦ 2¤«®¢ ³¨®­ ΖΐΏ (´±®­ 2® £Ǿ +¨³¢§¤­¤±Ǿ /­³ ±¨® 4§¤ /¶­¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ³ ΖΐΏ (´±®­ 2® £ Ȩª­®¶­  ² ³§¤ '± ­³ , ­£²ȩ § ² ¤­³¤±¤£ ¨­³®  ­  ¦±¤¤¬¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ®¥ +¨³¢§¤­¤± ³® ¬ ¨­³ ¨­ ³§¤ §¤±¨³ ¦¤  ³³±¨¡´³¤² ®¥ ³§¤ ®±¨¦¨­ « ²³®­¤ ¯®±³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¥ ±¬§®´²¤ Ȩ'± ­³ (®´²¤ȩȁ 4§¨²  ¦±¤¤¬¤­³  ««®¶² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ®±¨¦¨­ « ²³®­¤ ¯®±³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ '± ­³ (®´²¤ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ±¤«®¢ ³¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ³® ¤·¯¤£¨³¤ ³§¤  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ²´¡£¨µ¨²¨®­ ¯« ­ȁ 4§¤ " ´¨«£¨­¦ -®µ¤± ¶¨«« ¯±®µ¨£¤Ȁ 1.!«« « ¡®´±Ǿ ¬ ³¤±¨ «Ǿ ¤°´¨¯¬¤­³  ­£ ¯« ­³ ³® ´­£¤±³ ª¤ ³§¨² ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¬®µ¤Ǿ 2.6¤±¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ ¡¸   ±¤¦¨²³¤±¤£ ²³±´¢³´± « ¤­¦¨­¤¤±Ǿ ±¤³ ¨­¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¬®µ¤±Ǿ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ²§®±¨­¦  ­£ «¨¥³¨­¦ ²³±´¢³´±¤ ¨²  £¤°´ ³¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ³ ²ª ®¥ ±¤«®¢ ³¨®­Ǿ 3.4§¤ ¢´³ «¨­¤ ¥®± ²¤¯ ± ³¨­¦ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¥±®¬ ¨³² ¥®´­£ ³¨®­Ǿ 4.4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ § ´« ±®´³¤ ¥®±  ¯¯±®µ « ¯±¨®± ³® «¨¥³¨­¦ Ȩ  ²ª¤³¢§ ¨²  ³³ ¢§¤£ ®¥ ®­¤ possibility), 5.6¤±¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ ³§ ³ ³§¤ § ´« ±®´³¤Ǿ  ² ¯±¤¯ ±¤£ ¡¸ ®³§¤±²Ǿ ¨²  £¤°´ ³¤ ³®  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤ ³§¤ ¬®µ¤Ǿ 6.2® £ ¯« ³¤²  ²  ­£ ¶§¤±¤ ±¤°´¨±¤£Ǿ 7.Detai«¤£ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­ ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ±¤°´¨±¤£ £¨¬¤­²¨®­² ¥®± ­¤¶ " ²¤¬¤­³ ¥®´­£ ³¨®­² ³®  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤ ³¤¬¯®± ±¸ ²³±´¢³´±¤² ±¤°´¨±¤£ ³® ¥ ¢¨«¨³ ³¤ ³§¤ move, 8.2¤¯ ¨±² ±¤°´¨±¤£ ³® ¢®±±¤¢³ £ ¬ ¦¤ ³§ ³ ¬ ¸ ®¢¢´± £´¤ ³® ³§¤ ²³±¤²²¤² ®¥ relocation. 7¤ ¶® ´«£ ¡¤ § ¯¯¸ ³® ¬¤¤³ ¸®´ ®­ ²¨³¤Ǿ ¨­³±®£´¢¤ ¸®´ ³® ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦  ­£ £¨²¢´²² ³§¨² ¬ ³³¤± ¨­ ¬®±¤ £¤³ ¨«ȁ Peter Stewart GEORGE ROBB ARCHITECT 5 - 19 5 - 20 ΐȁ7¤²³ ¤«¤µ ³¨®­ Αȁ.®±³§ ¶¤²³ ¢®±­¤± 5 - 21 Βȁ.®±³§ ¤«¤µ ³¨®­ Γȁ% ²³ ¤«¤µ ³¨®­ 5 - 22 Δȁ3®´³§ ¤ ²³ ¤«¤µ ³¨®­ Εȁ3®´³§ ¶¤²³ ¤«¤µ ³¨®­ 5 - 23 Ζȁ3®´³§ ¶¤²³ ¤«¤µ ³¨®­ Ηȁ$¤³ ¨«  ³ ²®´³§ ¶¤²³ ¢®±­¤±ǿ ­®³¤ ¬¨²²¨­¦ ¥« ²§¨­¦  ³ ±®®¥ µ ««¤¸ 5 - 24 9.6®¨£ ¬®±³ ± ©®¨­³²  ³ ²®´³§ ¤ ²³ ¢®±­¤± ΐΏȁ.