HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK - 2012-03-06 - 35 David Street DRAFT Heritage Impact Assessment - Phase IIDRAFT
Heritage Impact Assessment
35 David Street, Kitchener
Phase II
a
~, ~~ ~-
~, 4~
~ ~~
4
~ ~~~_
. _ ~~ ~~c,
I
. ~~ ~ 4
~~_ 1
~....6'1J ~ iF. .~i
~'; r
!u
~~` s~
~';Y~
. ~`
~ I
J
prepared by
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
landscape architects, environmental planners, heritage planners
319 Woolwich Street, Guelph, ON N1H 3W4
(519) 824-8664 fax (519) 824-6776
landplan(a,thelandplan.com www.thelandplan.com
March 1, 2012
2-1
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
Table of Contents
DRAFT
1.0 BACKGROiJND -REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) ....... 1
2A HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS ............................... 1
2.1 Present owner contact information ............................................ 1
2.2 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and ................ 1
heritage attributes
2.3 Documentation of the heritage resource ........................................ 4
2.4 The proposed development .................................................. 8
2.5 Conservation -principles and mitigation ....................................... 15
2.6 Proposed demolition /alterations explained .................................... 16
3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 16
4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION ............................................. 16
REFERENCES ........................................................................ 18
Appendix 1 -City of Kitchener Community Services Department -Planning Division, 35 David Street - KHI
Development Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment - Scoped Terms of Reference
Appendix 2 - Qualifications of the author
All photographs are taken by the author on February 27, 2012 unless otherwise noted
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2 ~ 2
Heritage Impact Assessment 1
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II D R A F T
1.0 BACKGROUND -REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA
This HIA is in response to requirements for a submission and approval of a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment
to address the potential impact of the proposed Phase II development on the heritage attributes of the Part IV
designated property, and on the attributes associated with the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District,
and specifically the context of the surrounding streetscapelneighbourhood. The terms of reference for the HIA
are scoped 1 to waive certain requirements which were previously addressed in the HIA submitted and approved
for the Phase I development (Heritage Impact Assessment, 31- 43 David Street (25 Joseph Street), Kitchener,
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., February 9, 2010).
The 25 Joseph Street V ictoria School property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Though
the heritage attributes in the designation apply exclusively to the historic school building, the 35 David Street
property is contained within the legal description affected by the Part IV designating by-law. The subject
property is also located adjacent to the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District (HCD) which is designated
under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Given the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District and the Part IV designation by-law affecting the subject
property, the City requires that a Heritage Impact Assessment be a submission requirement for any development
application made for this property.
2.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Present owner contact information
Kitchener Housing Inc.
11 Weber St. West,
Kitchener, ON N2H 3Y9
Karen Kwiatkowski, General Manager
(519) 744-6655 Extension 103
2.2 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes
There are three structures on the 25 Joseph Street designated property, including the former Victoria
School, amulti-storey apartment block and one new apartment building (subject of February 2010 HIA).
(see figure 1)
1 City of Kitchener Community Services Department -Planning Division, 35 David Street - KHI Development
Phase II, Heritage Impact Assessment - Scoped Terms of Reference, February 17, 2012
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
2
DRAFT
Figure 1 25 Joseph Street -Part IV Designation highlighted - Google airphoto
Designation By-law Number 88-154 designates part of 25 Joseph Street in the City of Kitchener as being
as being of historic and architectural value. 2 The "part" that is of historic and architectural value is the
former Victoria School; however, the entire property is included in the by-law.
There is designated as being of historical and architectural value that part of the aforesaid
real property known as 25 Joseph Street being comprised of the main facade (Joseph Street
elevation), both east and west side elevations and the slate roof. 3
Victoria Public School is a hybrid in style reminiscent of the stately houses of Europe. It
combines features of the Jacobean, Baroque, and Edwardian styles. The specific features
which constitute the architectural reasons for designation are as follows: the three
projecting frontispieces (Joseph Street facade) which includes the rusticated entrance way
with radiating voussoir, double-leaf door and fanlight, both broken segmentally arched
pediments supported byDoric columns; the original six/nine double hungsash, muntins and
frames; the Tudor window over the main entrance with centre crest; the cylindrical lamp
standards on either side of the front steps; the pyramidal~nials atop the front entryway; all
molded fascia and soffits; the red-glazed brick building fabric laid in a Flemish Bond
pattern; the raised roman stone foundation with rock faced finish laid in broken courses;
~ Designation By-law Number 88-154, City of Kitchener
3 ibid
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2-4
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
3
DRAFT
and the slate roof. 4
Neither the high-rise apartment, nor the new apartment building at 3 5 David Street is designated, although
the property which they occupy is.
