Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-17-066 - HPA-2017-IV-022 - 330 Joseph Schoerg Crescent REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: August 1, 2017 SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning, 519-741-2200, ext. 7648 PREPARED BY: LeonBensason,Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning, 519-741-2200, ext. 7306 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: July 12, 2017 REPORT NO.: CSD-17-066 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2017-IV-022 330 Joseph Schoerg Crescent Alteration (partial demolition, rehabilitation and new construction) RECOMMENDATION: THAT pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2017-IV-022be approved to permit the removal of the rear summer kitchen annex and two storey verandah; the restoration of the existing front entry stoop; the replacement of the front entry door; the replacement of the existing windows and sills; and the construction of an addition with two car garage on the property municipally addressed as 330 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application. Location Map: 330 Joseph Schoerg Crescent 2 - 1 BACKGROUND: The Community Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2017-IV- 022 which is seeking permission to the removethe rear summer kitchen annex and two storey verandah;restorethe existing front entry stoop;replace the front entry door; replace the existing windows and sills;and construct a new addition withtwo car garageat the property municipally addressed as 330 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, also known as the former SchoergFarmstead. REPORT: The subject property is located on the south side of Joseph Schoerg Crescent just east of Langton Drive, in the Pioneer Tower West community. 330 Joseph Schoerg Crescent north (front) and west facades Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property municipally addressed 330 Joseph Schoerg Crescent (formerly 381 Pioneer Tower Road) was designated in 2003 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage. The description of the cultural heritage value of the property and list of heritage attributes was based in part on the findings of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared several years earlier. The HIA concluded that the farmhouse was constructed circa 1830 on land historically associated with the earliest (Spring 1800) inland non-native settlement in what would become Waterloo County. Designating By-law 2003-227 acknowledges the significance of the Schoerg farmhouse as an excellent example of a Mennonite Georgian residence, and references the following specific attributes as being of cultural heritage value or interest: 2 - 2 all exterior elevations including the rear summer kitchen annex with two-storey verandah and square posts and balusters, but excluding the west gable end chimney; single bay pedimented stoop entrance with turned posts and side benches; all window openings, windows and sills including 6/6 double hung sash and storm, and 6-pane end lights and twin-lite cellar sashes; door and door openings including front entrance paneled door with 5-pane transom and 3-pane sidelites, kitchen annex entrance paneled door with twin gothic windows, but excluding the door opening on the south (rear) elevation; and roof and roofline including wooden moulded frieze and return eaves. Rear Summer Kitchen Annex c. 2002 Background The former Schoerg farmhouse has been unoccupied since approximately 2003.Since that time, the property has been the subject of acts of vandalism and compliance orders under the -law and the Ontario Building Code. In November 2007, an Order to Remedy anUnsafe BuildingDivision. The Order cited the following structural issues: structural support beams in the basement ceiling which support the two storey balcony and exterior wall of the rear addition have deteriorated beyond repair; the first floor and the support beam of the north porch have deteriorated beyond repair; roof rafters in the north and south porch roof have deteriorated beyond repair. The property owner subsequently hired Picco Engineering to report on remedial measures required to temporarily stabilize the rear addition (also referred to as the rear summer kitchen annex), with the expectation that the addition be demolished once comprehensive plans for the property were established. This included boarding the kitchen annex and 2 storey verandah to help prevent further water infiltration and discourage acts of vandalism. A copy of the Picco 2 - 3 Rear Summer Kitchen Annex c. 2014 Approximately 5 years ago, Joseph Schoerg Crescent was extended to provide new street frontage and better access to the Schoerg farmhouse. In addition, the stage of the Plan of Subdivision in which the Schoerg farmhouse is located was registered, paving the way for development to proceed. In response, a conceptual plan to restore the original farmhouse, demolish the rear kitchen annex and build an addition with 2 car garage was presented to Heritage Kitchener in September 2012 for information. The 2012proposal was similar to those submitted with this application, and was generally favorably received by the Committee, however the owner did not proceed to make a formal Heritage Permit Application. Since 2012, new single detached dwellings have been constructed around the Schoerg farmhouse. The property owner has now refined plans for the subject property andarranged for additional engineering analysis to be conducted. In October 2016, City Council approved Heritage Permit Application HPA-2016-IV-018to permit masonry and wood trim repairs on the subject property.The approved work would permit the soffit and fascia to be repaired/replaced as required, and for the spalling and missing brick to be repaired/re-pointed. The property owner has been proceeding with this work. Subject Proposal Proposed removal of the rear summer kitchen annex and two storey verandah Documentary evidence including a painting based on a c.1900 photograph and oral histories from family members, suggest a framed one storey summer kitchen was added shortly after the farmhouse was constructed in 1830.Around 1912, the one storey summer kitchen was reportedly altered and expanded by adding a second storey and porches on all three sides. More recently, the exterior of the summer kitchen was clad in vinyl siding. According to the current owner, the previous owner compromised the structural integrity of the rear summer kitchen annex by applying urethane spray insulation to the wood framing thus trapping moisture in the walls, and proceeded to cut openings into the supporting walls to build a washroom and new stairs. 