®³¤ ±¤¢¤­³ ±¤¯®¨­³¨­¦  ³ ²®´³§ ¤ ²³ 5 - 25 ΐΐȁ2¤¢¤­³ ±¤¯®¨­³¨­¦  ³ ¦± £¤ ΐΑȁ2®®¥ ³± ­²¨³¨®­  ³ ²®´³§ ®µ¤± ,¨µ¨­¦ 2®®¬ 5 - 26 ΐΒȁ0¨³¢§¤£ ±®®¥ ¢®­­¤¢³¨®­ ³® (¤±¨³ ¦¤ (®´²¤ 14ȁ.®±³§ ¶ ««-,¨µ¨­¦ Room 5 - 27 15ȁ% ²³ ¶ ««-,¨µ¨­¦ 2®®¬ 16ȁ²®´³§ ¶¤²³ ¶ ««-,¨µ¨­¦ 2®®¬ 5 - 28 17.Kitchen 18ȁ7¤²³ ¶ «« ®¥ & ¬¨«¸ 2®®¬ 5 - 29 19ȁ.®±³§ ¶ ««-& ¬¨«¸ 2®®¬ 20ȁ% ²³ ¶ ««-Spa 5 - 30 21ȁ)­£®®± 0®®« «®®ª¨­¦ ­®±³§ ¤ ²³ 22ȁ)­£®®± ¯®®« «®®ª¨­¦ ²®³§ ¤ ²³ 5 - 31 23ȁ&«®®± ¥± ¬¨­¦ ®¥ (¤±¨³ ¦¤ (®´²¤ 24ȁ,®®ª¨­¦ ­®±³§ ¨­³® " ²¤¬¤­³ȁ .®³¤ ¯®´±¤£ ¢®­¢±¤³¤ ®­ «¤¥³Ǿ ±´¡¡«¤ ²³®­¤ ³® right 5 - 32 25ȁ$ ¬ ¦¤ ²³®­¤ ¶ «« ¨­ " ²¤¬¤­³ 26ȁ3®´³§ ¤ ²³ ¢®±­¤± ®¥ " ²¤¬¤­³ ¨­ (¤±¨³ ¦¤ (®´²¤ 5 - 33 27ȁ'±®´­£ &«®®± " ³§±®®¬ȝ, ´­£±¸ 28ȁ'±®´­£ &«®®± - ²³¤± "¤£±®®¬ Ȩ¥®±¬¤± ,¨µ¨­¦ 2®®¬ȩ 5 - 34 29ȁ&±®­³ &®¸¤± «®®ª¨­ ­®±³§30ȁ3³ ¨± ³® ²¤¢®­£ &«®®± 31ȁ$®®± ¥±®¬ ( «« ³® - ²³¤± "±¬ȁ32ȁ5¯¯¤± " ³§±®®¬ ®µ¤± &®¸¤± 5 - 35 33ȁ3³ ¨± ³® 5¯¯¤± ( «« 34ȁ"¤£±®®¬ Β 5 - 36 35ȁ¡¤£±®®¬ Δ 5 - 37 5 - 38 5 - 39 5 - 40 5 - 41 5 - 42 5 - 43 5 - 44 5 - 45 5 - 46 5 - 47 5 - 48 5 - 49 5 - 50 5 - 51 - page v executive summary consistent with recognized conservation executive summary Maintain appropriate physical relationships and visual settings thatPreserve the historic character of the building at 10 Duke Street Westand do not over repair or restore.Respect the uniqueness of the building in its materials and detailing.Allow for new construction that relates to and conserves the essentialform and integrity of the building at 10 Duke Street West.overall heritage value of the buildings such as the material and composition of existing facades in the industrial vernacular.Maintain sightlines to the adjacent heritage and note-worthy buildingson the street. Conservation Principle 7 - Legibility. It is recommended that any new •••••• Measures to mitigate potential impacts New development should maintain an appropriate visual separation from the original building. It is recommended that the frontage on Duke St. West and Queen Street North, remain connected to the street. Any new building adjacent to the 10 Duke St. W building should be contemporary as per work be distinguishable from original fabric but respond to original proportions and composition. principles including the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada) and the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) include: - alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historicisolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, conor of built heritage resources. ••••• 10 duke street west - heritage impact assessment existing building at 10 Duke Street, and then to evaluate the impact of proposed