As well as being a designated property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, the subject property is
adjacent to a Heritage Conservation District (The Victoria Park Area HCD), designated under Part V of
the Act. (Figures 2 and 3). When the District designation was passed in 1996, Part IV properties were not
permitted within a Designated District; thus, 25 Joseph Street was excluded from the District. A number
of other properties adjacent to 25 Joseph Street are also excluded from the District designation; however,
not for Part IV designation reasons, but presumably because they are not in character with the heritage
aspects of the area, nor are they in scale with the vast majority of the District (The Victoria Park Area HCD
is silent on the rationale).
Figure 2 Victoria Park Area HCD with subject site highlighted - Region of Waterloo airphoto
4 ibid
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2
5
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
4
DRAFT
THE VICTORIA PARK AREA
HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
H~I~~.~.,~ w~~ ~, N'o I~C~I A4°c~it~e+t . ~~
,~
~+~~u~dary oaf t~ ~Ir~it~ ~ns~~~n [i~t donated ~n~~at F'~rt tlz~
.r ntar~v ri~ A+~.
~~~ rY ;: ~f'eS exC~ded ~i1~11 r# ~ ~~~~. ~ ~nta~ ~~} } ~~, ~~ ~ ~T11$11~
~.~~ „:
~~* S~de~ ~iar~~; ~~II~ ~Va~~ t~' t~; ~ Water t ut~ ~ ? ~~~ A~,
~~~ ~~~ ender ~~ rv vft#~ r,r~ ~~~ ~~t,
Figure 3 from: Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan, Hill, May 1996
2.3 Documentation of the heritage resource
As the heritage resource is the nearby Victoria Public School building, and the school building is not being
altered in any way, Building Code requirements, Zoning requirements, Engineering requirements, etc. will
not have an impact on the conservation of the heritage resource.
The following photographs are of 35 David Street and properties adjacent, including the designated
Victoria Public School building.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
5
DRAFT
Figure 5 Victoria Park opposite
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
2-7
Figure 4 Victoria Public School (Part IV designated under Ontario Heritage Act)
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
6
DRAFT
~.
-~
T ~y t
+4 FF
.~ .m
~{ ~ f
,M~ .
I~ ate.,
... -~ ~:
Figure 6
35 David Street - Phase I apartment
"~n~~
~~ ~w
I
,~
~~
~~,
~~~
r
p
r
- ~- ~ ~~ Ih
I~4
. _.
r.
4
1
s ~ I d+ ~ P _
11 J
_> ~,~' d~ d Yom. d~ - - ~, _ r`~~.. -
~RIj 1
h ~ c ~ `` ,
f F~ ~ ~1
~~ ~~~
~i ~ I . ~ i
~h .,.=i
-~
~. ~. r
~" "'
~E.~ '~ ~ ~
,~ .
1~ .- ~ .'•
~'
-
-~
~,
J
Figure 7 adjacent high rise apartments
The David Street streetscape is somewhat varied; however, most buildings have a street presence and a
pedestrian context. The apartments immediately to the west do not (Figure 7). A parking garage wall and
entrance greet the pedestrian and a large surface parking lot follows behind (Figure 8). The "commons"
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
DRAFT
of Victoria Park is immediately across the street from the 35 David Street. A grass berm screens the open,
green space of the Park from the street, providing more distant views of the clock tower and the City
downtown beyond (Figures 5 and 9). A row of maturing street trees defines the edge of the Park. Street
parking on the north side of David Street further screens views of the Park when automobiles are present.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2
Figure 8 parking garage entrance, David Street
Figure 9 Victoria Park -opposite
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
8
DRAFT
.°. ' ,,
~ ~,. ~
i ~~
¢ ~, ~ f
Ij"~ rt ~
'* ~ ~ ~ w _
a
~
i r
w '1n ~
a J ~" ~ ~
.f '. A
~
ll ~~
~ Ay
~ M l ~ y. ~4n d
v
``
}
A
r. ~'
fiA
w. .I. ~ t ~. ~.
. r -
~ t
~
i _
to f~ ~ " f6 1'y ~ is a ~Y'!.- _ ~
,~ ,~ ~ _
y ;~
~
~ ~ 5 ~.
.; - ... F .
-,
~
'yy~H-
.
r T
•-
,~"-
T -~ 9 W
~p F~ ,.,
R
v ~~ ye
_ 6~
y
n
~ ~ -
t ' v m ~
~ .o - ~ W+
~ ~ ~..
a ~.
~ }
1 ! ~~ ~
e
"
r
.. . - _
~ r
t
s _ ~
£~ ~ _ Imo'
~....y
i
,~
4 w
~~
.
_~l a~~..:.~ ,
1..~
_._ .. ~ ~~~~
.. d
_ ,.
nP J awc_
_ FFrr
J _ Vials _ 1'~ a $" dy~~..~
{' of ~
.. .~
_' a R .. r ~ ~
.. rv
', ve_..
