HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-14-024 - HPA 2014-IV-003 - 883 Doon Village rd Stuff Report
Community Services Department www1itchener.ca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: April 1, 2014
SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning
PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 4
DATE OF REPORT: March 17, 2014
REPORT NO.: CSD-14-024
SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application
H PA-2014-I V-003
New Roof
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2014-IV-003 be approved to permit the installation of Enviroshake or asphalt
shingles and roof vents (rear elevation) at the property municipally addressed as 883
Doon Village Road in accordance with the supporting information submitted with the
application and subject to the following condition:
1. That the final location and details for the roof vents on the rear elevation be
reviewed and approved by Heritage Planning staff.
A
/i '
„ o
and
ell
x,r
1 - 1
BACKGROUND:
The Community Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2014-IV-
003. The applicant is seeking permission to remove the existing cedar roof and replace it with
either Enviroshake or asphalt shingles and roof vents (rear elevation) at the property municipally
addressed as 883 Doon Village Road.
REPORT:
The subject property is located on the corner of Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road in Ward 4 of
the City. The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The
designating by-law indicates that the property was designated for historic and architectural value.
The following heritage attributes are identified: three bay front fagade; the two side facades all
having windows with six panes over six panes; the front door complete with transom and side
lights; the one-storey verandah with turned posts which extends across the front of the house; the
gable roof with return eaves; the small square attic windows; and, the two chimneys at either end
of the gable. The owner is proposing to remove the existing cedar roof and replace it with either
Enviroshake or asphalt shingles and roof vents (rear elevation).
The subject property was designated in 1984 and at the time the roof was covered with asphalt
shingles. In 1985 the property received funding under the Building Rehabilitation and Improvement
Campaign (BRIC) of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture to remove the asphalt shingles and
replace with cedar shingles on the main house and front porch. The existing cedar shingle roof is
29 years old and in poor condition with missing cedar, large amounts of moss and weeds, blistering
and cracking.
The current owner purchased the property in 2012 and along with replacing the roof intends to
complete a number of rehabilitation projects. The rehabilitation projects will address extensive
wood rot, structural damage to the porch, and repairs to the soffits, fascia, eaves troughs,
downspouts and exposed wood. The owner intends to apply for a Designated Heritage Property
Grant to assist with the costs of these projects.
The owner is proposing to remove the existing cedar shingle roof and replace it with either
Enviroshake or asphalt shingles and roof vents (rear elevation). Enviroshake has been proposed
as an alternative because it is available in a weathered grey colour and installed in a similar way as
a cedar roof, giving the appearance of a ten year old cedar shingle roof. Asphalt shingles have
been proposed because they were installed on the house at the time of designation in 1984. The
proposed roof vents will be installed on the rear elevation but the exact details are not yet known.
The owner has advised that the choice to install Enviroshake versus asphalt shingle will depend on
the project costs associated with the other required rehabilitation projects.
In reviewing the merits of the application, City staff note the following:
• the existing cedar shingle roof is not original to the house and is in poor condition;
• the designating by-law does not reference the roof material;
• the installation of Enviroshake and asphalt shingle is reversible;
• the proposed Enviroshake product will provide the appearance of a cedar shingle roof;
• the proposed asphalt shingles match what existed at the time of designation;
• the proposed roof vents will be located on the rear elevation;
• the details of the proposed roof vents can be required through a condition of the permit;
and,
• the new roof will not detract from the character of the property.
1 - 2
As a result, Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that installation of Enviroshake or asphalt
shingle and roof vents (rear elevation) at the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village
Road, will not impair or negatively impact the significance of the property.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The processing of Heritage Permit Applications supports the Quality of Life Community Priority
of the City of Kitchener Strategic Plan by helping preserve the community's unique heritage and
promoting culture as both an economic driver and a central element of a healthy community.
Heritage Permit Applications also support the Development Community Priority to honour and
protect our heritage.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Heritage Kitchener will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application.