2 - 4 Painting of farmhouse from c.1900 photograph showing one storey summer kitchen annex th Early 20 C. photograph showing summer kitchen annex after 1912 alterations temporarily stabilize the structure were undertaken and served to delay demolition and provide the property owner time to formalize plans for the property. In April of 2017, Centric Engineering inspected the property and prepared a report regarding the farmhouse and proposed remedial works.The Centric Engineering report (C),advises that the existing rear addition of the main original building structure is showing signs of significant deterioration, and that portions of the existing structure in this area are damaged beyond reasonable repair. The completed without structurally compromising the original farmhouse, and that the removal would allow for enhanced overall remedial repairs to be undertaken to the assembly/façade. 2 - 5 Proposed restoration of the front entry stoop and replacement of front entry door The property owner proposes the restore the existing front entry stoop, including repairing the existing pedimented canopy and wooden turned posts; and recreate the missing/damaged side benches to match the original in material and design. Front elevation c.1998 showing front entry stoop and door The front entry door has reportedly been vandalized. The property owner proposes to replace the entry door with a new custom made composite door system that will feature a transom and sidelights in keeping with the original design. Proposed replacement of existing wooden windows and wooden sills with new wooden windows and sills to match originals The property owner proposes to replace all of the existing windows with new wooden windows. The owner advises that the existing windows have either deteriorated beyond repair or have been significantly vandalized. In some cases the windows are no longer in the window openings. Similarly, the existing wooden window sills have deteriorated beyond repair. The proposed new windows will be custom made to fit the existing window openings. The new windows will also match the originals in material and operation but will feature simulated rather than true divided lites. A window schedule is included with the application and sample windows have been manufactured by Golden Windows. Existing wooden window sills are proposed to be replaced with new wooden windows sills that match the originals in design and dimension. 2 - 6 Original windows on west elevation c.1998 Sample replacement windows manufactured by Golden Windows Proposed construction of rear addition with attached 2-car garage The property owner proposes to construct a new approximately 2870 sq. ft. (excludes basement) addition to the rear of the existing farmhouse. The addition would extend toward the westerly side yard where it will feature a second entry and atwo car garage. The height of the addition will be below the ridge line of the roof of the existing farmhouse. The addition will be primarily clad with a natural quarried stone to contrast with the brick construction of the historic farmhouse. Windows will be vinyl but will feature simulated divided lites. 2 - 7 Northwest perspective of proposed addition (view from Joseph Schoerg Crescent) Southeast perspective of proposed addition The property owner advises that the value of construction of the addition and garage is approximately $860,000. The estimated cost to rehabilitate the original farmhouse (including removal of the kitchen annex and interior work) is approximately $310,000. Including site works and engineering, the total project cost is estimated to be 1.2 million. 2 - 8 In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: The subject property has been vacant for approximately 14years and has been the subject of numerous acts of vandalism. 2007 and an Order to Remedy an Unsafe Building was issued. Two Structural Engineering firms have reported on the condition of the rear addition and extent of structural damage,and have concluded that the addition is beyond salvage and repair. The subject proposal provides for the rehabilitation of the original farmhouse. The proposed additionwill be located to the rear of the existing farmhouse,and is of a complementary design and appropriate scale viewed from Joseph Schoerg Crescent. Where possible, heritage attributes such as the original entry stoop will be restored. Heritage attributesthat are missing or beyond repair, such as the wooden windows and sills, will be replaced with units that match the originals in material and design. TEight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built HeritagePropertiesStandards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada,primarily in relation tobasing conservation work on historic documentation such as physical evidence,andin making newconstruction distinguishable from old. 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. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM - Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT - Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning APPENDIX A: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2017-IV-022 APPENDIX B: Picco Engineering Inspection Report dated December 4, 2007 APPENDIX C: Centric Engineering Report dated April 25, 2017 2 - 9 2 - 10 2 - 11 2 - 12 2 - 13 2 - 14 2 - 15 2- 16 2- 17 2- 18 SCHOERG HOMESTEAD HWT O.T.A. WINE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN LIN. 2 - 19 SCHOERG HOMESTEAD O.T.A. WINE MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 - 20 SCHOERG HOMESTEAD LINENLINEN D W O.T.B. LOW SHELVES SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ART NICHE LINEN 2 - 21 2 - 22 2 - 23 2 - 24 2 - 25 2 - 26 2 - 27 2 - 28 2 - 29 2 - 30 2 - 31 2 - 32 2 - 33 2 - 34 Site Meeting Report *Site Meeting-01Revised Client: Orchard Design Studio Project ID: CEC-17-0293 Project Address: 330 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario Number of Pages: 3 Reviewed By: Darryl Twynstra, P. Eng. Date Issued:*2017/04/25 Regarding: Meeting to Discuss Existing Structure & Proposed Remedial Works Attention: Orchard Design Studio Å Keith Reycraft *Revisions: See items notes with an (*) symbol that have been added/revised within this report in st response to City issued comments via email by Leon Bensason on March 31, 2017. Date of Site Meetings: 2017/03/23 & 2017/04/18 Reason for Site Meetings: Centric Engineering Corporation (CEC) was retained to attend a site meeting in order to discuss the existing building structure, located at the above noted address, and comment on the proposed remedial plan ahead of permit application and site works. Progress of Work: 1.