~ .~- - f
- _
. ,:...e
-_
.- m ...a
- ~. ~.ic°~.a4~ .yam ..
- _- _ _.
f -
~
Victoria School Building
Figure 10
3 5 David Street Phase I
Phase II Building Site
David Street from Victoria Park
2.4 The proposed development
Figure 12 shows the block context with the existing Phase I apartment building at 35 David Street. The
new building (figure 13) is approximately the same footprint as 35 David Street, being a similar structure
to that which was recently constructed to the east.
When Phase I of 35 David Street was constructed, the two remaining street trees on that side of the street
were removed and replaced with a row of new trees. Street trees were also planted along the frontage of
the Phase II building site. (Figure 11)
4 'j. ~ ~~ ~gdi '.~ ~ .v1
'x ~ r
i
s
.~
~~ :~' ~ -
-~. ~ ,
~ ,
~ 'J ,~ ,
. Y,,,
yd, ~ e. ..
~,
it
qz~
S .
,: ~ r°'
~~ ~ ` ' ~'
~~ ~ ~ ~:
" ~
~' ~
Figure 11
Phase II building site
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
March 1, 2012
2-10
Heritage Impact Assessment 9
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II D R A F T
~` ~ ~ „~ ~~~ Li~ I~:~ ~ l
,: .. .+~
is a ~ a ~ ~ ^
1.~'~~ll~ ~1'~1,.~,
Figure 12 block context
Figure 13
~ .,fit ~~~'~ ~ '~~~~~~~f
w
~°
w
~ A
~ ^
1
~I
y i ••s ~ ,I 1~ ^
S 9 ' ~ ' '
~ ~
~ ° Ej ~`~ ~I~I~E~~~:~I~ ~~~ ~~I~I
~.
~:~ sit ~ca~~r ~ ~~~~~~~
N
^
I~
y ^ ~ ~
°~
~ e
n r a
~I..r+ -
35 David Street -new building context
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
March 1, 2012
1
1
2-11
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
10
DRAFT
A Site Plan, prepared by Robertson Simmons Architects is illustrated in Figure 14.
Figure 14 Proposed Site Plan -Robertson Simmons Architects Inc.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2-12
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
11
DRAFT
The proposed building, like
its predecessor and the
Victoria School building, is
clad in red brick, reflecting
one of the typical materials
of the Heritage Conservation
District. It occupies
approximately the same
footprint as the Phase I
building and the demolished
two apartments that once
occupied this site. It is a 4
storey structure on the street
side and 3 storeys at the rear.
The David Street elevation is
illustrated in figure 15. The
David Street lower floor is
clad in light grey composite
stone, while the next two
floors are in red brick, with
the mansard roof clad in
black shingles.
Windows are double hung 1
/ 1 sash with a brick soldier
course over each and with
light grey precast sills.
These details are identical to
those of Phase I and
reminiscent of the adjacent
Victoria School building and
are complementary without
being copies.
The floor plan opposite
illustrates how the Phase I
and Phase II buildings are
integrated and share a
common elevator, lobby and
storage room. (Figure 15)
YI W
w
Figure 15 David Street Elevation & Floor Plan -Robertson Simmons Architects.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2-1
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
12
DRAFT
w ~, ~
e
~ ~ .
r ~~
~
;~
V+
qtr ~
~ [7 C7r
~.~ S III ..
+• ~ C
~
`fi
+M1~ ~ ~
~+M1~~~'~
Y1 ~ '~'~
~ ~a} VJ
~~FYYyy
2
. ~+
f •
~~
Q
~ry _f
IR^ ~/~}}
qg
~+
.
~ 1
nlAl, M
y
I~ ~ ~ I --
(~{ I
~
~
n r
C'!7
~
~ ~ { ~
+• l I I I
-
IJ
~'~ .,
{
~
~
.. =
....~p..m •~~
[U
~
~
4---~.'
®
- - - - - :~ ~
I
l
N y~L
LL I .'
~r ~!1 ~~
--_
~~1
~l
~
~ I
___,
~~
.
l[~~~5
C ~; ..
r f~
~
~
~
~
I
~
:~~ ~,
v
i~
I' ~ w
..,. _._ __ .:: :
~
~~ n ~
I ! ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ W
I~
~I `
~
~i
? I,
I I
I i
IY
I
..
~I ~
_
~]
l
~
_~
.
~___
~ ~ ~
~
I~
W.J I I
II
I I ~
II
~~ i '~'
C~~
Q
~ II ~
II ~
I I •`= ~
ii
~1^~i~~ ~
~~ ~~
a
II ~
II
J ~ ~
~
C?7
~
~
~~~
m
n II
I I
'
i ~
~
~
~
1I _ I I
~i
~i
i
~~ I'
~~ Q
~
1°
it
a ._.__.~
a
,_.-----
S i!.