Members of the community will be informed via circulation of this staff report to Heritage
Kitchener and via formal consideration by City Council.
REVIEWED BY:
Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
Community Services Department
Attachment:
Appendix `A': Heritage Permit Application HPA-2014-IV-003
1 - 3
HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
ApPlt�;at�on too �'
City of Kitchener
Community Services Department
Planning Division
Ki TTC.HFN'ER, 200 King Street West
Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7
(519) 741-2426
_Nature of Application
Exterior Interior ❑ Signage ❑
Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration Do Relocation ❑
Subject Property
Municipal Address: om t9 /VLP
Legal Description (if known): lls 7 - }fir _ QT f /€1C/
l..
Building/Structure Type: Residential D9 Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional ❑
Heritage Designation: Part IV 91 Part V (HCD) ❑ — -Is the Subject Property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? Yes ❑ No ❑
Property Owner
Name:
Address:
Telephone(Home): 1 Telephone (Work):
Fax: N-Mail:
Agent(if applicable) -
Name:
Address:
Telephone(Horne): Telephone (Work):
Fax: E-Mail - -
Written Description
Please provide a written description of the project proposal including any conservation methods you
plan to use. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative
details, whether arty 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 guridance.
1`��4
Review of City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines
Describe why itis necessary to undertake the proposed work.
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V
Heritage Conservation District Plan.
_
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available atvmxmv.pc.go.nm).
_.............
__--__.._��___--'__ ----____--__- _-_-'- --�-____'------
' Expmoted Start Date C/
loll
(Day/Month/Year) °'°'" '~"'
~_ ', e,-7 ~ ' - ' /A�� ' -~- -
Have you disc ssed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? 9 Yes No
If yes, w/hO?
,
Have you discussed this work with the Building Division? El Yes ��Nu
|f yes, who?
--
Have you applied fora Building Permit for this work? Yes XNu
Other Related Applications (Bu|(d|no/Pianmin0): Aop|imat|onNn _______�� ____
Acknowledgement
The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support
Of this application shall he deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that
receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener Planning Division does not guarantee ittobea
'complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that Council of the City of Kitchener ohoU
determine whether the information submitted hznna a complete application. Further review ofthe
application will he undertaken and the owner or agent may becontacted to provide additional
information
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 authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject
property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including photographs, which are necessary for
- -
the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been
identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner
and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the
application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this
application and understands that the approval of this 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 bait not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The
undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the
conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications
approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine tieing
imposed or imprisonment as prN.vided for nger the Ontario Heritage Act.
Signature of Owner/Ager sate- ',4M 7 U IV
Signature of Owner/Agent" Date-/,.1-71YI?61-1 ---
Authorization
If this application is being made by an agent/solicitor on behalf of the property owner, the following
authorization must be completed:
11 we, owner of the land that is subject of this application,
hereby authorize _-- to act on my/our behalf in this regard.
Signature of Owner.- Date:
Signature of Owner. Date:
The personal infomnation on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2),
Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the
purposes of administering the heritage pen-nit application and ensuring appropriate service of
notice of receipt finder Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. if you have
any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of
Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener(519-741-2769).
it T R'ALL
3 N
!.
-a
'= iL41VFV1�Cl �GtVCR� r ;1i 3 ,J7 J S,r k ? ; { f pie y -� '£
3
iQtlC�'Qf R [.P.ipt E S£
c" 9 - D
! f'
t
P�OC
n _���
e'ifage..i'�l�GlTenet° ro x E
t�]Ooahbil Y >:
r � M,
}
1 a
W3�
RP,
� } �s�,"r-"3K.9
NOR
to+- ! S - .. •6�
�
' S �" °5 ¢r.x�`+iss� '• :.'SL¢ rM, lh .4�"r,�
a S r "#
i.r f "• T... i t°;.(5k t< a e 4 - ;x a i i i?�
J v '' �. •e 3�� �i �. 4,
fre
A
Y
RIO 1
J YY.:S:.J
no! Y1 NOS
tr ?y�y S1
r
1
HOW! A}
'.- r, 1.mmy
WAY i4_ V
r "icant _.
