Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2019-02-051 Heritage Kitchener Agenda K*HIER Tuesday, February 5, 2019 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Office of the City Clerk Conestoga Room Kitchener City Hall 200 King St.W. - 2nd Floor (Main Floor) Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Page 1 Chair — Ms. A. Reid Vice -Chair — Mr. S. Strohack Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of 5 minutes. • Item 3 - Pierre Chauvin — MHBC Planning Discussion Items 1. Committee Orientation (45 min) • Heritage Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act • Overview of the City's Four Heritage Conservation Districts 2. DSD -19-027 - Notice of Intention to Designate (20 min) - 50 Brookside Crescent 3. DSD -19-028 - Heritage Permit Applications (35 min) - Proposed Alterations and New Construction • HPA-2019-V-001 — 242 Queen Street South • HPA-2019-V-002 — 254 Queen Street South • HPA-2019-V-003 — 262 Queen Street South 4. Status Updates - Heritage Best Practices Update and 2019 Priorities (20 min) - Open Forum/Sub-Committee Updates - 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 ** Staff Report KA -i Development Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: February 5, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning, 519-741 2200 ext. 7648 PREPARED BY: Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200, ext. 7839 WARD (S) INVOLVED: Ward 7 DATE OF REPORT: January 14, 2019 REPORT NO.: DSD -19-027 SUBJECT: Designation of 50 Brookside Crescent under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent as being of cultural heritage value or interest. 42 k� 23 73 27 31 3S 71 39, 26. �'. � 30 22 67 V 47 633 38 l ❑ } 34� 1859 f SS lN:".i 7 �14 1 18 62 .. -581 35 't r r22 26 �+ 39 11 ❑32 43 7 3 6 47 y � 51 �[]: 55 V ❑ 4� �y 59 • ii, Location Map: 50 Brookside Crescent 2-1 BACKGROUND: The property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is located on the north side of Brookside Crescent, between Silver Aspen Crescent and Ramblewood Way. The 0.59 acre property contains a mid -19th century stone house built in the Georgian architectural style. The two-storey residence is thought to have been constructed c. 1855. The property is listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. A copy of the Statement of Significance on file is attached as Appendix `A' to this report. Planning application requirements to sever the subject parcel of land included the preparation of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The HIA, which was presented at the March 3, 2018 meeting of Heritage Kitchener and formally approved on April 4, 2018, concluded that the original house and its summer kitchen wing is a significant cultural heritage resource that meets the criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 and should be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. I■■ lisp nff 11110; one I IN L! 50 Brookside Crescent — Front Elevation Heritage Impact Assessment A consent application was approved for the property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent. As part of a complete Planning application, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared by CHC Limited and dated March 14, 2018. REPORT: Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within our City is an important part of planning for our future, and helping to guide change while conserving the buildings, structures 2-2 and landscapes that give our City its unique identity. The City plays a critical role in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the Ontario Heritage Act is the main tool that the City has to provide long-term protection of cultural heritage resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the local community; protects the property's cultural heritage value; encourages good stewardship and conservation; and promotes knowledge and understanding about the property. Designation not only publicly recognizes and promotes awareness, it also provides a process for ensuring that changes to a property are appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value and interest. The property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the 19th Century stone house, as the building is a notable and representative example of the Georgian architectural style. The contextual value relates to the contribution the house makes to the continuity and character of the Brookside Crescent streetscape. The complete Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, including a list of Heritage Attributes which are limited only to the original house and its summer kitchen wing, is attached as Appendix `B' and will become part of the Designation By-law. One of the conditions of approval of the severance of 50 Brookside Crescent is to designate the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the proposed duplex dwelling on the new severed lot. In order to satisfy the conditions of the consent application and implement the recommendations in the HIA, it is recommended that the City Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate 50 Brookside Crescent. However, in order to ensure the designating by-law applies only to the retained lands on which the 19th Century farmhouse is located, Council's passage of the designating by-law should follow the completion of the severance and once a new legal description for 50 Brookside Crescent becomes available. In this way, the designating by-law can be registered only on 50 Brookside Crescent and will not encumber the new severed lot on which the duplex dwelling is proposed to be constructed. 2-3 LOT 763 I'I LOT 162 I COT 161 II LOT 160 LOT 159 1 ----------- J LOT 86 a �' 1� "'Eras - AkA'E ARAUSE I --- ___wan. u.+aur�-- + — —, a��-avr 00E _x84V4 ------ 13z15 �' -- _n. - ----- --� N i RETAINED LANDS scMe:4 sR.m- ( BL OCK O LOT 87/%71 g PAI 22456 �� 1 I+ caaRc Ti LOT 88 1 STOREY 2 STOREY SEG E ! FRAME it STOREY NOOSE Mo. xa w PROP0,4Cu a £IiANSE- �% O y �lh �•8-5aJ l� 1 4T ]b2 M� \ x8494'8d'E RROOKSIDE CRESCENT SKEMH OF PROPOSED SEVERANCE OF LOT 87 & PART OF BLOCK [Y REGWERED PLAN UN City of Kitchener Regional Municipality of Waterloo Scuts 1: ,TDD LW -lo Land-5—yu-s Y.W, - Dat— -balm MA, PI- tre and can be —led to (eat by ~4V by O-JO48 LE[�ND R/Yf - RETAINING WA1 J — - - FENCING TH - FIRE XITIRAXT E - 11GHT STAM1DA1O IO—EM OUS TREE - UOVS �CE 50 Brookside Crescent — Proposed Retained and Severed Lands ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Designation supports the Quality of Life and Development Community Priorities of the City of Kitchener Strategic Plan by publicly acknowledging a property's heritage value and ensuring its conservation for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: A heritage plaque is usually created and installed for designated heritage properties. This is accommodated within the existing Heritage Resources- Implementation capital account and work plan. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener meeting. CONSULT and COLLABORATE — Heritage Planning staff have consulted and collaborated with the applicant and owner regarding implementation of the recommendations of the HIA, including 2-4 designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The owner has confirmed their support for designation subject to consideration by Council. Section 29(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) before giving notice of its intention to designate a property. Heritage Kitchener will be consulted via circulation and consideration of this report. Members of the community will be informed via circulation of this report to Heritage Kitchener and via formal consideration by Council. In addition, should Council choose to give notice of its intention to designate, such notice will be served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper (The Record). Once notice has been served, the owner has the right of appeal to the Conservation Review Board. REVIEWED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning APPENDIX A: Statement of Significance on File — 50 Brookside Crescent APPENDIX B: Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for Designating By-law 2-5 Statement of Significance 50 Brookside Crescent 42-� 1 11 �r y 77 66 19 23 �► � ' r 31 351 � � � 71 39 26, 43 30 -22 B7 4 47 34 63 38 18 0 ? 59 55 W 5.,Pd 7 14 1 10 -62 35 22 39 2fi 11 � {+� 39 � 32 � e�4 43 7 36\ r. 47 51 ED 56 D -459 �o 48 Municipal Address: 50 Brookside Crescent Legal Description: Plan 1334 Part Block O Year Built: c. 1855 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 50 Brookside Crescent is a two storey mid -19th century stone house built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.59 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Brookside Crescent in the Forest Heights Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 2-6 Heritage Value 50 Brookside Crescent is recognized for its design and contextual values The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Georgian architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: side gable roof; cedar shingles; stone construction; gable end chimneys; 6/6 windows; attic windows in gable ends; full -width front porch; white washed first story front elevation; front door with transom and sidelights; and, detached stone garage. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Brookside Crescent streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 50 Brookside Crescent resides in the following heritage attributes All elements related to the Georgian architectural style of the house, including: o side gable roof; o cedar shingles; o stone construction; o gable end chimneys; o windows and window openings, including: ■ 6/6 windows; ■ attic windows in gable ends; o full -width front porch; o white washed first story front elevation; o front door with transom and sidelights; and, o detached stone garage. All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Brookside Crescent streetscape. 2-7 I City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 50 Brookside Crescent Period: c. 1855 Field Team Initials: AH/ER Description: Date: July 9, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Unknown No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of Yes No the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Yes No Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Yes Yes Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Yes Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? 2-9 Notes: Field Team — set on top of hill — highest point in neighbourhood INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Unknown Unknown Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Unknown No Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE & FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act? Yes Yes A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. 2-10 APPENDIX `B' Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Description of the Property The subject property is currently addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent and is located on the north side of Brookside Crescent between Silver Aspen Crescent and Ramblewood Way. The property contains a mid -19th century two-storey stone house. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Georgian architectural style. The house demonstrates a high degree of craftsmanship in its stone masonry and architectural detailing, both on the interior and the exterior. The contextual value relates to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Brookside Crescent streetscape. Description of the Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes are limited only to the original house and its summer kitchen wing, and include: • Scale and regular massing of the two-storey, three -bay front Georgian style building; • Full-length front porch; • Load bearing, granite fieldstone walls with plastered and whitewashed portion under the front porch; • Three granite fieldstone chimneys; • Gable roof, including the summer kitchen wing, and the porch shed roof, all clad with cedar shingles; • Window openings; • Front door with transom and sidelights; and • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Brookside Crescent streetscape. 2-11 Staff Repoil Development Services Department REPORT TO DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: WARD (S) INVOLVED: DATE OF REPORT REPORT NO.: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS: www.kitchener.ca Heritage Kitchener February 5, 2019 Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7306 9 January 17, 2019 DSD -19-028 Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2019-V-001 (242 Queen St. S.), HPA-2019-V-002 (254 Queen St. S.) and HPA-2019-V-003 (262 Queen St. S.) — Proposed Alterations and New Construction 1. THAT pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2019-V-001 to permit the construction of a 10 storey multiple residential building on the property currently municipally addressed as 242 Queen Street South be approved, subject to the following conditions: • That construction be undertaken in accordance with the measures outlined in the Structural Condition Assessment and Demolition Plan prepared by Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Civil and Structural Engineers, dated December 21, 2018 attached as Appendix `C' to DSD -19-028; and • That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. THAT pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2019-V-002 to permit the removal of additions on an existing single detached dwelling and the construction of a new 10 storey multiple residential building on the property currently municipally addressed as 254 Queen Street South be approved, subject to the following conditions: • That the immediate and short term conservation measures identified in Section 6.0 of the Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment dated December 2018, prepared by MHBC Planning and attached as Appendix `B' to DSD -19-028 be undertaken, and that the owner's Heritage Consultant inspect and submit certification that said conservation measures have been completed in accordance with the Phase II HIA, to the satisfaction of Heritage Planning staff; 3-1 • That photo documentation of the additions proposed for removal be completed to the satisfaction of Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a demolition permit; • That the removal of the additions be undertaken in accordance with the measures outlined in the Structural Condition Assessment and Demolition Plan prepared by Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Civil and Structural Engineers, dated December 21, 2018 and attached as Appendix `C' to DSD -19-028; • That the non-combustible cladding proposed for the rear wall and rear portion of the roof of the building be of a colour that is the same or similar to, the existing colour the exterior walls and roof of the building; and • That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. THAT pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2019-V-003 to permit the removal of additions on an existing single detached dwelling and the construction of a new 10 storey multiple residential building on the property currently municipally addressed as 262 Queen Street South be approved, subject to the following conditions: That the immediate and short term conservation measures identified in Section 6.0 of the Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment dated December 2018, prepared by MHBC Planning and attached as Appendix `B' to DSD -19-028 be undertaken, and that the owner's Heritage Consultant inspect and submit certification that said conservation measures have been completed in accordance with the Phase II HIA, all to the satisfaction of Heritage Planning staff; • That photo documentation of the additions proposed for removal be completed to the satisfaction of Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a demolition permit; • That the removal of the additions be undertaken in accordance with the measures outlined in the Structural Condition Assessment and Demolition Plan prepared by Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Civil and Structural Engineers, dated December 21, 2018 and attached as Appendix `C' to DSD -19-028; • That the non-combustible cladding proposed for the rear wall and rear portion of the roof of the building be of a colour that is the same or similar to, the existing colour the exterior walls and roof of the building; and • That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3-2 BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2019-V-001 made for the property municipally addressed as 242 Queen Street South; HPA-2019-V-002 made for the property municipally addressed as 254 Queen Street South; and HPA-2019-V-003 made for the property municipally addressed as 262 Queen Street South. All three applications (attached as Appendix `A' to this report) are seeking permission to build a 10 storey 124 unit multiple residential building, which is proposed to be located on the three subject properties. Furthermore, HPA-2019-V-002 and HPA-2019- V-003 are also seeking permission to remove the additions on the existing single detached dwellings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South, in order to facilitate their reuse as two unit residential buildings, and to accommodate the construction of the proposed 10 storey multiple building. The three subject properties are located on the west side of Queen Street South between Courtland Avenue West and Joseph Street in the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD), and are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. 214 " 242 2 i 254 21 251 \ 29a / 259 \ 910 91 27 / `4` Ak" ` % s 21 12 UPPER 5 Location Map: 242, 254, 262 Queen Street South The properties municipally addressed as 242, 254 and 262 Queen Street South were the subject of Heritage Permit Applications made in 2018, seeking Council approval to demolish all buildings in order to construct an 8 storey multiple residential building. In September 2018, Council denied the request to demolish the existing 19th century single detached dwellings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South, and granted conditional approval to demolish the "OneRoof' youth shelter and services building located 3-3 at 242 Queen Street South, which was constructed in 2007. As a result of Council's previous decision, the development proposal has been revised. Discussion on the cultural heritage significance of 254 and 262 Queen Street South and their merits for retention and conservation is outlined in Staff Report DSD -18-107, previously considered by Council and attached as Appendix `D' to this report. This report and the discussion which follows, considers the merits of the revised development proposal, having regard to the policies of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan (VPAHCD Plan). REPORT: The applicant of the subject Heritage Permit Applications proposes to redevelop the subject properties to a high density residential development. The proposed development includes: • the demolition of the existing "OneRoof' youth shelter and services building at 242 Queen Street South; • the retention of the two buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South and their reuse as two unit residential buildings; • Alterations to the two retained buildings to remove the rear additions; and • Construction of a new 10 storey, 124 unit multiple residential building. 262 Queen Street South (existing front elevation) 254 Queen Street South (existing front elevation) 3-4 + ' 262 Queen Street South (existing front elevation) 254 Queen Street South (existing front elevation) 3-4 Rendering showing proposed 10 storey multiple residential building and conserved single detached dwellings in foreground The applicant has commissioned MHBC Planning consultants to complete a Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated December 2018. Excerpts from the Phase II HIA including Section 1.0 "Introduction"; Section 3.0 "Description of Proposed Development"; Section 4.0 "Impact Analysis"; Section 6.0 "Conservation Measures"; Section 7.0 "Conclusions and Recommendations", as well as the associated architectural design drawings, are attached as Appendix `B' to this report. A complete copy of the Phase II HIA will be made available on the City's website in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting when this application is to be considered. Proaosed Alterations to 254 and 262 Queen Street South The existing single detached dwellings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South were constructed in the late 19th Century, are of heritage value and contribute to the historic Queen Street South streetscape. The applicant proposes to retain both buildings in situ and construct a 10 storey multiple residential building in behind the two existing single detached dwellings. In order to accommodate the 10 storey building on the properties, it is proposed that the additions on the existing single detached dwellings be removed. While some of the structures to be removed are later additions, they are located toward the rear and not likely to have formed part of the original construction. The Phase II HIA concludes that the overall impact of their removal will be minor. Engineer reports providing a structural condition assessment and demolition plan for the rear additions of each building, have been prepared and are included in the Phase II HIA. Copies are included in Appendix `C' to this report. The Engineer reports advise on the means and methods of proceeding with the safe removal of the additions and avoiding structural damage to the original historic portions of the buildings during construction of the proposed high rise building. 