I"
._ ~s
Y
~
Figure 16 Front and Rear Elevations -Robertson Simmons Architects Inc.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2-14
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
13
DRAFT
.
~ ~~ .
•-
C
'
G
~
(:
aI~Y`
r -
-~ s,a
'
J
r
~ # ~ Q e~I
~ ~ ~: ~~
{1 ~~ .~ ~ L
~
f C] '°" ~ r' ~'j
~!1 ~ c~7 4J +e ~
~ C~]
~
I ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ W
i
~I ~-
~
~ ~ ~
{~
e~~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ j5
G
I
II ~~
--.--
. i ~ _
{
-
!I w
..
I. ~I
i~ w
ii
_ n^^ ~ , ~
i Vic.,.,:... _.~,.._ .__.. ~ .....
.,_.
I
-
--
- ~~~ ~ r~
~
----
H
t„ ~ ~,
~..
~_
I ~~~
E ~, ~J
•~, LL er.
~~
I I L ~7
.~~' c~
~ C.7 t
~.
.:.:
I
J UJ
8
.a ~ ~ ~a. LL,
~~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~~
~R~dtl~~ C L7~
.-
~~~7~ ~~~4~12~~~~
~
Y 41
{
"•. ~3d C7Cs
~L'7
C~
~ ~., I
iXb T r r r
r ~l
*. i
7 fif
,. .
i ~
LP
1 [i
(- 'l~
~~
_
t~ ~ Irv
+ll i~~l I
Yk ~
~
WWW
~ p~ I J 'Ls
l`S
~ ~ [ j
.®
-._ _
f'J `'~. t<i IC! I Cr] if
~
Q7 r ~
r
~ C
;..,~ u7 ~ d U}
.~~ ~0~~~ ar
G~7 ~
'
~
,~
~ ,p^]y
~ ~
r
~~
II
~I
II t:! ~~'
i
_ 9]'j
~~~~~~ ~d,
~~~ ~
~ C ~~
~~~
I I
I I
- ~ -H
l~ ~~r~a~ ~~s
~ ~ ~~t~ ub
~~ ~ ~'~ C CC
Cd ~ ( ~ C ~ ~'~ ~ 1
t
7 ~-
~¢?~
~
~
r
~
~+
`. E7 C ~ c_
~~W?~ I7f3h IY3i: ~)
r- ~'-I '"'l 'I'
Figure 17 End Elevations -Robertson-Simmons Architects Inc.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2-1
5
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
14
DRAFT
Figure 18
perspective -Robertson Simmons Architects Inc.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
March 1, 2012
2-16
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
15
DRAFT
The Phase II addition is expected to have no impact on the Victoria School building, being separated from
it by the Phase I building. The David Street streetscape will be enhanced by the addition, filling the void
created by the demolition of the former two apartment buildings. The 4 storey to 3 storey transition from
street to rear of the property takes up the slope in the same manner as the Phase I building, re-creating the
courtyard space that previously existed. Private amenity areas in front are enclosed by an iron garden
fence and landscape plantings in the same manner as that of the Phase I building, completing this portion
of the streetscape. The massing of the combination of Phases I and II is complementary to the Victoria
School building and creates a defined edge to the street.
Figure 16 is a perspective of the proposed building as seen from the west, showing the relationship of the
building to Phase I and to the Victoria School building. The large apartment building to the south is
screened at street level by street trees and the Phase I and II buildings.
Phase II was not developed as a separate and detached multiple building so advantage could be taken of
a common elevator, lobbies and storage rooms. The massing of the two phases is complementary to that
of the Victoria School building. It provides a strong street relationship without overpowering the street
and provides a transition from a relatively modest height street level building to the high rises behind.
Separating Phases I and II would not accomplish more from a scale or massing perspective; would not alter
views along David Street; and would offer no more compatibility with existing neighbourhood buildings.
The advantage of combining elevators and other common facilities does not result in a compromise from
a heritage impact perspective.
2.5 Conservation -principles and mitigation
The heritage feature on the property is the Victoria School building.
Some guidance to conservation is provided in the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District
Plan,S i.e.:
• New buildings shall emphasize a human scale that creates a comfortable, safe and livable streetscape.
The Phase II building provides entrances at the ground floor on the street side in a landscaped, private
amenity area.
• Contemporary design of a high quality shall be achieved that is complementary to the historic character
of the Area in terms of massing, materials and scale. The new building of contemporary design
complements its neighbour and provides a transition from the high rises behind and adjacent, to the
Victory School building and Victoria Park.