Michelle Drake
From: >
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 /:52 AM
To: Michelle Drake
Cc:
Subject: Heritage Permit Application - supporting documents - I of 2 emalls
Attachments: Cedar in poor condition.JPG; Front View.JPG;fMG_0738.JPG; Rear view of side
entrance.JPG; Overhead view of propertyjpg; Enviroshake Cedar,Comparison April
2013-3.pdf, Heritage Permit - detail
Hello Michelle,
1 am sending 2 emails. One now with the supporting detail, and one later with the actual signed permit
application. 1 have to scan and send it- which will likely be around 1 pm today. 1 hope that meets with
your satisfaction. This first email should hopefully help get the ball rolling.
I have a attached a Word document, along with several photos depicting the current state of our
existing cedar roof. These have been submitted by e-mail as part of our formal Heritage Permit
Application for replacing the current roof.
At this point in time, we are proposing BOTH materials; Enviroshake, AND Asph _alt as part of
our permit. Reason being, we are still confirming final costs associated with installing an
Enviroshake roof. Should the projected costs exceed our current financial resources, then we would
look to install an Asphalt roof, as previously installed on our house (and as viewed in the attached
heritage document).
'U"+le are in the process of completing an application for eligible City of Kitchener Heritage funding
(grant) which will address the extensive wood rot, structural damage to the porch, soffit, fascia,
gutters, downspouts, and exposed wood (which requires repair and/or restoration). Projected costs
associated with all exterior work, including the installation of a new roof, will determine which roofing
material we ultimately select. dote„ this application will be submitted on Monday, March 10, 2014.
As an aside, I did have a look at the Regional funding, and my initial sense was that it was geared
mainly towards Heritage properties that allowed public access. Are there any instances where home
owners received grant money to help offset the cost of maintaining or restoring a (personal) Heritage
property?
Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you require any additional information to support
our permit application.
Best,
_.
i
1 - 8
i
Michelle Drake
From:
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 1:10 PM
To: Michelle Drake
Cc:
Subject: Heritage Permit Application - 883 Doon Village Road
Attachments: Heritage Permit Application 2014.pdf
Hello Michelle,
Please find'attached the signed Heritage Permit Application for your files. As per my last email, this
second (of two) emails being sent to complete our application.
Please confirm receipt of both emails.. Also, feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions,
Have a great weekend]
Best,
1 - 9
Michelle Drake EMMEM
From: Michelle Drake
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:31 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Heritage Permit Application - supporting documents - 1 of 2 emails
;1
Hi Al'i,
Yes I have received both of your e-mails, Ideally I would have a bit more information about the exact
placement of the new roof vents and their details (e.g. design, shape, colour, material, etc.) but I am
comfortable moving forward subject to a condition that would require you to submit this information for review
and approval when available and before installation. I hope this approach works for you.
I plan to complete my full review and draft a staff report by the end of next week. I don't anticipate any
concerns but will follow-up with you if questions arise. A copy of the staff report should be available by March
21 st,
With respect to the Regional funding, I am aware that they have focused on non-profit type projects (e.g.
churches) but I am also aware that a homeowner in the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District received
funding to restore the stained glass transoms on his single detached dwelling in 2012. 1 understand the
homeowner found the Regional process more cumbersome (and he had to push a bit to get the funding) but in
the end the funding was granted and it was worth the bit of extra hassle.
Hope you enjoy the warmer weather this weekend.
Michelle
Michelle Drake, MAPS, MCIP, RPP
Heritage Planner C Planning Division ( City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7889 TTY 1-866-969-9994 michelle.drakeCa)kitchener.ca
IN
From: -
Sent: Friday, Marcn ur,
To: Michelle Drake
Cc:
Subject: Heritage Permit.Application ) _ supporting documents - 1 of 2 emails
Hello Michelle,
1 am sending 2 emails, One now with the supporting detail, and one later with the actual signed permit
application. l have to scan and send it - which will likely be around 1 pm today. 1 hope that meets with
your satisfaction. This first email should hopefully help get the ball rolling.
i
1 - 10
I have a attached a Word document, along with several photos depicting the current state of our
existing cedar roof. These have been submitted by e-mail as part of our formal Heritage Permit
Application for replacing the current roof.