3-5 As the 10 storey high rise building is proposed to be located approximately 2.0 metres from the rear of the retained buildings (after the removal of the rear additions), the cladding of the rear walls as well as the portion of the roof closest to the new building, are required to be non-combustible. As a result, these areas are proposed to be constructed of steel cladding and will feature no doors, windows or other openings. This is not expected to have a negative impact on the integrity of the heritage district given this elevation and area of the roof would not be visible from Queen Street South. Other than the removal of the rear additions and recladding of the rear walls and portions of the roof, no other exterior alterations to 254 and 262 Queen Street South are proposed as part of the subject Heritage Permit Applications. Should further exterior alterations be required as part of the conversion of the buildings into 2 -unit dwellings, the applicant advises that a new Heritage Permit Application will be made. Proposed 10 Storey Multiple Residential Building The design of the proposed 10 storey building is contemporary yet restrained, and features modern materials and finishes including concrete panels, glass and steel. The 124 unit building would be set back from the street and located behind the existing buildings to be retained (254 and 262 Queen St. S.). The building at 242 Queen Street South is proposed to be demolished (previously approved by Council), and pedestrian access to the new high rise, as well as vehicular driveway to an underground parking garage, would occur in this location. The proposed high rise building would feature balconies on the Queen Street South facing fagade. Building material colours would be in the grey to darker tones (dark brown, charcoal and ivory). An art wall element is proposed to be located across the second storey level on the Queen Street South fagade. The art wall, which has been refined following the submission of the applications, would be constructed of glass and metal materials in shades and textures that vary from opaque to transparent, and that represent the theme of the four seasons. Rendering showing "four seasons" art wall element across the fagade of the proposed high rise behind the existing heritage buildings An assessment of potential impacts of the proposed development was undertaken as part of the completion of the Phase II HIA. The assessment concludes that the proposed new high rise will result in increased shadows being cast on an adjacent two storey building addressed as 226 Queen Street South. New shadows would result in the late afternoon, mainly to the rear and side yards. While shadowing does 3-6 occur in other time periods and locations, the HIA concludes that such shadows are a result of existing surrounding high density developments. The HIA concludes that other impacts such as the removal of the additions to the two historic buildings to accommodate the construction of the 10 storey building, are considered minor and acceptable, as they do not impact original building fabric or views of the heritage resources from the public realm along Queen Street South. Heritage Staff Comments The Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan contains New Building policies in establishing how development should conform to conservation principles and contribute to the character of the VPHCD. These include: Public Realm: New buildings shall contribute to the public realm of Queen Street South, which is perceived as an historic, gracious and tree -lined thoroughfare. Pedestrian Scale: New building shall emphasize a human scale that creates a comfortable, safe and livable streetscape. Ground floor uses which can animate and enliven the public street are encouraged. Location: New building shall be located to create streetscape continuity and pedestrian scale. Landscaping: Landscaping should enhance new building and the Queen Street South streetscape. Landscaping should create continuity in the streetscape between adjacent properties where possible. Plant material, where appropriate, should be used to soften building size, mass and edges to maintain a human scale for pedestrians. Landscaping should screen and buffer services areas, parking, open storage and other unsightly areas where required. Landscaping should buffer high density buildings from low density where required. Design: 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. Materials: Materials typical of the historic area such as brick, shall be used. Colours: Colours of paint and materials shall be complementary to the historic character of the area. Density: Every effort shall be made to blend new high rise building with neighbouring low rise residences. This could include varied building heights and elevations and the breaking up of the building mass. Height: Design treatments to lessen the perception of height in the new high rise development shall be considered, such as fagade setbacks, mansard roofs, gables and varying building finishes and textures. Roofs: Roofs shall be designed to create an attractive skyline and screen roof equipment. Windows: The appearance, placement and proportion of windows shall be complementary to historic windows in the area, if possible. Verandahs: Verandahs shall be incorporated, wherever possible, to continue an historic tradition in the area. 3-7 Conservation: Where historic buildings are integrated into new building developments, the following approaches are encouraged in order of preference: • Preservation/Conservation - maintaining historic buildings with little alteration; • Adaptive Re -Use - reusing historic buildings with restoration and/or rehabilitation; and • Incorporation — adaptive reuse that typically requires significant alteration. Demolition: Conservation and integration of historic buildings into new development is encouraged. Where removal of an historic building to accommodate higher density is contemplated, moving the buildings onto a new site shall be considered. Where removal of an historic building is not feasible, the careful salvage of the key historic fabric shall be undertaken so as to be used in the restoration of other similar style buildings. Merits of the Applications In reviewing the subject applications with regard to compliance with the New Building policies of the VPAHCD Plan, it is the opinion of Heritage staff that the development proposal is either in general compliance with the New Building policies, or adequately addresses and mitigates impacts where certain policies have not been fully met. Public Realm, Pedestrian Scale, Location, Landscaping The proposal to retain the original portions of 254 and 262 Queen Street South in situ, and locate the 10 storey building in behind the existing historic buildings, will maintain the streetscape continuity and pedestrian scale along the Queen Street South corridor. The public realm in front of the retained heritage buildings will remain largely unchanged. A landscape plan will be required as part of the Site Plan approval process, and will introduce landscape features to soften and screen proposed surface parking areas from the streetscape. Design, Materials, Colours The design of the proposed high rise is contemporary and of high quality. While the massing, materials and scale of the high rise is in contrast with historic low rise development in residential areas of the heritage district, the block on which the subject properties are located is characterized by development of varied scale and style, including an historic mid -rise building (York Apartments) and other contemporary (late 20th C) high rise buildings. The use of modern materials in the construction of the high rise (concrete, glass and steel rather than brick) will contrast but not necessarily compete with the historic buildings being retained. The restrained and simplified design of the high rise building and darker colours used in its construction, provide a generally neutral canvas or backdrop from which the existing historic buildings will remain pronounced along the Queen Street South corridor. Density, Height As noted in Staff Report DSD -18-107 attached as Appendix `D' to this report, the VPAHCD Study states that redevelopment along the Queen Street South corridor to permitted higher densities can be expected, and that innovative infill and backyard development can achieve higher densities together with conservation, resulting in a more varied, interesting and attractive streetscape. The Official Plan designation and zoning applied to the subject properties and surrounding area along Queen Street South, anticipates adaptive re -use of existing buildings as well as redevelopment at a 3-8 higher density than presently exists. Current zoning on the subject properties permits a range of commercial, office and residential uses including (through an approved variance), a building height equal to the 10 storeys proposed in the subject applications. The density and height of the proposed high rise is permitted within the existing zoning and is not out of character with the height and density of other existing high rise development on the block. Though the proposed high rise building does not feature specific design treatments to lessen the perception of height, the presence of other high rise buildings, the restrained design of the building, and the setback of the 10 storey building in behind the existing historic buildings will assist in mitigating the impact of height on the Queen Street South streetscape. Roofs, Windows, Verandahs The proposed high rise will feature a flat roof with mechanical equipment which will be screened from view from the street. Windows on the high rise will be similar in appearance, placement and proportion to other high rise buildings along the Queen Street South corridor. The verandahs on the existing historic buildings are proposed to be retained. Conservation, Demolition: The development proposal has been revised to retain and integrate the two existing historic buildings into the new development. Alterations will be limited to the removal of the rear additions, and the buildings will be converted back to residential use (two residential units in each building). Phase II HIA Conservation Measures & Conditions of Approval The Phase II HIA identifies specific conservation measures that are recommended to be implemented in the immediate and short (during construction of the high rise building) term, to address maintenance and monitoring measures related to the conservation of the two existing historic buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South. These include measures such as maintaining an acceptable level of heat within each building; conducting regular inspections during construction while the two heritage buildings are vacant; and installing protective construction fencing around the two buildings. The full set of conservation measures are outlined in Section 6.0 of the Phase II HIA attached as Appendix `B' to this report. In addition to recommending that the immediate and short term conservation measures identified in Section 6.0 of the Phase II HIA be undertaken, the Phase II HIA provides the following additional recommendations in regard to conditions which should be attached to any approvals granted to the subject applications for 254 and 262 Queen Street South. These include: • That photo documentation of the exterior parts of the buildings that are proposed for removal be completed before demolition; • That the removals be undertaken consistent with the Structural Condition Assessment and Demolition Plan prepared by Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Civil and Structural Engineers; and • That the non-combustible cladding proposed for the rear walls and rear portion of the roof on both buildings be of colours that are the same, or similar to, the existing colours the the exterior walls and roof of each building. Heritage Planning staff agree with the recommendations made in the Phase II HIA, with the addition that the applicant's Heritage Consultant inspect and certify that the immediate and short term conservation 3-9 measures for 254 and 262 Queen Street South have been completed in accordance with the Phase II HIA. In accordance with the preceding comments, heritage planning staff are of the opinion that the alterations and new building construction proposed in the subject Heritage Permit Applications are in general compliance with the New Building policies of the VPAHCD Plan; will not impact the integrity of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District or the historic Queen Street South streetscape; and should be granted approval consistent with the conditions outlined in the Phase II HIA dated December 2018 and prepared by MHBC Planning. 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: The recommendations of this report supports the achievement of the city's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM - This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT - Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning APPENDICES: Appendix A: Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2019-V-001 (242 Queen St. S.), HPA-2019-V-002 (254 Queen St. S.) and HPA-2019-V-003 (262 Queen St. S.). Appendix `B': Excerpt from the Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment dated December 2018 and prepared by MHBC Planning (includes Section 1.0 "Introduction"; 3.0 "Description of Proposed Development"; Section 4.0 "Impact Analysis"; Section 6.0 "Conservation Measures"; Section 7.0 "Conclusions and Recommendations", as well as the associated architectural design drawings). Appendix `C': Structural Condition Assessment and Demolition Plans for 254 and 262 Queen Street South prepared by Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Civil and Structural Engineers, dated December 21, 2018. Appendix `D': Staff Report DSD -18-107 (previously considered by Council on September 24, 2018). 3-10 APPENDIX'A' December 21, 2018 Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning City of Kitchener Development Services Department Planning Division, 6th Floor 200 King Street West KITCHENER, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Leon: KITCHENER WOODBRIDGE LONDON KINGSTON BARRIE BURLINGTON RE: Heritage Permit Applications for New Construction & Alteration- 242-262 Queen St. South OUR FILE: 152137 On behalf of , please accept these heritage permit applications for new construction on the property municipally addressed as 242 Queen Street South and the alteration of existing heritage structures on adjacent properties municipally addressed as 254 and 262 Queen Street South in the City of Kitchener. The referenced lands are located within Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District (VPHCD), and are therefore designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18. The subject lands are located east of Victoria Park between Courtland Avenue and Joseph Street, surrounded by mixed development including medium to high density, high-rise residential development along the Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor. The subject lands include three single -detached buildings. The properties located at 254 Queen Street South and 262 Queen Street South were constructed in the late 19th century. Both buildings have been altered over time and retain some, but not all, of their attributes. Both buildings were originally single family homes but have now been converted to businesses. The building located at 242 Queen Street South is currently the 'oneR00F' Youth Services facility and was constructed in 2007. The subject lands are located in the area identified by the Heritage Conservation District plan as the Queen Street South corridor. The Queen Street South corridor has specific policies that differ from the policies that apply to the rest of the VPAHCD. Specifically the HCD plan identifies that the Queen Street South corridor is an area undergoing change and considers that new development may occur. proposes to redevelop the site to a high density residential development. The proposed development includes: • the demolition of the existing "one ROOF" youth services building at 242 Queen Street; 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE / KITCHENER / ONTARIO / N2B 3X9 / T 519 576 3650 / F 519 576 0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM • the retention of the two buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street and their adaptive reuse as two unit residential buildings; • Alterations to the two retained buildings to remove the rear additions; and • Construction of a new 10 storey, 124 unit, residential building. Demolition of the "One ROOF" building at 242 Queen Street South was recommended by Heritage Kitchener and approved by Council; however, demolition of the buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South was not approved. As a result, the original development proposal was revised. A Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was identified as a requirement to: a) Assess the impact of the proposed conversion and alterations of the two existing buildings — specifically the removal of the rear additions; and, b) Assess the proposed new building and its compliance with the policies and guidelines of the VPAHCD Plan. The Phase II HIA is included as a separate document with these applications. In support of these applications we include the following: - Completed and signed copies of the heritage permit applications for: 0 242 Queens Street South 0 254 Queens Street South 0 262 Queens Street South; - A copy of the Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment (which includes a written description of the proposed development and the materials to be used); - Construction, Floor Plans, and Elevation Drawings; - Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, the facing streetscape; - A copy of the Shadow Study; - Digital copies of the above. We thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, MHBC Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Partner 3-12 1 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division, 6th Floor KITCHENEI� 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 (519) 741-2426 Nature of Application Application No HPA-2018—J - Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction El Alteration ❑ Subject Property Municipal Address.- Legal ddress:Legal Description (if known) 242 Queen Street South, Kitchener Relocation ❑ Part of Lot 57, Plan 393, Kitchener As In 674760; Kitchener Building/Structure Type: Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Heritage Designation: Part IV ❑ Part V (HCD) F-1 Is the Property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? Property Owner Name: Address: City: Telephone (Home) Email: Agent (if applicable) Company: Contact Name: Address: City: Telephone: Email: Written Description Industrial ❑ Institutional Q Victoria Park Area HCD Yes ❑ No 0 Postal Code: Telephone (Work): Vive Development Corp., c/o Stephen Litt Fax: Postal Code: - 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. The proposed devlopment is a 10 -Storey apartment building. Further detail is provided in the Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning (December 2018). page 8 3-13 Review of City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work. To facilitate the construction of a new 10 -Storey apartment building on the subject lands. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan. Please refer to Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning (Dec 2018). Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes aspx) Please refer to Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning (Dec 2018). Expected Start Date: 01/04/2019 (Day/Month/Year) Expected Completion Date: Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning staff? D Yes If yes, who? Leon Bensason Have you discussed this work with Building Division staff? 0 Yes If yes, who? Garett Stevenson 01/04/2020 (Day/Month/Year) ❑ No ❑ No Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? El Yes ❑ No Estimated Construction Value $ 22 Million Other Related Applications (Building/Planning): Application No.Site Plan (App No. SP18) 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 not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. 