• Materials typical of the historic Area, such as brick, shall be used. The new building uses the same
materials as the Phase I building and materials reminiscent of adj acent neighbourhood historic buildings,
namely a brick field with stone foundation and dark roof.
• The appearance, placement and proportion of windows shall be complementary to historic windows in
the Area, if possible. Windows appear and are placed and proportioned like the historic windows in the
area.
• Street trees are considered an essential part of the park-like character of the Area and should be
conserved and enhanced. New street trees were planted with the Phase I development.
• Full-sized trees with the capacity to form a broad overhead canopy should continue to be planted in the
boulevards of all residential streets. A diversity of tree species should be selected which have green
leaves throughout the summer and a broad spreading crown at maturity. New street trees were planted
with Phase I, Sugar Maples and Red Oaks to complement the existing Honey Locusts.
Victoria ParkArea Heritage Conservation District Plan, City of Kitchener, Nicholas Hill, Architect-Planner,
May 1996, pages 67, 68 & 85
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2-17
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
16
DRAFT
The proposal reflects the existing lot configuration providing a transition from the scale of adjacent
development to the heritage resource and the Park across the street.
2.6 Proposed demolition /alterations explained
Proposed alterations result in no loss of cultural heritage value and result in a positive impact on the
streetscape /neighbourhood context. Although the exact nature of the Phase II project was unknown at
the time, the basic concept was envisaged when the HIA was conducted for the Phase I project.
3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
No impacts on the heritage attributes of the subject properties are expected from the development of the
Phase II apartment building addition. The original four structures on the property, now demolished, are
to be replaced by a new apartment building of similar scale and height and of the same basic footprint.
The significance and heritage attribute of the property is the Victoria School building which will not be
affected in any way, and the context of the property situated adjacent to the Victoria Park Area Heritage
Conservation District.
There are no impacts of the proposed development on the cultural heritage resource. Impact on the
surroundings is expected to be minimal with the measures taken to provide a development that is
sympathetic to the streetscape and the neighbourhood, fulfilling the objectives outlined in the Victoria
Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan.
Mitigating measures to be employed include:
• scaling the building addition to be consistent with neighbouring structures in the vicinity;
• utilizing building materials that are compatible with surrounding structures;
• providing a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and
compatibility with existing neighbourhood buildings;
• providing a streetscape that ispedestrian-friendly and orients building activities to the street;
• development of a landscape that is residential in scale and has a street orientation;
• provision of underground parking.
4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION
The HIA terms of reference require the consultant to write a recommendation as to whether the subject
property is worthy of heritage designation in accordance with the heritage designation criteria per Regulation
9/06, Ontario Heritage Act. The following questions must be answered in the final recommendation of the
report:
1. Does the property meet the criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Regulation 9/06,
Ontario Heritage Act?
Ontario Regulation 9/06 states: A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets
one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or
interest:
1. The property has design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or
construction method,
ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2-1
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
17
DRAFT
2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or
institution that is significant to a community,
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a
community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or
theorist who is significant to a community.
3. The property has contextual value because it,
i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark.
Yes, the property (25 Joseph Street) is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The
other building have no heritage attributes. The property is adj acent to a Heritage Conservation District
as will be the replacement building.
2. If the subject property does not meet the criteria for heritage designation then it must be clearly stated
as to why it does not.
The property (25 Joseph Street) is designated under Part N of the Ontario Heritage Act.
3. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage designation, does the property warrant
conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement:
Conserved.' means the identification, protection, use and/or management ofcultural heritage and
archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are
retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment.
The property warrants conservation in the context of the Part IV designation and the adjacent Heritage
Conservation District. Furthermore, conservation should follow the guidance to conservation provided
in the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District Plan, (Hill, 1996).
This draft, scoped, heritage impact assessment is respectfully submitted by:
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
~~
per: Owen R. Scott, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2-1
Heritage Impact Assessment
3 5 David Street, Kitchener -Phase II
18
DRAFT
REFERENCES
35 David Street - KHI Development Phase II, Heritage ImpactAssessment - Scoped Terms of Reference, City
of Kitchener Community Services Department -Planning Division, February 17, 2012
Desi nation By-law under the Ontario Heritage Act, Number 88-154, part of 25 Joseph Street, City of Kitchener,
August 31,1988.
Heritage Impact Assessment, 31- 43 David Street (25 Joseph Street), Kitchener, The Landplan Collaborative
Ltd., February 9, 2010
Hill, Nicholas, Architect-Planner, Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan, City of Kitchener,
May 1996.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2 ~ 2
Aabendix 1
City of Kitchener
Community Services Department -Planning Division
35 David Street - KHI Development Phase II
Heritage Impact Assessment -Scoped Terms of Reference
1.0 Background
A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural heritage
resources within a defined area proposed for future development. The study shall include an inventory of all
cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all
known cultural heritage resources, an evaluation of the significance of the resources, and makes
recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A
Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a property which is listed on the City's Heritage Advisory
Committee Inventory; listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage
Act; or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also
apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the development
application stage or construction.