changes for its adaptive reuse. If there are any negative impacts, the report will also provide recommendations for mitigation strategies. In our research, both archival and primary, we have concluded that the cultural heritage.In this report, we reviewed the building to identify the features that would be recommended for designation. Once the characteristics of the building's existing value has been established, design guidelines are provided to meaningfully incorporate into an adaptive reuse project. This approach balances the desire to respect history, with the need to address contemporary concerns such as sustainability, urban design, accessibility and compliance with the building code. The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) will establish the cultural heritage value criteria for heritage designation as per Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The HIA assesses the potential impact of the subject applications and the Info Sheet No. 5 of the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport Heritage Toolkit publication Heritage Resources in the Land use Planning Process, potential negative impacts to cultural heritage resources include but are not limited to: 6 - 1 Approved by Council Dealt with under delegated approval authority 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 authority Under review. To be dealt with at the June 5th HK meetingUnder review. To be dealt with at the June 5th HK meetingUnder review. To be dealt with at the June 5th HK meetingUnder review. To be dealt with at the June 5th HK meetingUnder review. To be dealt with at the June 5th HK meeting Considered by Heritage Kitchener Unanimous Recommendation for Approval Staff Report # CSD-18-048DSD-18-037DSD-18-038DSD-18-034DSD-18-041 Date Mar 5/18 8-May-18 Apr 11/18 Jan 18/18 Feb 13/18Feb 23/18Mar 15/18Mar 20/1811-Apr-1817-Apr-1825-Apr-1830-Apr-1826-Apr-18 10-May-1812-May-1823-May-18 Received 2018 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS 17 Dill St 11 Hilda Pl 920 Orr Crt 37 Seneca Dr 710 Huron Rd 48 Ontario St N 45 Norfolk Cres9 Windsor Cres 136 Queen St N 39 Windsor Cres 35 Schneider Ave 82 Lancaster St E 137-147 King St W 21 Courtland Ave W Property Address 1133 Doon Village Rd 300 Joseph Schoerg Cres Number Application HPA-2018-V-001HPA-2018-IV-002HPA-2018-V-003HPA-2018-V-004HPA-2018-V-005HPA-2018-V-006HPA-2018-V-007HPA-2018-V-008HPA-2018-V-009HPA-2018-IV-010HPA-2018-IV-011HPA-2018-IV-012HPA-2018-V-013HPA-2018-V-01 4HPA-2018-V-015HPA-2018-IV-016 123456789 # 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839 IF1 - 1