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 page 9 3-14 DocuSign Envelope ID: 524585EA-A575-4AC8-A88B-FB6903FB51ED 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 taking 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 but 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 being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: _ Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 7— Authorization Authorization If this application is being made by an agent / solicitor on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: /We, , owner of the land that is subject of this application, Vive Development Corp., hereby authorize to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner: W_ Date: 12/25/2018 206CE562CC74405.. Signature of Owner: Date: The personal information 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 Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under 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). INTERNAL USE ONLY: Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning staff ❑ Heritage Kitchener ❑ Council page 10 3-15 J HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Application No. City of Kitchener Community Services Department HPA-2018- Planning Division, 6th Floor KITCHENER 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 (519) 741-2426 Nature of Application Exterior ❑ Interior [I Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction Alteration E] Relocation ❑ Subject Property Municipal Address: 254 Queen Street South, Kitchener Legal Description (if known): Part of Lot 57, Plan 393, Kitchener As In 840313; Kitchener Building/Structure Type: Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: Part IV ❑ Part V (HCD) E Victoria Park Area HCD Is the Property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? Yes ❑ No Property Owner Name: Address: City: Postal Code: - Telephone (Home): Telephone (Work): Email: Agent (if applicable) Company: Vive Development Corp., c/o Stephen Litt Contact Name: Address: City: Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: 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. The proposed development includes alterations to the existing building on the property including the removal of the rear addition to facilitate construction of a new 10 -Storey apartment building. Further detail is provided in the Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment (MHBC, Dec 2018). page 8 3-16 Review of City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work. To facilitate the construction of a new 10 -Storey apartment building on the subject lands. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan. Please refer to Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning (Dec 2018). Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx) Please refer to Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning (Dec 2018). Expected Start Date: 01/04/2019 Expected Completion Date: 01/04/2020 (Day/Month/Year) (Day/Month/Year) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning staff? Yes ❑ No If yes, who? Leon Bensason Have you discussed this work with Building Division staff? Q Yes ❑ No If yes, who? Garett Stevenson Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? Yes ® No Estimated Construction Value $ 22 Million Other Related Applications (Building/Planning): Application No.Site Plan (App No. SP1& 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 not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. 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 page 9 3-17 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 taking 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 but 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 being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: _ Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: _NN--U:—::Date: Authorization If this application is being made by an agent / solicitor on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I /We, owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize to act on my / our behalf in this regard. c/o Steohen Lift Signature of Owner: Signature of Owner: Date: Date: The personal information 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 Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under 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). INTERNAL USE ONLY: Application Number: Application Received - Application Complete - Notice of Receipt. Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date - PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning staff ❑ Heritage Kitchener ❑ Council page 10 3-18 1 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM City of Kitchener Community Services Department Planning Division, 6th Floor KITCHENER 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 (519) 741-2426 Nature of Application Application No HPA-2018- Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction Alteration Z Subject Property Municipal Address: Legal Description (if known) Relocation ❑ 262 Queen Street South, Kitchener Part of Lot 57, Plan 393, Kitchener As In 657580; Kitchener Building/Structure Type: Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Heritage Designation: Part IV ❑ Part V (HCD) F1 Is the Property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? Property Owner Name: Address: City: Telephone (Home): Email: Industrial ❑ Institutional Victoria Park Area HCD Yes ❑ No 0 Agent (if applicable) Company: Contact Name: Address: City: Telephone: Email: Written Description Vive Development Corp., c/o Stephen Litt Fax: 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. The proposed development includes alterations to the existing building on the property including the removal of the rear addition to facilitate construction of a new 10 -Storey apartment building. Further detail is provided in the Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment (MHBC, Dec 2018). page 8 3-19 Review of City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work. To facilitate the construction of a new 10 -Storey apartment building on the subject lands. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan. Please refer to Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning (Dec 2018). Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx) Please refer to Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning (Dec 2018). Expected Start Date: 01/04/2019 Expected Completion Date: 01/04/2020 (Day/Month/Year) (Day/Month/Year) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning staff? 0 Yes ❑ No If yes, who? Leon Bensason Have you discussed this work with Building Division staff? E] Yes ❑ No If yes, who? Garett Stevenson Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? 0 Yes ® No Estimated Construction Value $ 22 Million Other Related Applications (Building/Planning): Application No. Site Plan (App No. SP1 8) 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 not guarantee it to be a 'complete' application. 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 page 9 3-20 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 taking 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 but 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 being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Authorization If this application is being made by an agent / solicitor on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I /We, MEN[--, owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize to act on my / our behalf in this regard. c/o SteDhen Litt Signature of Owner: Signature of Owner: Date: Date: The personal information 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 Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under 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). INTERNAL USE ONLY: Application Number, Application Received* Application Complete: Notice of Receipt - Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date, PROCESS. ❑ Heritage Planning staff ❑ Heritage Kitchener ❑ Council page 10 3-21 APPENDIX'S' HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPO 242-262 Queen Street South City of Kitchener Phase II Date: December 2018 Prepared for: Vive Development Corp. Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 Our File:'] 5213Y Aw6 3-22 1 .O Introduction Vive Development Corp. retained MHBC to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the subject lands located at 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener. The subject lands consist of three properties; 242 Queen Street South, 254 Queen Street South, and 262 Queen Street South. The subject lands are located east of Victoria Park between Courtland Avenue and Joseph Street, surrounded by mixed development including medium to high density, high-rise residential development along the Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor. The subject lands include three single -detached buildings. The properties located at 254 Queen Street South and 262 Queen Street South were constructed in the late 19th century. Both buildings have been altered over time and retain some, but not all, of their attributes. Both buildings were originally single family homes but have now been converted to businesses. The building located at 242 Queen Street South is currently the'oneROOF' Youth Services facility and was constructed in 2007. The subject lands are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD). The subject lands are located in the area identified by the Heritage Conservation District plan as the Queen Street South corridor. The Queen Street South corridor has specific policies that differ from the policies that apply to the rest of the VPAHCD. Specifically the HCD plan identifies that the Queen Street South corridor is an area undergoing change and considers that new development may occur. The owners propose to redevelop the site to a high density residential development. The proposed development includes: • the demolition of the existing "one ROOF" youth services building at 242 Queen Street; • the retention of the two buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street and their reuse as two unit residential buildings; • Alterations to the two retained buildings to remove the rear additions; and • Construction of a new 10 storey, 124 unit, residential building. This report represents Phase II of the Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development of the lands. Phase 1 of the HIA dealt with the demolition of the existing buildings on site. Demolition of the "One ROOF" building at 242 Queen Street South was recommended by Heritage Kitchener and approved by Council; however, demolition of the buildings at 254 and 3-23 262 Queen Street South was not approved. As a result, the original development proposal was revised. The purpose of this Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment is to: • Assess the impact of the proposed conversion and alterations of the two existing buildings — specifically the removal of the rear additions; and • Assess the proposed new building and its compliance with the policies and guidelines of the VPAHCD Plan. The conclusions of this Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment are: 1. The removal of the additions will have a minor adverse impact. While the portions of the building that will be removed are understood to be later additions and not part of the original construction, these parts do have some heritage attributes. However, given that the removals are at the rear of the house, and that the main portion of both buildings are to be retained, the overall impact of the removals minor. It is recommended that the alterations be subject to the following measures: o That photo documentation of the exterior parts of the buildings that are proposed for removal be completed before demolition; o That the removals be undertaken consistent with the Structural Condition Assessment and Demolition Plan prepared Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd, Civil and Structural Engineers (included as Appendix C). o That the non-combustible cladding proposed for the rear walls and rear portion of the roof on both buildings be of colours that are the same, or similar to, the existing colours of the exterior walls and roof of each building. o That the immediate and short term conservation measures identified in Section 6.0 of this report be undertaken. 2. The proposed new 10 storey multiple residential building generally complies with the policies and guidelines of the VPAHCD Plan for new construction within the Queen Street South corridor. The Queen Street South corridor is characterized by a mix of buildings of varying heights, densities and architectural styles. The new building is consistent with the scale and massing of existing buildings in this part of the Queen Street corridor. The location of the new building at the back of the lot and behind the existing houses minimizes the impact of the building's height on the public realm and the HCD in general. While there is little transition in height between the new building and the existing low rise building at 226 Queen Street, the lack of transition is not unique; most of the tall buildings in the area provide no transition in height to their low density neighbours. The location of the new building behind the existing buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street provides for a continuity of landscaped front yards that unifies the streetscape of the existing buildings 3-24 at 226, 254 and 262 Queen Street. It is recommended that should the mature tree on the adjacent property at 226 Queen Street require removal due to construction activity on the subject lands, a new replacement tree be planted. 3-25 3.O Description of Proposed Development The proposed development of the lands consists of a 10 storey multiple residential building with 124 units. The building will have a total of 124 parking spaces that are proposed to be located in an underground and above ground parking structure. The existing buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South are proposed to be retained and converted to 2 unit residential buildings. The building at 242 Queen Street will be demolished. The owners propose to develop the site in two phases. The first phase will include the removal of the rear additions on the two retained buildings and the construction of the apartment building. The second phase will be the interior alterations of both dwellings to convert them to two unit dwellings. The second phase will be initiated once the apartment building is completed; therefore, the two retained buildings will be vacant for several months during the construction phase. The design of the new apartment building has been revised since the Phase 1 HIA. The revised design is approximately 10 storeys compared to the previous design which was 8 storeys in height. The building also has a smaller footprint since there is less buildable area on the lot due to the retention of the two existing buildings. The materials of the new building are primarily concrete panels, glass and steel. The site plan and building elevations are provided in Appendix A. The new apartment building will be located approximately 2.0 metres from the rear of the retained houses (after the removals of the rear additions). As a result, the cladding of the rear walls, as well as the portion of the roof closest to the new building, is required to be non- combustible material. Steel cladding is proposed for the rear walls on each building. No doors, windows or other openings will be permitted on these facades. The colour of the steel cladding will be the same as, or very similar, to the current colours of the existing buildings. Other than the removal of the rear additions and recladding of the rear walls and portions of the roof, no other exterior alterations to the two retained buildings are proposed. The conversion of the houses to two -unit residential buildings is proposed to occur through interior alterations once the new apartment building has been completed. Should there be a need for exterior alterations at the time of the conversion, a heritage permit application would be considered at that time. 3-26 Figure 52: Rendering of proposed new building (Neo Architecture Inc., 2018) 3-27 4.o Impact Analysis 4.1 Introduction The purpose of this Phase II Heritage Impact Assessment is to assess the impacts to identified cultural heritage resources which are anticipated as a result of the proposed redevelopment. Specifically, this report assesses the impact of the proposed alterations to the buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South (i.e. removal of the rear additions) and the impact of the proposed new 10 storey multiple residential building. 4.2 Classifications of Impacts There are three classifications of impacts that the effects of a proposed development may have on an identified cultural heritage resource: beneficial, neutral or adverse. Beneficial impacts may include retaining a resource of cultural heritage value, protecting it from loss or removal, restoring/repairing heritage attributes, or making sympathetic additions or alterations that allow for the continued long-term use of a heritage resource. Neutral effects have neither a markedly positive or negative impact on a cultural heritage resource. Adverse effects may include the loss or removal of a cultural heritage resource, unsympathetic alterations or additions which remove or obstruct heritage attributes. The isolation of a cultural heritage resource from its setting or context, or the addition of other elements which are unsympathetic to the character or heritage attributes of a cultural heritage resource are also considered adverse impacts. These adverse impacts may require strategies to mitigate their impact on cultural heritage resources. The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may occur over a short or long term duration, and may occur during a pre -construction phase, construction phase or post -construction phase. Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact. The following analysis of impacts of the proposed new development on adjacent properties is also guided by the Heritage Toolkit of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Here, the Toolkit outlines potential sources of adverse impacts as follows: • Destruction: of any, or part of any significant heritage attributes or features; • Alteration: that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance: 3-28 • Shadows: created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; • Isolation: of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • Direct or Indirect Obstruction: of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; • A change in land use: such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; • Land disturbances: such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The following will provide a detailed analysis of the impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed development related to a) the alteration of the buildings located on the subject lands, and b) whether or not the proposed development conforms to the policies of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan. 4.3 Impacts of the Proposed Alterations to 254 and 262 Queen Street South 4.3.1 Impacts of the Removals of the Rear Additions The removal of the additions on each of the existing buildings on site will have minor negative impacts. While in both cases the portions to be removed are later additions, they do have some heritage value. The portions of the building at 254 Queen Street that are proposed to be removed are identified as Sections B(i), B(ii), and C on Figure 8, page 9. The Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment identified that these additions do not include the same architectural detail and ornamentation as the main dwelling, however the additions are complementary and the scale and massing and the original windows are identified as heritage attributes. The portions of the building at 262 Queen Street that are proposed to be removed are identified as Sections B and D on Figure 26 on page 16. The Phase I HIA identified that these rear portions of the building at 262 Queen Street have less architectural detail than the main building, however the scale, massing, original window openings and the 2 storey wood frame verandah are identified as heritage attributes. Given that the proposed removals result in the removal of heritage attributes, there is some adverse impact. The impact is considered minor since the removals are to rear parts of the buildings and the attributes are on secondary facades, some of which are not viewable from the public realm. 3-29 Consistent with heritage conservation best practices the following measures are recommended: o That photo documentation of the exterior parts of the buildings that are proposed for removal be completed before demolition; o That the removals be undertaken consistent with the Structural Condition Assessment and Demolition Plan prepared Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd, Civil and Structural Engineers (included as Appendix Q. o That the non-combustible cladding proposed for the rear walls and rear portion of the roof on both buildings be of colours that are the same, or similar to, the existing colours of the exterior walls and roof of each building. o That any salvageable material (e.g. the wooden verandah) be removed and made available to interested parties before being discarded. 