It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of
development or alteration. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as early as
possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage
Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre-submission consultation meeting. The notice
will inform the property offer of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide
Terms of Reference for completion ofthe Heritage Impact Assessment.
2.0 Subject Property and Proposal
The subject property is municipally addressed 35 David Street, but is contained within the legal description for
25 Joseph Street which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (former Victoria School). The
property is also located immediately adjacent the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. In 2010,
a Heritage Impact Assessment was submitted and approved for the development of a 3 storey 18 unit multiple
dwelling municipally addressed 35 David Street. The building was also the subject of a Heritage Permit
Application. Its construction represents Phase I ofthe Kitchener Housing Inc. development at 35 David Street.
The subject proposal involves a second phase of construction at 35 David Street, and proposes to build an
addition to the existing 3 storey 18 unit building. The proposed addition would be of similar height and design
to Phase I, but would contain 21 units and feature a central vestibule and elevator where it connects to the phase
I building.
3.0 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements
The City will require the submission and approval of a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment to address the
potential impact of the proposed Phase II development on the heritage attributes of the Part IV designated
property, and on the attributes associated with the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District, and
specifically the context of the surrounding streetscapelneighbourhood. These Terms of Reference for the HIA
have been scoped to waive certain requirements which were previously addressed in the HIA submitted and
approved for the Phase I development.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2- 21
Aabendix 1
3.1 Photographs and written description of the subject property. This should include a description of the Phase
I development identifying: building elements, building materials, architectural finishes, natural heritage
elements, and landscaping.
3.2 An outline of the proposed development, its context, and how it will impact the subject property and
surrounding streetscape (including existing buildings, structures, and site details such as landscaping). In
particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed development on the former Victoria
School, the Phase I building, and the setting and character of the David Street streetscape shall be
evaluated. Specific attention should be given to issues relating to location, scale, massing and views along
David Street; and compatibility with existing neighbourhood buildings.
3.3 Consideration and evaluation of conservation options which may mitigate impact.
At minimum, the option of developing Phase II as a separate and detached multiple building should be
examined and evaluated against the current proposal.
3.4 A summary of the conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. Appropriate
conservation principles may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada -Standards and Guidelines
for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of
Building Heritage Properties, Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture; the Ontario Ministry of Tourism
and Culture's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; as well as the policies and guidelines of the Victoria Park Area
Heritage Conservation District Plan.
3.5 Proposed alterations must be justified and explained as to the loss of cultural heritage value and impact
on the streetscapelneighbourhoodcontext.
3.6 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations,
materials, landscaping, etc.
3.7 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be
included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and
competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any
literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report.
4.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations
The summary statement should provide a full description of.
• The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes of the
subject properties.
• An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site
alteration approaches are recommended.
• Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or
site alteration approaches are not required or appropriate.
4.0 Approval Process
Fifteen (15) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic pdf format burned on CD
shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic copies shall be marked with a
"DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to
determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2 - 22
Appendix 1 3
review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one electronic copy of
the final Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the
final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note that Heritage
Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and
discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until the City's Heritage
Kitchener Committee has been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff.
Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage
consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener . The applicant will be notified of Staff s comments and
acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the
further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The
recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be
incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the
discretion of the municipality.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2 ~ 2
Appendix 2
Qualifications of the Author
OWEN R. SCOTT, OALA, FCSLA, CARP
Education:
Master of Landscape Architecture (M.L.A.) University of Michigan,1967
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Landscape Horticulture), (B.S.A.) University of Guelph,1965
Professional Experience:
1977 -present President, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Guelph, Ontario
1965 -present President, Canadian Horticultural Consulting Company Limited, Guelph, Ontario
1977 -1985 Director, The Pacific Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Vancouver and Nanaimo, BC
1975 -1981 Editor and Publisher, Landscape Architecture Canada, Ariss, Ontario
1969 -1981 Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architecture, University of Guelph
1975 -1979 Director and Founding Principal, Ecological Services for Planning Limited, Guelph, Ontario
1964 -1969 Landscape Architect, Proj ect Planning Associates Limited, Toronto, Ontario
Historical Research, Heritage Landscape Planning and Restoration Experience and Expertise
Current Professional Heritage Associations Affiliations:
Member: Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation
Member: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (formerly CAPHC)
Member: Association for Preservation Technology
Member: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario
Community and Professional Society Service (Heritage):
Director: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP), 2002 - 2003
Member: Advisory Board, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario,1980 - 2002
Member: City of Guelph Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC),1987 - 2000 (Chairman 1988
-1990)
Member: Advisory Council, Centre for Canadian Historical Horticultural Studies, 1985 -1988
Personal and Professional Honours and Awards (Heritage):
National Award 2009 Heritage Canada Foundation National Achievement, Alton Mill, Alton, ON
Award of Merit 2009 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Awards, Alton Mill, Alton, ON
Award 2001 Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement
Award 1998 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (10 year award)
Award 1994 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (5 year award)
Regional Merit 1990 Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA), Britannia School Farm Master Plan
National Honour 1990 CSLA Awards, Confederation Boulevard, Ottawa
Citation 1989 City of Mississauga Urban Design Awards, Britannia School Farm Master Plan
Honour Award 1987 Canadian Architect, Langdon Hall Landscape Restoration, Cambridge, ON
Citation 1986 Progressive Architecture, The Ceremonial Routes (Confederation Boulevard), Ottawa,
National Citation 1985 CSLA Awards, Tipperary Creek Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Saskatoon, SK
National Merit 1984 CSLA Awards, St. James Park Victorian Garden, Toronto, ON
Award 1982 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ontario Renews Awards, Millside, Guelph, ON
Selected Heritage Publications (Heritage):
Scott, Owen R., The Southern Ontario "Grid", ACORN Vol XXVI-3, Summer 2001. The Journal of the Architectural
Conservancy of Ontario.
Scott, Owen R. 19th Century Gardens for the 20th and 21 St Centuries. Proceedings of"Conserving Ontario's Landscapes"
conference of the ACO, (April 1997). Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc., Toronto, 1998.
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2 - 24
Appendix 2 2
Qualifications of the Author
Scott, Owen R. Landscapes of Memories, A Guide for Conservingllistoric Cemeteries. (19 of 30 chapters) compiled and
edited by Tamara Anson-Cartright, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, 1997.
Scott, Owen R. Cemeteries: A Historical Perspective, Newsletter, The Memorial Society of Guelph, September 1993.
Scott, Owen R. The Sound of the Double-bladed Axe, Guelph and its SpringFestival.edited byGloria Dent and Leonard
Conolly, The Edward Johnson Music Foundation, Guelph,1992.2 pp.
Scott, Owen R. Woolwich Street Corridor, Guelph, ACORN Vol XVI-2, Fall 1991. Newsletter of the Architectural
Conservancy of Ontario Inc.
Scott, Owen R. guest editor, ACORN, Vol. XIV-2, Summer 1989. Cultural Landscape Issue, Newsletter of the
Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc.
Scott, Owen R. Cultivars, pavers and the historic landscape, Historic Sites Supplies Handbook. Ontario Museum
Association, Toronto,1989.9 pp.
Scott, Owen R. Landscape preservation -What is it? Newsletter, American Society of Landscape Architects -Ontario
Chapter, vol. 4 no.3,1987.
Scott, Owen R. Tipperary Creek Conservation Area, Wanuskewin Herita e.~ Park. LandscapeArchitectural Review, May
1986. pp. 5-9.
Scott, Owen R. Victorian Landscape Gardening. Ontario Bicentennial History Conference, McMaster University,1984.
Scott, Owen R. Canada West Landscapes. Fifth Annual Proceedings Niagara Peninsula History Conference (1983).
1983.22 pp.
Scott, Owen R. Utilizin H.~ istory to Establish Cultural and Physical Identity in the Rural Landscape. Landscape Planning,
Elsevier Scientific Press, Amsterdam, 1979. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 179-203.
Scott, Owen R. Changing Rural Landscape in Southern Ontario. Third Annual Proceedings Agricultural History of
Ontario Seminar (1978). June 1979. 20 pp.
Scott, Owen R., P. Grimwood, M. Watson. George Laing -Landscape Gardener, Hamilton, Canada West 1808-1871.
Bulletin, The Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. IX, No. 3, 1977, 13 pp. (also published in Landscape
Architecture Canada, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1978).
Scott, Owen R. The Evaluation of the Upper Canadian Landscape. Department of Landscape Architecture, University
of Manitoba.1978. (Colour videotape).