*During our site meeting there was no active construction initiated on site. It appeared that some temporary shoring had been installed in order to support the existing, roof, second and main floor structure. Observations and Comments: 1.The existing floor structure, supporting both the main and second floor structure) had several areas where the existing floor structure had been structurally compromised (i.e. holes/notching/checking/cracking, etc.), see Appendix A Å Figure 1.0. 2.During our site meeting access into the second floor area was not permitted, due to the current condition of the existing second floor structure. Based on what was visible, via the existing second floor stairwell opening, it appears that some of the existing ceiling/roof structural members are structurally compromised (i.e. holes/notching/checking/cracking, etc.), see Appendix A Å Figure 2.0. 3.The existing floor and roof structure are currently supported on/within the existing masonry veneer wall assembly. Within the existing masonry wall assembly there is a lack of proper structural support above the existing masonry openings (i.e. steel lintels/beams, etc.). 4.There sections of existing masonry veneer that are significantly deteriorated, both within the interior and the exterior of the existing masonry wall. 5.*The existing rear addition of the main original building structure (portion of structure with non- masonry veneer faŒade elements) is showing signs of significant deterioration, see Appendix A Å Figures 3.0 and 4.0. respectfully. Portions of the existing structure in this area are damaged beyond reasonable repair and replacement will be required. Page 1 of 5 2 - 35 Recommendations: Based on our site meeting, conservations with the designer/contractor/client and information provided to us from the contractor/client in regards to discussions with City staff (that we understand yielded the decision to remove the existing roof and floor structures) we have the following general recommendations: 1.The existing floor structure (both the main and second floor) and also the existing roof structure are to be replaced in itÊs entirety, with a new floor structure that is structurally sound and supported. This recommendation yields the most reasonable and safest method of restoring the existing structure. 2.Along with the implementation of recommendation (1) noted above, the existing and/or new hould be supported on a new load bearing wall structure. The new load be structure saring wall structure would run from the underside of the ceiling/roof and down through the structure to be supported on a new cast-in-place concrete foundation. *More specifically, the new load bearing wall around the perimeter of the existing structure would be placed along the face of the existing masonry veneer exterior wall, which would allow for the existing masonry veneer wall to become a true non-load bearing façade wall, see attached proposed detail SK-1 for a schematic design sketch. The existing wall would be tied back to the new load bearing wall via brick-ties to adequate support the required lateral loading conditions. The foundation support for the new load bearing wall would be placed alongside the existing foundation wall (underside of footings to be founded at the same level) to ensure that the gravity loading is adequately founded on native soil. *Implementation of the above noted remedial works would need take place via implementing a phased construction approached, designed/reviewed and supervised by a Profession Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, to ensure the structural integrity of the existing masonry veneer wall structure (this would include the design of temporary shoring required). 3.Upon implementation of recommendations (1) and (2) noted above, the existing masonry veneer could be re-pointed and adequate support for both lateral and gravity loading conditions would be achieved via brick-ties back to the new load bearing perimeter wall structure and the implementation of hidden steel support structure (lintels/beams, etc.). 4.*It is recommended that the rear addition to the existing structure be removed in its entirety and replaced with a new structure that conforms to the 2012 Ontario Building Code. As per City comments, Centric Engineering Corporation has site confirmed that removal of this existing rear structure can be completed without structurally compromising the existing original structure. The removal of the existing rear structure will most likely allow for enhanced overall remedial repairs to the main original structureÊs rear wall assembly/faŒade. Attachments/ Pictures: Refer to Appendix A Next Required Site Visit: Once a remedial plan has been accepted, as the next phase of the project, CEC should be contacted to meet on site with the contractor/owner and develop both a phased shoring plan and also a phased plan for remedial works. Page 2 of 5 2 - 36 Requested by: Keith Reycraft, Orchard Design Studio, Principal End of Site Review Report Centric Engineering Corporation Darryl Twynstra, P.Eng. President Page 3 of 5 2 - 37 Appendix A Figure 1.0 Å Photo of Existing Second Floor Support Structure Figure 2.0 Å Photo of Existing Ceiling and Roof Support Structure Page 4 of 5 2 - 38 Figure 3.0 Å Photo of Existing Rotten Main Floor Structure on Rear Structure with Temporary Support Structure Installed where Existing Structure No Longer Exists Due to Deterioration Figure 4.0 Å Photo of Existing Rotten Roof/Ceiling Structure on Rear Structure where Existing Structure No Longer Exists Due to Deterioration Page 5 of 5 2 - 39 2 - 40