4.3.2 Impacts of the Alterations and Conformity with the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District The Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan includes policies and guidelines for alterations to roofs, exterior walls and building colour. In general, the policies and guidelines are directed at changes and alterations that affect the portions of buildings that are viewable from the public realm — i.e. the front and side facades. The HCD Plan is generally less concerned with changes that occur to the rear of buildings and that are only viewable from the private realm. The primary policy direction regarding roofs is that the original roof shape should be maintained. The HCD plan notes that the historically the majority of building in the VPAHCD would have had wood shingle roofs. Metal roofs were typically applied to verandahs or other low sloping roofs. The HCD Plan notes that the majority of buildings in the district are clad in brick. A wide range of other materials are used but are generally limited to additions, garages, outbuildings and gables. The primary policy direction of the HCD plan is to match the original cladding or use an equivalent with a similar texture, scale and colour and that complements the architectural style of the building and the neighbourhood. As noted, the cladding to the rear elevation on both houses is required to be non-combustible given the separation distance between the buildings and the new apartment building. Brick cladding is not permitted, nor is wood. The proposed recladding of the rear fa4ade and rear facing portions of the roof will have a very minimal impact on the Heritage Conservation District. While, the VPAHCD plan recommends against the use of metal siding, the application of it in this instance is limited to the rear facades and is not easily viewable from the street. Further, ensuring that the new cladding is the same colour as the existing brick walls and the same colour as the existing roof would reduce any impact. 3-30 4.4 Impacts of New Building within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and the Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor 4.4.1 Conformity to the VPAHCD Policies regarding New Building According to the policies for new buildings provided in the VPAHCD Plan, new high rise buildings are anticipated within the Queen Street South corridor due to the permitted densities in the Zoning By-law and Official Plan. In the Queen Street South corridor, zoning permits and encourages new high rise, high density development. Major new buildings may be expected. This plan recognizes and supports the rights and privileges of property owners to redevelop in compliance with the Municipal Plan. This is not necessarily considered contrary to heritage conservation. (VPAHCD Plan, pg 67). The policies that govern new buildings within the VPAHCD are listed on pages 67-68 of the VPAHCD. The following provides a review of the proposed development with regard to the applicable policies for new buildings. Public Realm New building shall contribute to the public realm of Queen Street South, which is perceived as an historic, gracious and tree -lined thoroughfare. The proposed new building will be set back from the street and behind the existing buildings that will be retained. The public realm in front of the retained houses (254 and 262 Queen Street) will remain largely unchanged, and therefore, the new building will have no impact on the public realm on this portion of the site. The building at 242 Queen is proposed to be removed and vehicular driveway and pedestrian access to the new building will occur in this location. There is potential for impact to the public realm since the removal of the building could lead to a 'gap' in the streetscape. The new development proposes to address this through landscaping of the front yard and a well designed entrance to the new building. There is also opportunity to better coordinate the landscape of the subject lands with the adjacent historic building to the north (226 Queen Street South). The new development is subject to Site Plan approval and the landscape treatment of the front yard results in continuous landscape that integrates with the adjacent historic building, therefore the new development will not negatively impact the public realm. 3-31 Pedestrian Scale New building shall emphasize a human scale that creates a comfortable, safe and livable streetscape. Ground floor uses which can animate and enliven the public street are encouraged. The new building will be located behind the existing buildings and set back from the street. Given the location of the building and its setback from the street and the retention of the two existing buildings, the pedestrian scale of the streetscape will not be negatively impacted. Design 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 is of contemporary design and is similar to the other high rise buildings in the Queen Street South corridor in terms of massing and scale. The historic character of the Queen Street corridor is a mix of high density residential buildings and low density formerly single detached houses. There are a range of building scales and architectural styles within this part of the HCD. The design of the new building is complementary to the character of the Queen Street South corridor. Location New building shall be located to create streetscape continuity and pedestrian scale. The building is setback from the street and located behind the existing buildings which limit impacts on the streetscape. As noted above, the landscape design results in an integrated continuous landscape with the adjacent building, the location of the new building will not impact the pedestrian scale of Queen Street Density Every effort shall be made to blend new high rise building with neighboring low rise residences. This could include varied building heights and elevations and the breaking up of the building mass. The proposed new building has a density of 4.0 FSR which is consistent with the maximum density permitted by the current zoning. The building does not include building stepbacks or other variations in height. The site is not adjacent to the low rise residential area part of the VPAHCD that is outside the Queen Street corridor and therefore the density of the site does not have an impact on the low rise residential part of the district. 3-32 Over time, the three adjacent existing low rise buildings (254 and 262 Queen Street and the adjacent building at 226 Queen Street) have been converted to commercial uses and multiple residential uses. The design of the new building does not provide for a transition in height to these existing buildings. However, the existing surrounding context is primarily high density, high rise residential buildings with little transition between tall and low height buildings. Height Design treatments to lessen the perception of height in new high rise development shall be considered, such as facade setbacks, mansard roofs, gables and varying building finishes and textures. The subject lands are zoned MU -2 and the maximum height as per the Zoning by-law is 24.0 metres. The height of the proposed new building is 30.7 metres. There are a number of existing high rise buildings surrounding the subject lands that range in height from 5 to 18 storeys. The proposed development is isolated from the low rise residential part of the heritage district by other high rise multiple unit residential buildings and the shadow study shows that there will be no significant impact of increased shadows on Victoria Park or the low rise residential part of the District as a result of the new building. The impact of the height of the building on the public realm is minimized by the location of the building behind the existing two storey buildings. The existing buildings act as a transition between the new 10 storey building and the street. Given the location of the new building, the height of the building will not negatively impact the heritage conservation district. Materials Materials typical of the historic Area, such as brick, shall be used. A range of materials including concrete panels, steel and glass are proposed. While the concrete panels, steel and glass are not consistent with the low density residential part of the district, these materials are consistent with the surrounding high rise buildings along the Queen Street South corridor. Roofs Roofs shall be designed to create an attractive skyline and screen roof equipment. A flat roof is proposed and mechanical equipment is screened from view from the street. 3-33 Windows The appearance, placement and proportion of windows shall be complementary to historic windows in the Area, ifpossible. The proposed new building is of contemporary design. The windows are similar in their appearance, placement and proportions as the other high rise developments in the Queen Street South corridor. Verandahs Verandahs shall be incorporated, wherever possible, to continue a historic tradition in the Area. The verandahs on the existing buildings are proposed to remain. The verandah on 262 Queen Street was closed in at some point in the past. Should any alterations to the verandah be considered in the future, it is recommended that the original open verandah be reinstated using historic photographs as a guide. The new building includes balconies on the Queen Street facing fa4ade, which is consistent with the intent of the HCD policies for outdoor private amenity area facing the street which allows for public view and "eyes on the street". Colours Colours of paint and materials shall be complementary to the historic character of the Area. The colour of the existing buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street is proposed to remain as they are today. The new building is proposed to be dark brown, charcoal and ivory colours. The building colours in the Queen Street corridor tend to be lighter browns, beiges and neutral colours. However, there are some darker coloured buildings, such as the high rise building on the opposite side of the street at 221 Queen Street. While a lighter colour would be more consistent with the colour of existing buildings, the dark brown and charcoal colours are not incompatible with the character of the Queen Street South corridor. Conservation Where historic buildings are integrated into new building developments, the following approaches are encouraged in order of preference: Preservation/Conservation - maintaining historic buildings with little alteration. Adaptive Re -use - reusing historic buildings with restoration and/or rehabilitation 3-34 Incorporation - adaptive reuse that typically requires significant alteration. The existing historic buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South are proposed to be retained and conserved. The alteration of these buildings is limited to the removal of the later rear additions (see section 4.3 for discussion the impacts of these alterations) Landscaping Landscaping should enhance new building and the Queen Street South landscape. Landscaping should create continuity in the streetscape between adjacent properties, where possible. Plant material, where appropriate, should be used to soften building size, mass and edges to maintain a human scale for pedestrians. Landscaping should screen and buffer service areas, parking, open storage and other unsightly areas where required. Landscaping should buffer high density buildings from low density where required. The landscape design provides for continuity along the streetscape and improves the connection between the adjacent historic house and the two houses on the subject lands. The details of the landscape plan have been resolved through the site plan approval process. Five parking spaces are proposed in front of the new building. The parking spaces are approximately 9.0 metres from the street line and are located behind the front building line of the retained buildings. The yard in front of this parking area is to be landscaped to soften and screen the parking from the streetscape. Demolition Conservation and integration of historic buildings into new development is encouraged. Where removal of on historic building to accommodate higher density is contemplated, moving the buildings onto a new site shall be considered. Where removal of historic building is not feasible, the careful salvage of the key historic building fabric shall be undertaken so as to be used in the restoration of other similar style buildings. Application for demolition or removal shall be to the LACAC. The existing historic buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South are proposed to be retained and conserved. The building at 242 Queen Street does not have significant heritage value and has been approved for demolition by Council. 3-35 4.4.2 Impacts of New Building on Adjacent Properties Assessment of impacts of the proposed new development on adjacent properties is also guided by the Heritage Toolkit of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. The Toolkit outlines potential sources of adverse impacts as destruction or alteration of a heritage resource, impacts related to shadows, obstruction of significant views, isolation, change in land use, and impacts related to land disturbance. The proposed new building will not result in destruction or alteration of any adjacent heritage resources. The heritage resources on the subject lands are proposed to be retained. The impacts of alterations to these buildings are discussed in section 4.3 of this HIA. The proposed new building will result in increased shadows on the adjacent building at 226 Queen Street. The shadow study indicates that the new building will cast shadows in the late afternoon time period (4:00 pm). Shadowing occurs at the other time periods as well, but is a result of existing buildings. The shadows from the new building occur mainly to the rear and side yards. Shadowing of the front of the building and the front yard at 226 Queen Street does not increase significantly as a result of the new building. The new building is located at the rear of the subject lands and will not result in obstruction of significant views of adjacent or on site heritage resources. Nor will it result in the isolation of heritage resources. No change in land use is proposed. The excavation of the site to construct the underground parking may require the removal of a mature tree located in the front yard of the adjacent property to the north. If this occurs it would result in a negative impact. The impact could be reduced by replanting of a new tree as a condition of site plan approval. 3-36 Conservation Measures The overall condition of both of the retained buildings is good and both are structurally sound. Both buildings were vacated only recently and were well maintained. The doors and windows on both buildings are secure and operable. A condition assessment was completed in 2018 and is included in Appendix C. The two retained buildings are proposed to be converted from office uses to two -unit residential dwellings. The conversion will occur in two phases. The first phase involves the removal of the rear additions and the recladding of the rear walls and rear facing portions of the roof. This phase will be completed during the construction of the new building. The second phase will include the interior alterations to convert the buildings to two -unit residential dwellings. No exterior alterations are planned. Phase two will begin once the construction of the new building is complete. Conservation measures are identified below that should be undertaken in order to ensure the buildings are conserved consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010). The conservation measures for the first phase of development are categorized as Immediate Actions and Short Term Actions. The Immediate actions are general maintenance and monitoring actions and should take place now and continue until the buildings are occupied. The short term actions are those related to the removal of the additions and the recladding and stabilization of the buildings. The conservation measures are guided by the Demolition Plans prepared for each building by Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. (See Appendix Q. A cost estimate for the recommended conservation actions is provided in Table 1. Immediate: • Roof gutters be cleaned and gutters and downspouts be repaired, if necessary; • The building be heated to a level of at least 15 Celsius; • If the building is to remain vacant, a monthly monitoring inspection should be undertaken to ensure the security of all entrances and general maintenance of the building; Short term (during the construction of the apartment building): • Any necessary modifications to the buildings electrical and heating systems be made such that the electricity and heating will function once the additions are removed 3-37 • Construction fencing and guarding be erected as detailed in the Demolition Plan prepared by Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. • Bricks from the removed portions shall be salvaged and retained for reuse to repair any brick cladding that is to remain that may have been damaged. • The removal of the additions and new foundations, wall cladding and roof repair and recladding shall be undertaken consistent with the Demolition Plan prepared by Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. • During and after construction, grades around the heritage houses shall be maintained such that all drainage is directed away from the building. • Any necessary gutters and downspouts shall be added to ensure proper drainage is maintained. • The wooden verandah on the building at 262 Queen Street South be salvaged to the extent possible. The original components that are salvageable consist of the wooden railings, posts, brackets and wooden decorative elements. Before demolition of the rear addition, these items shall be removed and stored in a dry, secure location for reuse when the buildings are converted to residential units or made available to others for their use. • Once the phase 1 alterations are complete and until the building is recoccupied, the building shall be heated to a level of at least 15 Celsius and a monthly monitoring inspection should be undertaken to ensure the security of all entrances and general maintenance of the building. Table 1: Cost Estimate Action Cost Estimate Construction of fencing, guards, covered walkways, and temporary barricades required to maintain public safety and maintain public access to sidewalks on Queen Street. $2500 Electrical and heating modifications to ensure heat and electricity function after additions removed $5000 Removal and salvage of brick. $4500 Recladding of exposed walls and openings $12,500 Repair and closure of foundations $7500 Repair and re -cladding of north slope of roof on 262 Queen Street $9500 Repair and replacement of gutters and downspouts $3750 Removal and storage of salvageable components of rear verandah on 262 Queen Street $850 TOTAL $46,100 3-38 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations This Phase II HIA evaluates the impact of the alteration (i.e. the removal of the additions) to the two existing buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street and evaluates the proposed new multiple residential building and its compliance with the policies and guidelines of the VPAHCD Plan. The conclusions are as follows: 3. The removal of the additions will have a minor adverse impact. While the portions of the building that will be removed are understood to be later additions and not part of the original construction, these parts do have some heritage attributes. However, given that the removals are at the rear of the house, and that the main portion of both buildings are to be retained, the overall impact of the removals minor. It is recommended that the alterations be subject to the following measures: o That photo documentation of the exterior parts of the buildings that are proposed for removal be completed before demolition; o That the removals be undertaken consistent with the Structural Condition Assessment and Demolition Plan prepared Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd, Civil and Structural Engineers (included as Appendix C). o That the non-combustible cladding proposed for the rear walls and rear portion of the roof on both buildings be of colours that are the same, or similar to, the existing colours of the exterior walls and roof of each building. o That the immediate and short term conservation measures identified in Section 6.0 of this report be undertaken. 