Following is a representative listing of some of the many heritage landscape projects undertaken by Owen R. Scott
in his capacity as a landscape architect with Project Planning Associates Ltd., as principal of Owen R. Scott & Associates
Limited, and as principal of The Landplan Collaborative Ltd.
o Acton Quarry Cultural Heritage Landscape & Built Heritage Study & Assessment Peer Review, Acton, ON
o Alton Mill Landscape, Caledon, ON
o Belvedere Terrace -Peer Review, Assessment of Proposals for Heritage Property, Parry Sound, ON
o Black Creek Pioneer Village Master Plan, Toronto, ON
o Britannia School Farm Master Plan, Peel Board of Education/Mississauga, ON
~ Confederation Boulevard (Sussex Drive) Urban Design, Site Plans, NCCIOttawa, ON
o Doon Heritage Crossroads Master Plan and Site Plans, Region of Waterloo/Kitchener, ON
o Downtown Guelph Private Realm Improvements Manual, City of Guelph, ON
o Downtown Guelph Public Realm Plan, City of Guelph, ON
o Dundurn Castle Landscape Restoration Feasibility Study, City of Hamilton, ON
o Elam Martin Heritage Farmstead Master Plan, City of Waterloo, ON
o Exhibition Park Master Plan, City of Guelph, ON
~ George Brown House Landscape Restoration, Toronto, ON
~ Government of Ontario Light Rail Transit Route Selection, Cultural and Natural Resources Inventory for
Environmental Assessment, Hamilton/Burlington, ON
~ Grand River Corridor Conservation Plan, GRCA/Regional Municipality of Waterloo, ON
o Hespeler West Secondary Plan -Heritage Resources Assessment, City of Cambridge, ON
o John Galt Park, City of Guelph, ON
~ Judy LaMarsh Memorial Park Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON
o Lakewood Golf Course Cultural Landscape Assessment, Tecumseh, ON
o Landfill Site Selection, Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Region of Halton, ON
The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. March 1, 2012
2-25
Appendix 2
Qualifications of the Author
o Langdon Hall Gardens Restoration and Site Plans, Cambridge, ON
o MacGregor/Albert Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, City of Waterloo, ON
o Museum of Natural Science/Magnet School 59/Landscape Restoration and Site Plans, City of Buffalo, NY
o Muskoka Pioneer Village Master Plan, MNR/Huntsville, ON
o Peel Heritage Centre Adaptive Re-use, Landscape Design, Brampton, ON
o Phyllis Rawlinson Park Master Plan (winning design competition), Town of Richmond Hill, ON
o Prime Ministerial Precinct and Rideau Hall Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON
~ Queen/Picton Streets Streetscape Plans, Town ofNiagara-on-the-Lake, ON
o Regional Heritage Centre Feasibility Study and Site Selection, Region of Waterloo, ON
o Rockway Gardens Master Plan, Kitchener Horticultural SocietylCity of Kitchener, ON
~ South Kitchener Transportation Study, Heritage Resources Assessment, Region of Waterloo, ON
~ St. George's Square, City of Guelph, ON
~ St. James Park Victorian Garden, City of Toronto, ON
o Tipperary Creek (Wanuskewin) Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, MVAISaskatoon, SK
~ University of Toronto Heritage Conservation District Study, City of Toronto, ON
~ Waterloo Valleylands Study, Heritage and Recreational Resources mapping and policies, Region of Waterloo
~ Woodside National Historic Park Landscape Restoration, Parks CanadalKitchener, ON
0 255 Geddes Street, Elora, ON, heritage opinion evidence -Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Herita~pact Assessments, Herita~pact Statements and Heritage Conservation Plans:
o Barra Castle Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o Biltmore Hat Factory Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
0 140 Blue Heron Ridge Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON
~ 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
~ 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Conservation Plan, Kitchener, ON
~ Cambridge Retirement Complex on the former Tiger Brand Lands, Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON
0 27-31 Cambridge Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON
~ 3075 Cawthra Road Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
~ City Centre Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
0 175 Cityview Drive Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
~ Cordingly House Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
0 264 Crawley Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
~ 31-43 David Street (25 Joseph Street) Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
~ Grey Silo Golf Course/Elam Martin Farmstead Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo, ON
~ GRCA Lands, 748 Zeller Drive Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, Kitchener, ON
o Hancock Woodlands Cultural Heritage Assessment and Heritage Impact Statement, City of Mississauga, ON
0 117 Liverpool Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
~ 30 - 40 Margaret Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
0 1245 Mona Road, Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
~ 324 Old Huron Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
0 40 Queen Street South Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, (Streetsville), ON
o Rockway Holdings Limited Lands north of Fairway Road Extension Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON
o Thorny-Brae Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON
~ University of Guelph, Gordon Street Houses, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
~ 927 Victoria Road South Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON
~ Winzen Developments Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON
Expert Witness Experience (Heritage):
Owen R. Scott has been called as an expert witness at a number of hearings and trials. These include Ontario
Municipal Board Hearings, Conservation Review Board Hearings, Environmental Assessment Board and
Environmental Protection Act Board Hearings, and civil and criminal trials. The heritage landscapes evidence he
has presented has been related to cultural heritage issues
where historical and landscape resources were evaluated.
March 1, 2012
2 - 26