At this point in time, we are proposing BOTH materials; Enviroshake, AND Asphalfi as part of
our Permit. Reason being, we are still confirming final costs associated with installing an
Enviroshake roof. Should the projected costs exceed our current financial resources, then we would
look to install an Asphalt roof, as previously installed on our house (and as viewed in the attached
heritage document).
We are in the process of completing an application for eligible City of Kitchener Heritage funding
(grant) which will address the extensive wood rot, structural damage to the porch, soffit, fascia,
gutters, downspouts, and exposed wood (which requires repair and/or restoration). Projected costs
associated with all exterior work, including the installation of a new roof, will determine which roofing
material we ultimately select. Note, this application will be submitted on Monday, March 10, 2014.
As an aside, I did have a look at the Regional funding, and my initial sense was that it was'geared
mainly towards Heritage properties that allowed public access. Are there any instances where home
owners received grant money to help offset the cost of maintaining or restoring a (personal) Heritage
property?
Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you require any additional information to support
our permit application.
Best,
2
Heritage Permit Application
Address:
883 Doon Village Road
Kitchener, ON
N2P lAl
Property Owners:
Written Project Proposal:
We are proposing to remove the existing Cedar roof, and replace it with one of the
following two options:
Enviroshake
® This is an eco-friendly alternative to cedar shake and cedar shingle roofs
® It is available in a weathered-grey colour, giving the appearance of a 10 year old
cedar roof
® Sample has been provided to Michelle Drake for review
• Company information can be found at: www.enviroshake.com
• Enviroshake vs. Cedar comparison has been attached for review
• We have addresses for local homes that have installed this product. We need the
weather to warm-up before we can view the properties first hand. At this time all
roofs are snow covered.
• Costs associated with installation of this material will be taken into consideration.
Additional and critical work is required on the exterior of 883 Doon Village Road
(eligible for grant funding). Final costs associated for both applications will play a
role in the roofing material selected.
Asphalt
• This material has been previously installed (as shown in the supporting Heritage
photo provided by the City of Kitchener Heritage Planner)
• Installation of an Asphalt roof will provide financial flexibility—which will
enable more exterior repairs to be completed in 2014 on the heritage home
4 Maler-iaLaiid-installaLionpro.cess�u�aul-dl)-e- urie_s"ccordiiig-to-c.u=iit-irietliod• Addition of 3-5 roof vents would be installed along the ridge on the back side of
the house
• Colour samples to be determined—either black(as previously installed), or a
shingle that would match closely to the weathered cedar (aged-grey)that is
currently installed.
1 - 12
1
• We can show a sample to a City Heritage Planner for approval prior to the
installation of the asphalt roof.
r
1 Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work:
1
The current cedar roof is in extremely poor condition, with missing cedar, large amounts
of mass and weeds, peeling, blistering and cracking throughout the entire roof(including
house, front porch, and side entrance). Please refer to attached pictures for current state of
material.
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by
law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan.
Since we are looking to remove and replace the existing cedar roof, with an alternative of
either Enviroshake or Asphalt material, we feel either option will support the
architectural integrity of the house as identified in the original heritage assessment.
As it relates to the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of
Historic Places in Canada.
We have adhered to the guidelines provided by Parks Canada, including;
• Understanding the type of material previously installed through research and
investigation, providing alternative (green and sustainable) options, such as
Enviroshake
• Since we are not able to preserve or restore the roof, options that would
incorporate key elements have been identified (asphalt, previously installed)
(enviroshake, a green alternative to Cedar, with a longer life-span).