4. The proposed new 10 storey multiple residential building generally complies with the policies and guidelines of the VPAHCD Plan for new construction within the Queen Street South corridor. The Queen Street South corridor is characterized by a mix of buildings of varying heights, densities and architectural styles. The new building is consistent with the scale and massing of existing buildings in this part of the Queen Street corridor. The location of the new building at the back of the lot and behind the existing houses minimizes the impact of the building's height on the public realm and the HCD in general. While there is little transition in height between the new building and the existing low rise building at 226 Queen Street, the lack of transition is not unique; most of the tall buildings in the area provide no transition in height to their low density neighbours. The location of the new 3-39 building behind the existing buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street provides for a continuity of landscaped front yards that unifies the streetscape of the existing buildings at 226, 254 and 262 Queen Street. It is recommended that should the mature tree on the adjacent property at 226 Queen Street require removal due to construction activity on the subject lands, a new replacement tree be planted. 3-40 m�D b C ..... 0_ ILI' Seg E r mm L p Hn — b 81 Hn — laaj1S —no ,r,- CO 0 T a CD I Ll C) 3 - a w - I I I I I I I I I I I r I — — — — — — — r" i _ �— _ - . - . - . - . - . - . -.. - _ Jli I -- 0- r- --- ---- ---------- - ----- ----------- ;;;, W W -�77 --------- - -�---- ----------- J ��o o �o c o _ CO &; La > w ,C�1 .... 0 r Lp _ w a a a W i^ li�� Q C 0_ � CO Lp _ w a .... 0_ � CO Lp _ w - a � 9 dn� 1 T i T-og �2� li�� c o _ CO &; La w g C 0 T Lp _ w a �, a oyer T-ogli�� .... CCD a is 1 C 0_ � CO Lp _ w - a � 9 oyer 1 T T-ogli�� _ CO > gig" - � ML Z,-1 a _ M > gig" - � ML Z,-1 a v�D s � o� � ��� m �g > E Y gi g" L p - u � ML a s � o� � APPENDIX V TR IK ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION St., Unit 1415 Huron Rd., Unit 225 43f7�ox 241510 Woodcock #7BALD'NELL) AaOnt, NOM 1 CO don, OntN6H 5S1 Kitchener, Ont, N2R Ota P: 514.471.86b7 P: 514.441.3640 P: 514.725.8043 ILMONIZivil- www.sbmltd.ca sbm4sbmlid. ca December 21, 2018 SBM -18-0103 Vive Development Corporation Attn: Mr. Stephen Litt Re: Partial Removal of Existing Buildings 262 Queen Street S, Kitchener, ON Stephen; Strik Baldinelli Moniz (SBM) attended the site to review the existing construction in order to provide a structural condition assessment and a demolition plan for the rear addition of the building. As part of the development agreement for the proposed high-rise development at this address, the original construction for the subject building will remain in order to retain its historic value. This demolition plan is provided to advise on the means and methods of demolition to avoid structural damage to the original historic portions of the building during construction of the adjacent high-rise building. At your request, Mr. Todd Wernham of SBM attended the site on the afternoon of December 18, 2018 to review the features of the building that are to be partially demolished. The building was reviewed from the interior and exterior. Some minor removal of finishes was completed at the time of review where the construction was not immediately visible. Based on the results of our review, we are pleased to present the partial demolition plan herein. 1.0 Supplementary Documentation This demolition plan is to be read in conjunction with the following documents: • The structural drawings issued for foundation permit for the proposed development at 262 Queen Street by Strik Baldinelli Moniz, dated December 21, 2018. • The site plan prepared by SBM for the proposed development at 262 Queen Street, dated November 5, 2018 2.0 Building Description The building was constructed in the 1890's as a two storey house with a full basement and accessible, unfinished attic. The roof and floor framing is conventionally framed with rough sawn lumber roof rafters and floor joists supported on exterior multi-wythe brick walls on rubble stone foundation walls. The framing is supported at the interior on rough sawn wood stud walls on multi-wythe brick foundation walls in the basement. It is reported that shortly after construction, an addition was constructed at the back of the building with a veranda and covered basement walkout. The original exterior rear walls were mostly removed to provide access to the addition. The construction of the addition is similar to the original building. As stated in the condition assessment report, the building appears to be in fair condition, commensurate with its age and in comparable standing other buildings in the area. Based on the visual review during the structural condition assessment, the addition is not bracing or reinforcing the original construction. Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz, Ltd. 3-55 www.sbmltd.ca SBM -18-0103 3.0 Health & Safety The demolition site must be restricted from public access by way of hoarding and barricades. The area around the building must be maintained in good condition until the demolition work has been completed. All demolition work shall be carried out in a manner that protects the public and workers in conformance with: • CSA 5350-M "Code of Practice for Safety in Demolition of Structures" • The National Building Code, Part 8 — Safety Measures at construction & Demolition Sites • The Ontario Building Code, latest edition • The Ontario Fire Code, Part 8 — Demolition • The Occupational Health and Safety Act for Construction Projects O.Reg 213/91 • Local standards and by-laws. 4.0 Extent of Work The original rear exterior wall is rough sawn wood studs with plaster on each side. There are several openings in this wall to permit access to the addition. This existing construction is not sufficient to provide load sharing for out -of -plane loads or provide the in -plane lateral shear resistance. Prior to demolishing the addition, the existing rear exterior wall must be reinforced. See section 7.0 "demolition procedure" for wall reinforcement details. The rear veranda, covered basement walkout, and rear two storey addition are to be demolished. Refer to the photographs in the appendix to see the extent of demolition. To transition the addition roof to the original building, there is some conventional over framing on the original roof. This over framing is also to be removed. New roofing will be required on match the existing. In accordance with the National Building Code of Canada Commentary, construction of the new high-rise building will create approximately 3.4m of additional snow drift loads on the existing roof framing. This portion of the roof framing will have to be reinforced or replaced prior to the first winter after the height of the high-rise construction exceeds the height of the subject building. New roof framing is to match the slopes and elevations of the existing roof. The building materials are to be disposed or reclaimed. The existing brick and rubble stone may be saved and reused to make the original exterior walls weather tight, if needed. 5.0 Access and Haulage Routes The property can be accessed by the driveway off Queen Street or the drive lane through the parking lot off David Street. The contractor may only use the driveway off Queen Street to access the building or haul materials. There are no restrictions on the haulage routes. 6.0 Daily Inspections and Cleanup At the beginning of each day, the contractor shall review any fencing, guards, and scaffolding required for demolition to ensure safety of all workers and public. Replace any found to be deficient. At the beginning of each day, the contractor shall review all equipment and tools, including any equipment utilized in a fall arrest system and replace any items found to be deficient. At the end of the day, the contractor shall clean up all surplus materials and debris, leaving the site neat and tidy. Leave all work in a safe and stable condition. 3-56 www.sbmltd.ca 7.0 Demolition Procedure 1. Obtain all necessary demolition and construction permits from the City. Display all permits on site. SBM -18-0103 2. The contractor shall examine the existing property to determine the nature and extent of materials being demolished and removed. The contractor shall examine the adjacent properties to determine the extent of protections required. 3. Locate all property lines. 4. Conduct a pre -safety meeting to identify all possible hazards, emergency exits, nearest hospital, safety policy, safety precautions, etc. with the owner and engineer in attendance. 5. Arrange for and verify that all utilities including electrical, water, and gas service have been disconnected to the addition. Also verify all telephone lines have been disconnected from the addition. Post warning signs on electrical lines, and equipment which must remain energized to serve other properties during period of demolition. 6. Construct all fencing, guards, covered walkways, and temporary barricades required to maintain public safety and maintain public access to sidewalks on Queen Street. Demolition is not to interfere with public access to these sidewalks during period of demolition. 7. Close and lock all doors and windows into the building which are not fenced off from the public. Post signs stating access to the building interior is not permitted to the public. If the contractor completes any work from the interior of the building, he shall ensure the front door is locked or otherwise protected from access to the public. 8. Provide temporary support for existing floors and roof structure each side of the original rear wall. 9. Remove the existing wood framed portion of the original rear wall. 10. Remove the existing two-wythe masonry foundation wall supporting wood wall above. 11. Remove heating apparatus, piping, lamps, plaster, stairs and other similar materials in the rear addition. 12. Demolish the addition, demolition to proceed in a top down manner to prevent portions of building from falling. Begin demolition at the North West end of the building and travel South East. No Explosives are to be used in demolition. The procedure for demolition is as follows: a. Cut existing roof sheathing, and shingles between the original building and the addition. Remove the roof shingles, sheathing and roof rafters. The existing over framing on the back of the original building is to be removed by hand to avoid damaging the existing structure. b. Neatly saw cut multi-wythe brick walls at location where walls will be removed. c. Remove the gable end masonry at the attic. d. Remove the attic floor framing. e. Remove the second floor masonry walls at the rear addition. f. Shear second floor addition floor joists at the original rear exterior wall. Remove second floor framing. g. Remove the main floor masonry walls at the rear addition. h. Shear main floor addition floor joists at the original rear exterior wall. Remove main floor framing. i. Remove existing rubble foundation wall at the addition and double-wythe brick foundation wall. 13. Provide appropriate dust suppressants to prevent excessive dust or debris from arising during demolition. 3-57 www.sbmltd.ca SBM -18-0103 14. The debris will be broken and crushed into manageable pieces and hauled off site with exceptions of masonry materials (if any) being reused to make the original exterior walls weather tight. All applicable demolished material are to be hauled away and properly disposed of by the contractor. No selling, burning, or burying of materials on site is permitted. 15. Where unknown services are encountered, immediately notify the owner and confirm the findings in writing. 16. Provide a new 9" concrete foundation wall and 20"x6" strip footing in accordance with Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code or a new rubble stone foundation wall to match the existing rubble stone foundation wall in other areas of the building (min. 20" thick). 17. Provide new 2x6 @ 16" o.c. wall framing to replace the existing wood framing at the original rear wall. Wall framing to be installed at each floor and at the attic. Wall framing to be complete with a double top plate and 3/8" sheathing fastened as per Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code. Install wall framing tight to the underside of existing floor joists. 18. Provide an air barrier and vapour barrier in accordance with the Ontario Building Code. Provide insulation and exterior wall cladding per architectural plans. 19. All excavations are to be graded level to the existing adjacent grade. 20. Separate from general waster stream each of the materials listed below. Stockpile materials in neat and orderly fashion prior to removing from site in location and as directed by engineer for alternate disposal. Stockpile materials in accordance with applicable fire and safety regulations a. Wood b. Metal c. Garbage d. Recycling 21. Remove all covered walkways, silt fences and temporary barricades that are not required for construction of the new building. 8.0 Protection During Construction The following measures are to be taken to protect the subject building during the construction of the proposed adjacent high-rise building: 1. Engage a third party consultant to provide a pre -construction survey of the existing building. Keep a copy of the report on site at all times. At the beginning of each day the contractor shall inspect the existing building to ensure no damage is occurring to the building. The site engineer shall be provided access to the building to monitor the condition of existing building. The contractor shall arrange for inspections by the engineer when activities which cause excessive vibration will be completed. Engage a third party consultant to install a vibration monitor within the building. Consult with the vibration consultant to determine the optimal location for the monitor. The vibration data shall be monitored and downloaded on a weekly basis at a minimum. The contractor shall monitor the vibration and condition of the building during construction activity which is known to provide excessive vibration, such as driving piles for temporary shoring (if required) or compacting soil adjacent to the building. The contractor shall stop construction immediately if vibration exceeds allowable levels and determine alternate methods of construction to avoid damaging the structure. 3-58 www.sbmltd.ca SBM -18-0103 Install barriers or fencing around the perimeter of the building. Construction vehicles may not use the existing driveway to this building. Provide alternate access and haulage routes to the site so that heavy trucks and construction vehicles are minimum 2.4m from the building, unless temporary shoring is provided which is designed to protect the building from heavy construction surcharge loads. 4. At the beginning of each day, the contractor shall review any fencing and guards. Replace any found to be deficient. Provide temporary shoring along the north and east side of the buildings. The shoring design shall be obtained by the contractor and completed and sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed in Ontario. The engineer must be in good standing with the Professional Engineers of Ontario and have a minimum of 5 years of experience in the design of temporary shoring. The shoring shall be designed to protect the building from all anticipated construction loads. Shoring design shall be completed in consultation with the vibration consultant to ensure the installation process is completed in a manner to minimize anticipated vibrations. Access to the subject building shall be restricted such that the building shall not be used for storage of materials for the adjacent high-rise building and shall not be used as a site trailer, construction office, break room, etc. for the workers. Access to the subject building shall only be permitted for uses directly relating to the structural stability of the subject building. 7. No overhead cranes required to construct the building are permitted to travel directly over the subject structure. 8. Replace or reinforce the roof framing affected by new snow drift loads prior to the first winter where the construction of the adjacent high-rise exceeds the height of the subject building. 9.0 Limitations This report is intended exclusively for the Client(s) named in this report. This demolition plan has been prepared in light of the information reviewed on site. Despite our best efforts, construction may vary from what is described. If construction varies from what is described or if any additional demolition work is required beyond what is mentioned in the plan, the work must be reviewed and accepted by the engineer prior to commencing demolition work. We trust this letter meets your satisfaction, if you need further clarification please do not hesitate to contact us. Regards, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Civil and Structural Engineers a�-� Da n, P.Eng Associate S(fJAtq D. H. WAN 1000172514 04 Or 3-59 www.sbmltd.ca APPENDIX - PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1: Extent of rear addition to be demolished. Photo 2: Extent of rear addition to be demolished. SBM -18-0103 6 3-60 t Sb i Vive Development Corporation Attn: Mr. Stephen Litt Re: Partial Removal of Existing Buildings 254 Queen Street S, Kitchener, ON Stephen; ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION NAr 14361 Medway Rd., P.O. Box 29 1510 Woodcock St., Unit #7 1415 Huron Rd., Unit 225 Arra, Ont, NOM ICO London, Ont, N6H 5S1 Kitchener, Ont, N2R OL3 P: 519,47L6667 P: 519.641 .3040 P: 519.725.8093 www.sbmltd.ca sbm*sbmlfd.ca December 21, 2018 SBM -18-0103 Strik Baldinelli Moniz (SBM) attended the site to review the existing construction in order to provide a structural condition assessment and a demolition plan for the rear addition of the building. As part of the development agreement for the proposed high-rise development at this address, the original construction for the subject building will remain in order to retain its historic value. This demolition plan is provided to advise on the means and methods of demolition to avoid structural damage to the original historic portions of the building during construction of the adjacent high-rise building. At your request, Mr. Todd Wernham of SBM attended the site on the afternoon of December 18, 2018 to review the features of the building that are to be partially demolished. The building was reviewed from the interior and exterior. Some minor removal of finishes was completed at the time of review where the construction was not immediately visible. Based on the results of our review, we are pleased to present the partial demolition plan herein. 1.0 Supplementary Documentation This demolition plan is to be read in conjunction with the following documents: The structural drawings issued for foundation permit for the proposed development at 262 Queen Street by Strik Baldinelli Moniz, dated December 21, 2018. The site plan prepared by SBM for the proposed development at 262 Queen Street, dated November 5, 2018 2.0 Building; Description The building was constructed in the 1880's as a two storey house with a full basement and an inaccessible attic. The roof and floor framing is conventionally framed with rough sawn lumber roof rafters and floor joists supported on exterior multi-wythe brick walls on rubble stone foundation walls. The framing is supported at the interior on rough sawn wood stud walls on multi-wythe brick foundation walls in the basement. It is reported that shortly after construction, an addition was constructed at the back of the building. The original exterior rear walls were partially removed to provide access to the addition. The construction of the addition is similar to the original building. As stated in the condition assessment report, the building appears to be in fair condition, commensurate with its age and in comparable standing other buildings in the area. Based on the visual review during the structural condition assessment, the addition is not bracing or reinforcing the original construction. Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz, Ltd. 3-61 www.sbmltd.ca SBM -18-0103 3.0 Health & Safety The demolition site must be restricted from public access by way of hoarding and barricades. The area around the building must be maintained in good condition until the demolition work has been completed. All demolition work shall be carried out in a manner that protects the public and workers in conformance with: • CSA 5350-M "Code of Practice for Safety in Demolition of Structures" • The National Building Code, Part 8 — Safety Measures at construction & Demolition Sites • The Ontario Building Code, latest edition • The Ontario Fire Code, Part 8 — Demolition • The Occupational Health and Safety Act for Construction Projects O.Reg 213/91 • Local standards and by-laws. 4.0 Extent of Work The original rear exterior wall is multi-wythe masonry. There are several openings in this wall to permit access to the addition. This existing construction is sufficient to provide load sharing for out -of -plane loads and provide the in -plane lateral shear resistance. The rear two storey addition plus the rear 1 storey vestibule is to be demolished. Refer to the photographs in the appendix to see the extent of demolition. In accordance with the National Building Code of Canada Commentary, construction of the new high-rise building will create approximately 3.4m of additional snow drift loads on the existing roof framing. This portion of the roof framing will have to be reinforced or replaced prior to the first winter after the height of the high-rise construction exceeds the height of the subject building. New roof framing is to match the slopes and elevations of the existing roof. The building materials are to be disposed or reclaimed. The existing brick and rubble stone may be saved and reused to make the original exterior walls weather tight, if needed. 5.0 Access and Haulaee Routes The property can be accessed by the driveway off Queen Street or the drive lane through the parking lot off David Street. The contractor may only use the driveway off Queen Street to access the building or haul materials. There are no restrictions on the haulage routes. 6.0 Dailv Inspections and Cleanu At the beginning of each day, the contractor shall review any fencing, guards, and scaffolding required for demolition to ensure safety of all workers and public. Replace any found to be deficient. At the beginning of each day, the contractor shall review all equipment and tools, including any equipment utilized in a fall arrest system and replace any items found to be deficient. At the end of the day, the contractor shall clean up all surplus materials and debris, leaving the site neat and tidy. Leave all work in a safe and stable condition. 7.0 Demolition Procedure 1. Obtain all necessary demolition and construction permits from the City. Display all permits on site. 2 3-62 www.sbmltd.ca SBM -18-0103 2. The contractor shall examine the existing property to determine the nature and extent of materials being demolished and removed. The contractor shall examine the adjacent properties to determine the extent of protections required. 3. Locate all property lines. 4. Conduct a pre -safety meeting to identify all possible hazards, emergency exits, nearest hospital, safety policy, safety precautions, etc. with the owner and engineer in attendance. 5. Arrange for and verify that all utilities including electrical, water, and gas service have been disconnected to the addition. Also verify all telephone lines have been disconnected from the addition. Post warning signs on electrical lines, and equipment which must remain energized to serve other properties during period of demolition. 6. Construct all fencing, guards, covered walkways, and temporary barricades required to maintain public safety and maintain public access to sidewalks on Queen Street. Demolition is not to interfere with public access to these sidewalks during period of demolition. 7. Close and lock all doors and windows into the building which are not fenced off from the public. Post signs stating access to the building interior is not permitted to the public. If the contractor completes any work from the interior of the building, he shall ensure the front door is locked or otherwise protected from access to the public. 8. Remove heating apparatus, piping, lamps, plaster, stairs and other similar materials in the rear addition. 9. Demolish the addition, demolition to proceed in a top down manner to prevent portions of building from falling. Begin demolition at the North West end of the building and travel South East. No Explosives are to be used in demolition. The procedure for demolition is as follows: a. Cut existing roof sheathing, and shingles between the original building and the addition. Remove the roof shingles, sheathing and roof joists. b. Neatly saw cut multi-wythe brick walls at location where walls will be removed. c. Remove the second floor masonry and walls at the rear addition. d. Shear second floor addition floor joists at the original rear exterior wall. Remove second floor framing. e. Remove the main floor masonry walls at the rear addition. f. Shear main floor addition floor joists at the original rear exterior wall. Remove main floor framing. g. Remove existing rubble foundation wall at the addition. 10. Provide appropriate dust suppressants to prevent excessive dust or debris from arising during demolition. 11. The debris will be broken and crushed into manageable pieces and hauled off site with exceptions of masonry materials (if any) being reused to make the original exterior walls weather tight. All applicable demolished material are to be hauled away and properly disposed of by the contractor. No selling, burning, or burying of materials on site is permitted. 12. Where unknown services are encountered, immediately notify the owner and confirm the findings in writing. 13. Infill existing openings with reclaimed masonry materials to make the building weather tight. 14. Provide air barrier and vapour barrier in accordance with the Ontario Building Code. Provide insulation and exterior wall cladding per architectural plans. 15. All excavations are to be graded level to the existing adjacent grade. 3 3-63 www.sbmltd.ca SBM -18-0103 16. Separate from general waster stream each of the materials listed below. Stockpile materials in neat and orderly fashion prior to removing from site in location and as directed by engineer for alternate disposal. Stockpile materials in accordance with applicable fire and safety regulations a. Wood b. Metal c. Garbage d. Recycling 17. Remove all covered walkways, silt fences and temporary barricades that are not required for construction of the new building. 8.0 Protection During Construction The following measures are to be taken to protect the subject building during the construction of the proposed adjacent high-rise building: 1. Engage a third party consultant to provide a pre -construction survey of the existing building. Keep a copy of the report on site at all times. At the beginning of each day the contractor shall inspect the existing building to ensure no damage is occurring to the building. The site engineer shall be provided access to the building to monitor the condition of existing building. The contractor shall arrange for inspections by the engineer when activities which cause excessive vibration will be completed. Engage a third party consultant to install a vibration monitor within the building. Consult with the vibration consultant to determine the optimal location for the monitor. The vibration data shall be monitored and downloaded on a weekly basis at a minimum. The contractor shall monitor the vibration and condition of the building during construction activity which is known to provide excessive vibration, such as driving piles for temporary shoring (if required) or compacting soil adjacent to the building. The contractor shall stop construction immediately if vibration exceeds allowable levels and determine alternate methods of construction to avoid damaging the structure. Install barriers or fencing around the perimeter of the building. Construction vehicles may not use the existing driveway to this building. Provide alternate access and haulage routes to the site so that heavy trucks and construction vehicles are minimum 2.4m from the building, unless temporary shoring is provided which is designed to protect the building from heavy construction surcharge loads. 4. At the beginning of each day, the contractor shall review any fencing and guards. Replace any found to be deficient. Provide temporary shoring along the north side of the building. The shoring design shall be obtained by the contractor and completed and sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed in Ontario. The engineer must be in good standing with the Professional Engineers of Ontario and have a minimum of 5 years of experience in the design of temporary shoring. The shoring shall be designed to protect the building from all anticipated construction loads. Shoring design shall be completed in consultation with the vibration consultant to ensure the installation process is completed in a manner to minimize anticipated vibrations. Access to the subject building shall be restricted such that the building shall not be used for storage of materials for the adjacent high-rise building and shall not be used as a site trailer, construction office, break room, etc. for the workers. Access to the subject building shall only be permitted for uses directly relating to the structural stability of the subject building. 7. No overhead cranes required to construct the building are permitted to travel directly over the subject structure. 4 3-64 www.sbmltd.ca SBM -18-0103 8. Replace or reinforce the roof framing affected by new snow drift loads prior to the first winter where the construction of the adjacent high-rise exceeds the height of the subject building. 9.0 Limitations This report is intended exclusively for the Client(s) named in this report. This demolition plan has been prepared in light of the information reviewed on site. Despite our best efforts, construction may vary from what is described. If construction varies from what is described or if any additional demolition work is required beyond what is mentioned in the plan, the work must be reviewed and accepted by the engineer prior to commencing demolition work. We trust this letter meets your satisfaction, if you need further clarification please do not hesitate to contact us. Regards, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. Civil and Structural Engineers r Darryl VnCg Associate :3 H. • WAN 100072514 c, za�� 5 3-65 .Pl 4 4 ZVI APPENDIVY Staff Repoil Development Services Department www.kitchen er. c a REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: September 4, 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: 9 DATE OF REPORT: August 20, 2018 REPORT NO.: DSD -18-107 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2018-V-018 (242 Queen St. S.), HPA-2018-V-019 (254 Queen St. S.) and HPA-2018-V-020 (262 Queen St. S.) — Proposed Demolition RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. THAT pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2018-V-018 to permit the demolition of the building located on the property municipally addressed as 242 Queen Street South be approved, subject to the following condition: That the owner obtain heritage approval under the Ontario Heritage Act and a Building Permit under the Building Code for a replacement building, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. 2. THAT pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2018-V-019 to permit the demolition of building located on the property municipally addressed as 254 Queen Street South be refused. 3. THAT pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2018-V-020 to permit the demolition of the building located on the property municipally addressed as 262 Queen Street South be refused. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2018-V-018, HPA-2018-V-019 and HPA-2018-V-020 requesting permission to demolish the youth shelter and services building located at 242 Queen Street South, and two former single detached dwellings (now converted to office use) on properties municipally addressed as 254 and 262 Queen Street South respectively. 3-67 214 / 189 FF FF O 242 221 i s ,.Conestoga Towers 259 \\ � 310 27 `,Ih, 21 12 UPPER 0, Location Map: 242, 254, 262 Queen Street South The three subject properties are located on the west side of Queen Street South between Courtland Avenue West and Joseph Street in the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD), and are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The properties form one of two areas of low- rise development located north of Courtland Avenue in the vicinity of the Conestoga Towers high-rise building. 242 Queen Street South (Front Elevation) 3-68 The property municipally addressed 242 Queen Street South (see image on previous page) is occupied with a purpose built youth shelter and services building. The 2'/2 storey structure was constructed in 2007 and features architectural detailing characteristic of traditional residential properties within the heritage district (e.g. full width front porch). The design of the building was approved by City Council through issuance of a heritage permit. The building replaced a previously converted single detached dwelling destroyed by fire in 2005. The properties municipally addressed as 254 and 262 Queen Street South are former single detached dwellings built in the 1880s. Both buildings were converted to office use before the establishment of the VPAHCD in 1996. 254 Queen Street South (Front Elevation) 262 Queen Street South (Front Elevation) 3-69 All three properties are currently occupied. A building condition assessment undertaken on behalf of the applicant advises that the buildings are structurally sound and that 254 Queen Street South is in fair condition and 262 Queen Street South is in good to fair condition. The condition of both buildings is considered commensurate with their age and in comparable standing with other buildings of similar age in the area. The Official Plan designation and zoning applied to the subject properties and surrounding area along Queen Street South, anticipates adaptive re -use of the existing buildings as well as redevelopment at a higher density than currently exists on the subject properties. The Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -2) zoning in place permits a range of commercial, office and residential uses. The applicant is proposing to demolish all the buildings on the subject properties in order to construct an eight storey multiple residential building. The consent of City Council is required to demolish buildings and structures located on property designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. This report and the discussion which follows, considers the merits of the subject applications from a cultural heritage planning perspective. REPORT: VPAHCD Study & Plan In August 1995, a heritage consultant was retained by the City to complete the two phases of work involved in establishing a heritage conservation district in the Victoria Park area. The first phase involved preparation of the VPAHCD Study, which analysed the physical, social and economic fabric of the study area in confirming cultural significance, defining boundaries, and establishing conservation goals and objectives. The second phase of work which was completed in 1996, involved preparation of the VPAHCD Plan which provides policy direction and strategies aimed at conserving and enhancing the historic character of the District. A primary goal of the VPAHCD is to conserve buildings and structures that contribute to establishing the historic character of the area. Demolition is addressed in the VPAHCD Plan under policies for Building Demolition and under policies for New Building. While there is a strong presumption against demolition within the heritage district; in the Queen Street South corridor, demolition is acknowledged as a possibility where zoning permits significantly higher density than presently exists. The VPAHCD Study encourages pursuing innovative infill and the conservation and integration of historic buildings into new development rather than demolition and removal. Where removal is contemplated, moving buildings onto a new site is to be considered. Where relocation is not feasible, the policies state that the salvage of historic fabric shall be undertaken and the inclusion of architectural features into new building is encouraged. Heritage Impact Assessment A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been prepared by MHBC Planning on behalf of the applicant, and has been submitted in support of the Heritage Permit applications for demolition and a Site Plan application for redevelopment. The HIA makes the following observations and conclusions. In conducting its evaluation of the subject properties, the HIA applied the criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06 which was developed by the Province for the purposes of identifying and evaluating the cultural 3-70 heritage value or interest of a property for protection through individual designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The HIA concludes that while all three properties have modest contextual value due to their location within the VPAHCD, only 254 and 262 Queen Street South demonstrate cultural heritage value as authentic heritage resources. 254 Queen Street South satisfies the criteria under the category of design / physical value, as the building is a representative example of the Italianate architectural style. 262 Queen Street South also satisfies the criteria under design / physical value, as a building representative of the Queen Anne architectural style, though the HIA adds that the building has been the subject of considerable alterations resulting in the loss of significant heritage attributes on the front elevation. The HIA establishes that 262 Queen Street South also meets the criteria under historical / associative value given the property has direct associations with C.A. Ahrens (both father and son of the same name), who were prominent businesspersons and who made significant contributions to the community. Alternative development scenarios are reviewed within the HIA, including a Do Nothing scenario; development scenarios ranging in density and that would see portions of 254 and 262 Queen Street South being retained and integrated into a new building; and finally a scenario addressing relocating the subject buildings. The HIA concludes that pursuing a Do Nothing approach and retaining all three buildings would leave little opportunity to intensify the site in accordance with the existing zoning. The HIA establishes that development scenarios integrating 254 and 262 Queen Street South would either exceed the height and density permitted in the zoning if yielding the same number of units proposed by the applicant (124 units); be in non-compliance with certain zoning regulations if constructing to the maximum allowable building height of 8 stories; or yield only half the number of units proposed by the applicant, if designed to be in compliance with the zoning. In regard to relocating the buildings to another site, the HIA advises that an appropriate lot for relocation has not been identified and that no structural assessment has been undertaken to confirm feasibility in regards to relocation. The HIA states that relocation would result in adverse impacts, including the loss of their frontage and location in situ on Queen Street South as part of the VPNHCD. Final recommendations are made under two scenarios. Under the scenario where all buildings are to be demolished, the HIA recommends that a cultural heritage documentation and salvage report be prepared for the existing buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South. Under the scenario where 254 and 262 Queen Street South are to be partially retained and integrated into the development, the HIA recommends that a Conservation Plan be prepared to further examine the conservation and retention of the two historic buildings. The HIA concludes that the demolition of all three subject buildings will only have a minor adverse impact on the VPAHCD, and is an acceptable outcome given the buildings are: • located in the Queen Street South corridor, isolated from the low density residential neighbourhood that forms the majority of the Heritage Conservation District, and are of an architectural style and age that is well represented in the HCD. Heritage Staff Comments Heritage Planning staff are not in agreement with the conclusion made in the HIA that the demolition of all three buildings will only have a minor adverse impact on the VPAHCD. 