• Either roof option would provide minimal change to the historical attributes of the
house
1 - 13
EnvirRoshake@ Inc, vs. Cedar
Product Comparison Sheet
Both Enviroshoke " and Enviroshingleo are composite "high tech" roofing
material that replicates the look of weathered # I cedar shakes and shingles, but
have the added benefit of performance and durability associated
with Enviroshoke° Inc. composite materials.
A d
d ,
v
t'r'r a � s �
�k M i E <
Enviroshake®/Enviroshingle® Cedar. . .
May require replacement due to rotting, warping,
C7 Installs for the some price as cedar! cracking, leaking, or diminished aesthetics
C� Lifetime warranty that is fully transferable * Expensive to replace
within the first 50 years Life expectancy of only 15-20 yrs, but begins to
Replicates the look of# I grade cedar for its lose its aesthetic appeal after 5-10 years
whole life, with 3 different c6our optlons: tk High maintenance: requires pre-treatments
silvered cedar, aged cedar and multi-tone preservatives, and other topical maintenance
Will not rot, blister, peel, or crack Poor fire rating
Maintenance and worry free Subject to mold, mildew and insects
Mould, mildew, and insect resistant W Depreciates in value from the date of installation
Cl Fire resistant- Class C fire rating (Class A
system with a Class A underiayment)
Hail Resistant- Level 4.impact test rating (UL
Requires no pretreatments, or preservatives R
You can walk on it
Installs with less waste
Made from 95% recycled materials Before After with Enviroshake
Retains its value, giving the homeowner a 70-80%
nWroshak e www.enviroshoke.com 1-866-423-3302
Quality Engineered Rc�ofing 1 - 14
Enviroshake° Inc. vs. Cedar: A Cost Comparison
$120,000
J f
I $100,000 ......
1 `
$80,000
$60,000 . ....................... Treated Cedar
Non Treated t Cedar
$40,000
- I
. Enviroshake
$20,000
$0
Year 1 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Fire Retardant Treated Non Treated
Fnviroshake° Inc. Cedar Cedar
#1 Blue Label
Products Enviroshake° #1 Blue Label Cedar Cedar
Size of Roof Typical Roof Typical Roof Typical Roof
Material Cost 2013 / Sq Ft.* $5 $4 $3
Cedar Breather or Strapping / Sq Ft.* NA $1 $1
Interweaving / Sq Ft. NA $1 $1
Waste factor % 5% 15% 15%
Starter row % 511/0 5% 5%
Comparable Material Costs / 5q
Ft. $5.25 $6.90 $5.75
Comparable Installation Cost at
Year 1 $32,000 $42,057 $33,600
Year 5 Maintenance $3400 Maintenance
Maintenance $3400 Maintenance
Year 10 $3400
.: .... .=I: : Maintenance 3400 Maintenance
Year 15 $
$3400
Maintenance
Year 20 Maintenance $3400 $3400
Year 25 $42,057 $33,600
Maintenance $3400 Maintenance
Year 30 $3400
Year 35 Maintenance $3400 Maintenance
Year 40 Maintenance $3400 Main340a0nce
t L ' Maipte340�- - Maintenance
t�anee
Year 45 $3400 _
Total Spent after 50 year $32,000 $111,314 $94,4
-_ I\V1 Lj.
*Taxes(PST&GST)have not been figured into costs as both are constants
***This represents an average roof of a 4/12 pitch,and does not include tear off of existing shakes or dump fees
****Above does not include additional materials required(underlay,drip edge,valleys, nails,vents,ridge caps,and flashing)
*****Roofs with steeper pitch,gables,dormers etc.will have a higher installation cost that would be representative for both cedar
and Enviroshake cost models
nnwshabW www.enviroshoke.c.orn -866-423-130L 15
Q-11ty Eriginoerad Roofing
.f
y
ti
w
I
I
4 r
n
I a
1 d m
I i
i
I
j r i �rf 1�1
r x
i
_ v
r
4
q
r
fd
y 1
� lug