3-71 Importance of Queen St. S. and value of subiect heritage properties cited in the VPAHCD Stud Heritage staff are of the opinion that the importance of the Queen Street South corridor and value of 254 and 262 Queen Street South are well documented in the VPAHCD Study. In describing areas of existing development within the heritage district study area, the VPAHCD Study makes the following observations specific to the two pockets of low-rise development located opposite and south of the Conestoga Towers high rise building, which include the subject properties (bold font added by author of this report for emphasis): These two areas contain a number of fine Queen Anne style residences, most of which have been converted into offices and businesses. Their historical authenticity and structural condition varies. All, however, can be restored practically and economically to create a distinctive historic group. A significant detraction is their context, being located between high-rise buildings. Municipal land use planning permits high density commercial residential development, similar to the 18 -storey Conestoga Towers. Although this suggests redevelopment of the sites to the permitted higher density, this need not inevitably result in the removal of the historic buildings. Innovative infill and backyard development can achieve high densities together with conservation. This would result in a more varied, interesting and attractive streetscape. (VPAHCD Study, p.59-60) The VPHCD Study also references the challenge that lies ahead for this area of the heritage district in the following passage: "The Queen Street South corridor, however, is designated for significant intensification through increased building density and height north of Courtland Avenue, and moderate intensification to the south. This threatens a number of fine Queen Anne style residences north or and opposite Conestoga Towers on Queen Street South and destabilizes the historic character of the streetscape south of Courtland Avenue. Without careful planning, visual evidence that this is one of the earliest and most historic streets in the city could decline. Practical and effective conservation guidelines can avoid this and ensure a streetscape that is once beautiful, distinctive and historic" (VPAHCD Study, p.17). In the 22 years since the approval of the VPAHCD in 1996, a number of late 19th and early 20th century buildings have been demolished on Queen Street South due to fire, structural instability given long term neglect, or redevelopment. There is fewer physical evidence that Queen Street South is one of the earliest and most historic streets in the City, than when the HCD was established. The HIA suggests that 262 Queen Street South no longer makes an important contribution to the historic character of the Victoria Park Area due to unsympathetic additions made to the front (south) elevation of the building. This does not align with statements made in the VPAHCD Study. The alterations made to 262 Queen St. S. including enclosure of the front porch, were already complete by the time the VPAHCD Study was underway, yet the Study speaks positively to the contribution both 254 and 262 Queen Street South make to the character of the area. The VPAHCD Study describes 254 Queen Street South as "a 2 storey buff brick hipped roof /talianate style residence, circa 1890, with single storey side wing and front verandah. Attractively landscaped and excellently conserved" 3-72 The VPAHCD Study describes 262 Queen Street South as "a 2% storey painted brick multi -gabled and dormered circa 1890 Queen Anne style residence in near original condition but with modified closed -in front verandah. Many decorative details, with attractive landscaping and well maintained" The Study goes so far as to include images of both 254 and 262 Queen St. S. in the Study document as examples of adaptive re -use and good conservation practice. Historic / Associative Value of 262 Queen St. S. characteristic of a local Berlin tradition In addition to identifying 262 Queen St S as being of design/physical value, the property also has significant historic/associative value, having been the residence of C.A. Ahrens Senior and Junior. Both father and son built factories in close proximity of their place of residence on Queen Street South. C.A. Ahrens Senior built the Ahrens Shoe Company building at 45 Queen St. S. (now the Working Centre building); and C.A. Ahrens Junior built a factory within the VPAHCD on the corner of Linden and Michael Streets (now 5 Michael Street). The subject property at 262 Queen Street South contributes to a greater understanding of the local Berlin industrial era tradition of industrialists, workers and factories being in close proximity to each other. VPAHCD Studv & Plan encouraaina intearation rather than demolition on Queen St. S. As previously noted, the VPAHCD Study states that redevelopment along Queen Street South to permitted higher densities need not inevitably result in the removal of historic buildings. The Study cites that innovative infill and backyard development can achieve high densities together with conservation, and result in a more varied, interesting and attractive streetscape. The Study references the mid -rise building addition to the former Vogelsang Button Factory (now Bread & Roses Cooperative Homes) at 307 Queen Street South as a good example. Indeed, the retention of historic buildings along the street frontage with new development in the rear has been successfully undertaken on Queen Street South since the approval of the HCD, most notably at the Sandhills Retirement complex which preserved the former Schmalz house at the corner of Queen and St. George streets. Image showing Sandhills Retirement Complex at corner of Queen and St. George Streets 3-73 While the VPAHCD Plan acknowledges that demolition is a possibility along the Queen Street South corridor where zoning permits higher densities, the policies state that the conservation of historic buildings is a primary goal, and further, that property owners are encouraged to work with existing buildings, altering, adding to and integrating them into new development rather than demolishing. Current Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -2) zoning applied to the subject properties permit development having a building height of between 6m (2 storeys) and 24m (8 storeys), and a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for new development of between 1.0 times lot coverage to a maximum 4.0 times lot coverage. The applicant's proposal at 8 storeys and a FSR of 4.0 is at the highest end of what is permitted in the current zoning. In guiding efforts to mitigate impact on cultural heritage resources, the Province of Ontario establishes that alternative development approaches and reducing both density and height are appropriate measures to be applied in the context of addressing the Provincial Policy Statement, which states that built heritage resources shall be conserved. Development options presented in the HIA illustrate that redevelopment of the subject properties at higher densities while retaining both 254 and 262 Queen Street South is possible. Development Option 2 identified in the HIA (see Appendix `B') illustrates that redevelopment at a height of 8 storeys and FSR of 4.0 with both 254 and 262 Queen Street South retained, would require relief of certain MU -2 zoning regulations, most notably requirements related to parking. Option 1 would result in a form of development that is in compliance with the zoning but at a height of 19.5m and FSR of 2.6 (slightly more than the midpoint between the minimum and maximum building height and density permitted). It is heritage staff's position that redevelopment that retains both historic buildings while permitting a form of development well within the expected building height and density anticipated in the current zoning, is both feasible and reasonable. Review of Applications In reviewing the applications for demolition, Heritage Planning staff note the following: • The subject properties are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. • 242 Queen Street South (youth shelter and services building) was constructed in 2007 and does not have the same cultural heritage value or significance as the other subject properties. • Both 254 and 262 Queen Street South are structurally sound. 254 Queen Street South is in fair condition and 262 Queen Street South is in good to fair condition. The condition of both properties is considered commensurate with their age and in comparable standing with other buildings of similar age in the area. • Both 254 and 262 Queen Street South have design / physical value in accordance with the criteria in Ontario Reg. 9/06. • 262 Queen Street South has historic / associative value in accordance with the criteria in Ontario Reg. 9/06 and is representative of Berlin industrial era traditions. • The VPAHCD Study identifies the Queen Street South corridor as the earliest settlement area within the HCD and both 254 and 262 Queen Street South as good examples of adaptive re -use with features that contribute to the character of the HCD. • The VPAHCD Study specifically identifies that fine examples of historic buildings on Queen Street South are under possible threat as a result of anticipated redevelopment to higher densities, and that 3-74 without careful planning visual evidence that this is one of the earliest and most historic streets in the city could decline. • Since 1996 when the VPAHCD was established, most historic building loss within the HCD has been along the Queen Street South corridor. 254 and 262 Queen Street South are two surviving examples of a declining number of late 19th century buildings located on Queen Street South within the VPAHCD. • The VPAHCD Study establishes that redevelopment to higher densities along Queen Street South need not result in demolition of historic buildings and can be achieved with innovative infill that retains and integrates historic buildings. • The VPAHCD Plan policies for demolition state that the conservation of historic buildings in the Area is a primary goal. Further, that property owners are encouraged to work with existing buildings, altering, adding to and integrating them into new development rather than demolishing. • The HIA prepared in support of the subject applications for demolition includes development options illustrating that redevelopment to higher densities in compliance with the existing zoning while retaining the significant portions of 254 and 262 Queen Street South is possible. • Approval of the demolitions of 254 and 262 Queen Street South may set a precedent for further demolitions along the Queen Street South corridor in the VPAHCD. In accordance with the preceding comments, heritage planning staff do not support the applications to demolish 254 and 262 Queen Street South, but are in conditional support of the application to demolish 242 Queen Street South, subject to the owner obtaining heritage approval under the Ontario Heritage Act and a Building Permit under the Building Code for a replacement building, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Heritage staff are of the opinion that a balance of heritage and development interests can be achieved on the subject properties, and that redevelopment to a built form having a higher density can result in a manner that conserves and retains significant portions of 254 and 262 Queen Street South. Staff are prepared to work cooperatively with the applicant at further examining conservation options, including alternative development approaches that may necessitate making adjustments to the proposed built form, as well as give consideration to providing relief to certain zoning regulations. Staff are in agreement with the VPAHCD Study that such innovative approach would result in a more varied, interesting and attractive streetscape,that conserves rather than demolishes the historic fabric of the VPAHCD. Should Heritage Kitchener or Council wish to approve the demolition of either or both of 254 and 262 Queen Street South in addition to 242 Queen Street South, then Heritage Planning staff suggest that the applications be approved with the following condition, consistent with the recommendation made in the HIA: That a cultural heritage documentation and salvage report be prepared for the existing buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South which includes: o Photograph documentation of the interior and exterior of the buildings; o Measured architectural drawings of the exterior of the buildings at all elevations; and o Recommendations for identifying and salvaging heritage fabric as opposed to being discarded as landfill; This includes recommendations regarding materials which may be considered for salvage and incorporation with the proposed building, and materials which may be made available to the public in order to support the conservation of other local heritage resources. 3-75 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 Kitchener's Zoning By-law. Redevelopment of the subject properties will require the consent of Council under the Ontario Heritage Act, in accordance with the policies for New Building in the VPAHCD Plan. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommendations of this report supports the achievement of the city's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM - This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT - Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning APPENDICES: Appendix A: Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2018-V-018 (242 Queen St. S.), HPA-2018-V-019 (254 Queen St. S.) and HPA-2018-V-020 (262 Queen St. S.) Appendix `B': Excerpt from Heritage Impact Assessment dated August 2018 prepared by MHBC (includes Executive Summary, Section 8.0: Alternative Development Approaches, Section 10: Conclusions and Recommendations; and Development Options Illustration prepared by NEO Architecture). 3-76 Internal memo Development Services Department Date: January 22, 2019 To: Heritage Kitchener From: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning Subject: Heritage Best Practices Update and 2019 Priorities www.kitchener. ca In 2015, City staff canvassed other municipalities through the Ontario Heritage Planner's Network regarding heritage best practice measures. In reviewing the feedback and following discussion with Heritage Kitchener, direction was received from Council to implement eight heritage best practice measures. Implementation of heritage best practices is identified as a strategic priority for the Development Services Department in the City's Business Plan. At the February 5t" meeting of Heritage Kitchener, staff will provide the committee with an update on the eight heritage best practices and an overview of the HBP priorities for 2019. A copy of the original HBPs report is attached. C=I J , Staff Report K>Tc> ►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: City Council DATE OF MEETING: December 14, 2015 SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 x7319 PREPARED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning, 519-741-2200 x7306 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: November 12, 2015 REPORT NO.: CSD -15-091 SUBJECT: Heritage Best Practices RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to undertake the recommended actions identified in the heritage best practices summary table, as outlined in Appendix `A' of Community Services Department report CSD -15-091, and provide Heritage Kitchener with a progress report by December 31, 2016. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City staff have conducted a review and consulted with Heritage Kitchener on heritage best practice measures. Staff's review and ensuing discussion with Heritage Kitchener confirms that the City is doing many things right and is a leader within the Region and possibly the Province in the policies, procedures and programs that have been developed to support cultural heritage planning efforts. However, the review also identifies several opportunities for improvement. A table summarizing eight recommended immediate, short term and longer term actions is provided in Appendix `A' to this report. BACKGROUND: On April 23, 2015 City Council directed staff to consult with Heritage Kitchener on heritage best practices and to report back to Council. Discussion on this topic occurred at the June and October Heritage Kitchener meetings. This report outlines the best practice measures the City is currently implementing; where gaps and opportunities for improvement exist; and what actions the City may wish to take to address such opportunities. REPORT: *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 4-2 Best practices in heritage conservation are typically guided through codes of practice that have been formulated and advocated over the years by heritage specialists. These include universal codes issued through international charters and principles of practice established at national and provincial levels. In 2003, Parks Canada published the Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. The principles that underpin the Standards and Guidelines include employing research and investigation to understand historical places; conducting integrated, long term planning before conservation work begins; finding viable and compatible uses for historic places; and using a conservation approach that respects the value of historic places. While the Standards & Guidelines form the basis of good conservation practice in Canada, in reality, local heritage conservation efforts must also answer the demands of many stakeholders, all of whom envision the value of cultural heritage in their own way. Achieving a balance among the complex, often conflicting range of cultural, social and economic values is central to the sustainable conservation of heritage resources and in achieving best practice solutions locally. In conducting its review of heritage best practices, City staff considered the following information and sources: • National standards and guidelines and provincial legislation and policy that enable and guide the protection and management of cultural heritage resources; • Current City policies and procedures for identifying and managing built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources; • Conservation tools and approaches used by other municipalities, and; • Comments and feedback received from Heritage Kitchener. Kitchener Best Practice Measures The following highlights some of the best practice measures and actions the City has taken and is currently implementing to address heritage conservation efforts in Kitchener. Inventory of Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes The first critical step toward conserving cultural heritage resources is to inventory such resources as a means of understanding their value and importance to a community. Kitchener Best Practice The City of Kitchener began to inventory properties of cultural heritage interest soon after the Municipal Heritage Committee was established in the late 1970s. The heritage inventory was populated over a twenty year period, culminating in the identification of over 800 properties by the end of the 1990s. The City recently completed a comprehensive review of its built heritage resources (including properties previously identified on the heritage inventory) through efforts to list non -designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register. From 2007 to 2015 over 1000 properties 4-3 were evaluated through the City's 4 -step listing process, resulting in Council formally listing 236 properties on the Municipal Heritage Register. In April 2015, Kitchener joined only a handful of municipalities in Ontario in completing an inventory of significant cultural heritage landscapes. These efforts have resulted in the City establishing a complete and up to date inventory of built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, and in positioning the City to be pro -active in its efforts to conserve such resources moving forward. Comprehensive Heritage Policies in the New Official Plan Provisions under the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2014) provide municipalities with the means to address the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The most significant of these tools is the adoption of heritage policies in the Official Plan addressing the identification, promotion and protection of cultural heritage resources. Kitchener Best Practice The City of Kitchener has included heritage policies in its Official Plan since at least 1994. Today, it has some of the most comprehensive Official Plan heritage policies in the Province. As part of the recent Official Plan review process, several new policies were added to the Official Plan to strengthen the City's ability to conserve cultural heritage resources. These include new policies addressing cultural heritage landscapes, heritage corridors, conservation plans, the taking of financial securities in the development process, and the City leading by example in the management and care of City owned cultural heritage resources. Use of Heritage Impact Assessments & Conservation Plans Municipalities are enabled under the PPS 2014 to use Heritage Impact Assessments, Conservations Plans and Archaeological Assessments in the planning process to evaluate and mitigate impacts on cultural heritage resources. Kitchener Best Practice The City of Kitchener was one of the first municipalities in the province to use Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) as a conservation tool in the development review process, and more recently has required Conservation Plans (CPs) to address the care and ongoing maintenance of cultural heritage resources. In identifying conservation options to avoid or reduce negative impacts, HIAs and CPs have proven to be a very effective tool in the City's efforts to conserve its cultural heritage resources. Full Use of Municipal Tools Under the Ontario Heritage Act and Other Provincial Legislation The Ontario Heritage Act and other legislation provide municipalities with the means to identify and protect cultural heritage resources, and sets out procedures for managing change. Kitchener Best Practice The City of Kitchener has made full use of the conservation tools afforded to municipalities under the Ontario Heritage Act and other legislation as follows: o Listing of non -designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register. The City's 4 -step listing process is one of the most transparent in the Province. From 2007 to 2015 over 1000 properties were evaluated through the City's 4 -step listing process, resulting in Council formally listing 236 properties. o Designation under Part IV and V of the OHA. As of the date of this report there are 91 individually designated properties in Kitchener. The City has also designated over 1000 properties located in four Heritage Conservation Districts. o Heritage Easements. The City has entered into heritage easements with several property owners in applying a higher level of heritage protection to significant cultural heritage resources. o Heritage Permit process. The City first establish a heritage permit process in the 1990s and has since adapted the process to address changing needs and expectations (e.g. shortened processing timelines through delegated approval). o Property Standards. In 2008, Council prescribed minimum standards for the maintenance of vacant designated property through adoption of a property standards by-law. o Grants. In 2002 the City established the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program providing matching funds to designated property owners for authentic restoration work. o Tax Refund Program. Kitchener was one of the first municipalities in the Province to establish a heritage tax refund program in 2003. The program (enabled under The Municipal Act) offers a reduction in property tax to qualifying designated property owners. Planning & Development Review Process The conservation of cultural heritage resources requires careful consideration during the planning and development review process to ensure that potential impacts are acknowledged and appropriately managed. Development review processes and tools are only effective when municipal officials, property owners, developers and other stakeholders have the information they need to identify cultural heritage resources and when heritage review processes are in place to achieve the City's obligations. Kitchener Best Practice The City recently completed work on enhancing communication by updating heritage information in the City's Onpoint GIS mapping system and is currently doing the same 4-5 for the City's permit tracking system (known as Amanda). The City is also in discussion with Regional heritage staff regarding gaining access to information on areas having archaeological significance through the Regional archaeological potential GIS model. These efforts help ensure the City is proactive in its consideration of heritage resources in development and public works reviews, and in tracking information on heritage inquiries, permit applications and grants. Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement While the citizens of Kitchener and stakeholders such as designated property owners are well served by many the City's policies and programs, there is room for improvement. Kitchener, like many other municipalities in Ontario faces the challenge of fully meeting certain responsibilities and public expectations relative to cultural heritage. Just as other municipalities have turned to Kitchener for guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments and the City's Heritage Tax Refund program, Kitchener can benefit from following the lead of other municipalities where gaps in procedure or implementation exist. City staff canvassed other municipalities through the Ontario Heritage Planner's Network on best practice measures. In reviewing the feedback received from other municipalities and in discussion with Heritage Kitchener, the following opportunities for improvement and recommended actions are identified. Establish a Built Heritage Emergency Management Protocol & list of pre- qualified Engineers for emergency situations affecting heritage property The City of Hamilton has a Built Heritage Emergency Management Protocol to address the need for a defined heritage management process in emergency situations. The protocol was established after the structural failure of a designated built heritage resource. Currently, the City of Kitchener does not have an equivalent protocol. Hamilton's protocol outlines an appropriate course of action to be adopted for the management of built heritage resources during an emergency. It identifies parties to be included in the decision-making process; those with authority to make decisions; and the process and criteria by which the decisions are made and stakeholders informed. Kitchener's Chief Building Official has reviewed the City of Hamilton protocol and has spoken with Hamilton building officials, and is in support of using the Hamilton protocol as the template in establishing a similar protocol in Kitchener. The City Solicitor is prepared to review the Hamilton protocol in greater detail over the next few months, in outlining a draft that would be reviewed by Heritage Kitchener before being considered by City Council. Related to the development of a Built Heritage Emergency Management Protocol is the establishment of a list of pre -qualified engineers who may be used by the City in emergency situations affecting heritage property. The Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CARP) maintains a directory of heritage consultants including building specialists and engineers who have experience commenting on and working 4-6 with heritage resources. All professional members of CAHP have at least five years of heritage related experience and are subject to heritage peer review. Similarly, the Ontario Heritage Trust has published a list of professional engineers with similar heritage experience and credentials. The City's Chief Building Official is in support of using the directory maintained by the CAHP or the list developed by the Ontario Heritage Trust in identifying one or more pre -qualified engineers who may be used by the City in emergency situations affecting heritage property. The establishment of a Built Heritage Emergency Management Protocol and list of pre -qualified engineers for emergency situations affecting heritage property, would help to ensure that the City responds to such situations in a prudent and managed way. Recommended Action o That City staff use the City of Hamilton Built Heritage Emergency Management Protocol as a model to start drafting a similar protocol for Council consideration, and that staff use the directory maintained by the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals or the list developed by the Ontario Heritage Trust in identifying one or more pre -qualified professional engineers who may be used by the City in emergency situations affecting heritage property. Take specific action to conserve City -owned cultural heritage resources The new Kitchener Official Plan adopted by Council in June 2014 contains policies addressing how the City will lead the community by example in the conservation of City -owned cultural heritage resources. Policy 12.C.1.43 states that "the City will lead the community by example in the management and care of City -owned cultural heritage resources by following good conservation practice consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada". Further, policy 12.C.1.44 states that "the City will conserve and consider designation under the Ontario Heritage Act for all City -owned cultural heritage resources and prepare strategies and plans for their care, management and stewardship". The care and maintenance of City owned buildings and structures, including those that are of heritage interest or significance, typically falls under the purview of the City's Facilities Management Division. An inventory of City owned heritage resources reveals that Facilities Management maintains 23 properties that have heritage status. These properties include public buildings, cemeteries and golf courses to name a few. Several properties like the Registry Theatre, Homer Watson House and Harry Class pool are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Others like the former Legion building, City Hall and the Kitchener Public library (main/central) are listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. Some buildings like the library and City Hall have established maintenance programs and budgets in place, while the maintenance of others draws from a fund that serves numerous City -owned properties. C �J A Conservation Plan is a document that details how a cultural heritage resource can be conserved. The plan typically assesses the condition of the resource and its heritage attributes, and makes specific recommendations regarding short and long term conservation, monitoring and maintenance measures. It is recognized that City -owned cultural heritage resources may require different asset management requirements compared to other buildings, and that measures to achieve good conservation practices may be suited to being implemented in the short and long term. In the short term, the City should give consideration to reviewing its standard monitoring checklist to apply heritage considerations in the routine inspection of City -owned built heritage resources. In the longer term, the City should give consideration to preparing Conservation Plans for select City -owned cultural heritage resources. The Conservation Plans would help establish priorities for repair, care and maintenance over time, and assist in the wise allocation of funds. The City would also be better served in the longer term if a sustainable funding source, specifically earmarked for the maintenance and conservation of City -owned cultural heritage resources, was established. Recommended Actions o That City staff review the Facility Management Division's standard monitoring checklist to apply heritage considerations in the routine inspection of City -owned built heritage resources. o That City staff prepare a report for Council consideration addressing how best to proceed in preparing Conservation Plans for select City -owned cultural heritage resources, and in establishing a sustainable funding source for the care and maintenance of City -owned cultural heritage resources over the long term. Increase activity in designating cultural heritage resources including City - owned properties Over the past 8 years the City has focused its efforts in listing non -designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register. From 2007 to 2015, a total of 236 properties were listed on the Register. In comparison during the same period, 10 properties were individually designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. While listing serves to formally identify a property as a cultural heritage resource, it affords only limited protection. Heritage designation not only publicly recognizes and promotes awareness of heritage properties, it also provides a process for ensuring that changes to a heritage property are appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's heritage value. Consideration should be given to being more active in designating identified cultural heritage resources, including City -owned resources, and in passing designating by- laws in a timely manner following Council's issuance of a notice of intention to designate. Recommended Action o That a sub -committee of Heritage Kitchener be established to work with City staff in reviewing the list of non -designated properties on the Municipal Heritage Register, including City -owned properties, in identifying priority candidates for designation, with a view toward bringing recommendations forward for designation annually in consultation with property owners. Prepare a heritage procedural protocol to apply best practice measures relating to processes under the Ontario Heritage Act including defining notice requirements for demolition of listed property, and compliance with the heritage permit approval process Some municipalities in Ontario such as the City of Kingston, have passed a heritage procedural by-law or protocol which provides heritage property owners, the public and other stakeholders clear direction on council approved processes related to matters under the Ontario Heritage Act. City Council approval of a heritage procedural protocol in Kitchener could serve to consolidate existing council approved processes such as the submission requirements for heritage permit applications and the criteria for delegated approval, and introduce new best practice measures currently not in effect in Kitchener but which have been implemented by other municipalities. Most notably, processes associated with defining notice requirements for the demolition of listed heritage property, and processes associated with heritage permits and non- compliance under the Ontario Heritage Act. Under the Ontario Heritage Act, owners of listed properties must give Council at least 60 days notice of their intention to demolish or remove a building or structure on the property. Ministry officials strongly advise that in order to avoid confusion or uncertainty, the process a property owner must follow in notifying Council of the intent to remove or demolish a building on a listed property, should be adopted by Council in advance. Kitchener has not yet established such a process. Similarly, Kitchener should consider implementing some best practice measures that would assist in enforcing compliance with the heritage permit application process. These new measures could include: - conducting routine inspections after issuance of a heritage permit; - requiring the submission of a new application if work approved through issuance of a heritage permit is not completed within a specific time (e.g. in Kingston the timeline is within 3 years); and, - defining remedies that are available to the City where work is undertaken without a heritage permit or deviates from an approved heritage permit. Recommended Action 4-9 o That City staff prepare a heritage procedural protocol in consultation with Heritage Kitchener for Council consideration, that would provide direction on council approved processes related to matters under the Ontario Heritage Act, including defining notice requirements for the demolition of listed heritage property, and processes associated with heritage permits and non-compliance under the Ontario Heritage Act. Build greater capacity for heritage conservation through public awareness and support programs As owners of the majority of the community's cultural heritage resources, private property owners are the stewards of the community's built heritage. Education through greater awareness and appreciation of the significance of cultural heritage resources, of existing policies and guidelines, and of the merits of heritage conservation is one of the most effective tools to conserving our cultural heritage. While the City has developed programs such as the Mike Wagner Heritage Awards and communication products like heritage district walking tours and other information available on-line to celebrate successes and promote heritage in the community, more can be done. The City's Designated Heritage Property Grant Program was established in 2002 in response to the province discontinuing grants to designated property owners in the late 1990s. Kitchener's grant program is modelled after the former provincial program, leveraging private investment by covering half the cost of authentic restoration work up to a maximum $3000. The maximum grant amount and eligibility criteria have not changed since 2002. In 2008, the City canvassed other municipalities in Ontario and consulted with designated property owners regarding the City's program and whether it should be updated. In general, the respondents rated the program as very valuable and provided feedback for potential improvements. Areas recommended for potential improvement included expanding the scope of eligible projects; increasing the maximum grant value; and accepting grant applications throughout the year. Of the 20 municipalities canvassed back in 2008, 5 provided a maximum grant value per property of $5000 and 8 others provided a maximum grant value ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 per property. City staff are of the opinion that there may be value in updating the City's grant program to bring the program into conformity with those established in other municipalities, and to address the some of the expectations of designated property owners. The volunteers who sit on Heritage Kitchener make a valuable contribution to local conservation. Committee members range from interested citizens to local historians, planners, architects, real estate agents and other professionals. Many have relevant 4-10 skills and experience which could be leveraged to promote greater public education and awareness of heritage conservation issues. Similarly, there may be value in investigating the opportunity to develop partnerships with other area municipalities, the Region, community organizations, academic institutions and businesses to broaden the support base for heritage locally. Recommended Actions o That City staff conduct a review of the City's Designated Heritage Property Grant Program to include examining grant amounts and eligibility, with a report to be reviewed by Heritage Kitchener and considered by City Council. o That City staff leverage the skills and interests of members of Heritage Kitchener in striking a sub -committee to promote greater public education and awareness of heritage conservation. o That City staff investigate the opportunity to develop partnerships with other area municipalities, the Region, community organizations, academic institutions and businesses to broaden the support base for heritage locally. Timing & Implementation of Recommended Actions Timing for the implementation of the 8 recommendations made in this report will vary and is impacted by other priorities identified in the heritage and planning work plans, staff resources within planning and other divisions, and the complexity of the task at hand. City staff can take action almost immediately or within the next few months on some recommendations, while others will require more time to complete. The Heritage Best Practices Recommended Actions summary table attached as Appendix `A' to this report identifies each of the 8 recommendations made in this report and the anticipated timing for implementation in the following categories: Quick Wins (immediate); Short Term (within 1 year); Longer Term (3 years). ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Potential financial implications of select recommendations are dependent on further Council discussions and considerations when each action moves forward. C=151 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council meeting. CONSULT & COLLABORATE — Discussion on heritage best practices occurred at Heritage Kitchener in June 2015 and October 2015. Comments and feedback provided by committee members as well as delegations, including the local branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, have been considered and are reflected in this report. REVIEWED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department Attarhmant- Appendix `A': Heritage Best Practices Recommended Actions summary table 4-12 APPENDIX `A' HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Quick Wins 1. That City staff use the City of Hamilton Built Heritage Emergency Management Protocol as a model to start drafting a similar protocol for Council consideration, and that staff use the directory maintained by the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals or the list developed by the Ontario Heritage Trust in identifying one or more pre -qualified professional engineers who may be used by the City in emergency situations affecting heritage property. 2. That a sub -committee of Heritage Kitchener be established to work with City staff in reviewing the list of non -designated properties on the Municipal Heritage Register, including City -owned properties, in identifying priority candidates for designation, with a view toward bringing recommendations forward for designation annually in consultation with property owners. 3. That City staff review the Facility Management Division's standard monitoring checklist to apply heritage considerations in the routine inspection of City -owned built heritage resources. Short Term 4. That City staff prepare a heritage procedural protocol in consultation with Heritage Kitchener for Council consideration, that would provide direction on council approved processes related to matters under the Ontario Heritage Act, including defining notice requirements for the demolition of listed heritage property, and processes associated with heritage permits and non-compliance under the Ontario Heritage Act. 5. That City staff leverage the skills and interests of members of Heritage Kitchener in striking a sub -committee to promote greater public education and awareness of heritage conservation. Longer Term 6. That City staff prepare a report for Council consideration addressing how best to proceed in preparing Conservation Plans for select City -owned cultural heritage resources, and in establishing a sustainable funding source for the care and maintenance of City -owned cultural heritage resources over the long term. 7. That City staff conduct a review of the City's Designated Heritage Property Grant Program to include examining grant amounts and eligibility, with a report to be reviewed by Heritage Kitchener and considered by City Council. 8. That City staff investigate the opportunity to develop partnerships with other area municipalities, the Region, community organizations, academic institutions and businesses to broaden the support base for heritage locally. 4-13 IFI - 1 u 0 U E E E o � rn rn rn 0 0 0 N N N N N N T T T (6 (6 (0 7 7 7 LL LL LL N N N (6 0 m O O O U x a o 'y U 0 0 0 pw.i-I w� 000 � o00 H rTl •U U U U N N A � � D �y N N N rl 0 N w vi vi vi w co co � a� C7 C7 C7 pv Ul c(0 N co N O O O ti ON N N Q Q Q x x x r N M 0 1D I� W Q1 O r N M 10 �O I� W Q1 T O N M O 1D I� W Q1 O N M O c0 I� W Q1 O N M N N N N N N N N N N M M M M co co M co co M IFI - 1