HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK - 2019-02-05 - Item 3 - Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 242-262 Queen Street SouthHERITAGE IMPAC
ASSESSMENT
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
Heritage Impact Assessment Report, Phase II
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Table of Contents
ProjectPersonnel........................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Glossaryof Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................................................1
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Noteof Limitations....................................................................................................................................................................................................2
1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................3
2.0 Description of Site and Surrounding Features........................................................................................................................6
2.1 Description of Setting and Context..........................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Description of Built Features.........................................................................................................................................................8
2.2.1 254 Queen Street South.............................................................................................................................................................8
2.2.2 Design/Physical Value..............................................................................................................................................................10
2.2.3 Historical/Associative Value..................................................................................................................................................10
2.2.4 Contextual Value..........................................................................................................................................................................11
2.2.5 List of Identified Heritage Attributes...............................................................................................................................11
2.2.6 262 Queen Street South..........................................................................................................................................................15
2.2.7 Design/Physical Value..............................................................................................................................................................16
2.2.8 Historical/Associative Value..................................................................................................................................................18
2.2.9 Contextual Value..........................................................................................................................................................................20
2.2.10 List of Identified Heritage Attributes.........................................................................................................................20
3.0 Description of Proposed Development....................................................................................................................................25
4.0 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................................27
4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................................27
4.2 Classifications of Impacts.............................................................................................................................................................27
4.3 Impacts of the Proposed Alterations to 254 and 262 Queen Street South...................................................28
4.3.1 Impacts of the Removals of the Rear Additions.......................................................................................................28
4.3.2 Impacts of the Alterations and Conformity with theVPAHCD.........................................................................29
4.4 Impacts of New Building within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and the
Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor.............................................................................................................................................30
4.4.1 Conformity to the VPAHCD Policies regarding New Building.........................................................................30
4.4.2 Impacts of New Building on Adjacent Properties...................................................................................................35
December 2018
Heritage Impact Assessment Report, Phase II
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
5.0 Alternative Development Approaches.....................................................................................................................................36
5.1 Alternative Development Approaches................................................................................................................................36
6.0 Conservation Measures.......................................................................................................................................................................37
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................................................................................................39
8.0 Bibliography
Appendix A: Architectural Design Drawings
42
AppendixB: Shadow Study...............................................................................................................................................................................43
Appendix C: Structural Conditions Assessments.................................................................................................................................44
Appendix D: Curriculum Vitae
December 2018
ELI
Heritage ImpoctAssessment Report, Phase II
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Project Personnel
Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP,
CAHP
Vanessa Hicks, CAHP
Evan Sugden, MA
Managing Director of Cultural
Heritage
Heritage Planner
Heritage Planner
Glossary of Abbreviations
CHER
MTCS
OHA
OHTK
O -REG 9/06
PPS 2014
Project Manager
Historic Research
Document Preparation
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson
Planning Limited
Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport
Ontario Heritage Act
Ontario Heritage Toolkit
Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining cultural
heritage significance
Provincial Policy Stotemen t (2014)
December2018 MHBC 11
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Acknowledgements
Please note that the City of Kitchener Public Library does not permit the publishing of Fire Insurance
Plans for any purposes other than personal research. As such, this report provides written descriptions
and references to Fire Insurance Plans only.
Note of Limitations
It should be noted that while this report may make statements regarding the condition of
buildings, these are limited to obvious deficiencies without invasive analysis or testing and is not
related to the structural condition of the building. Any comments related to the structural
condition of the building reference the recommendations of the Structural Condition Report
attached to this report.
It should also be noted that this Heritage Impact Assessment report acknowledges that there may
be additional historical information related to the context of the subject lands. For example,
information which may be held under private collection and is not available to the public has not
been consulted. However, it is the opinion of the authors of this report that adequate resources
have been consulted in order to provide a sufficient and defensible evaluation as per the criteria
under Ontario Regulation 9/06. Should any information become available in the future which
provides further understanding of the cultural heritage significance of the property be made
available in the future, it is recommended that this be added to the historic record at that time.
December2018 M H BC 12
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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
December2018 M H BC 13
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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
December2018 M H BC 14
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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.
December2018 M H BC 15
Heritage ImpoctAssessment Report, Phase II
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
2,.0 Description of Site and Surrounding
Features
2.1 Description of Setting and Context
The subject lands are located within the boundary of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation
District and are surrounded by a mix of medium and high rise development. This includes the
Drewlo development located at 310 Queen Street South, the Victoria Place residential building
located at 290 Queen Street South, and the York Apartment buildings located at 214 Queen
Street South (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: Aerial view showing content of subject lands. (Source: Google Earth 2018)
The subject lands have been altered to remove landscaped open space in the rear yards prior to
1997 as per a review of aerial photos available from the City of Kitchener. The existing lots include
small landscaped open space to the east fronting Queen Street South. The side and rear yards
have been altered to include paved laneways and parking to support the adaptive re -use of the
December2018 M H BC 16
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
buildings. The only features of cultural heritage value or interest located on the subject lands are
the two (2) single -detached buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South.
Figures 2 & 3: (left) View of Queen Street South looking north from east side of Queen Street South (right) View of
Queen Street South looking south from east side of Queen Street South (Source: MHBC October, 2017)
Figures 4 & 5: (left) View of Bread and Roses Co -Op homers looking south-east from west side of Queen Street South
(right) View of single detached buildings on the west side of Queen Street South (north of the subject lands, south of
Joseph Street), looking north-west (Source: MHBC October, 2017)
_WI 1.�
Figures 6 & 7: (left) View of York Apartment building looking north-west from west side of Queen Street South,
(right) View of Victoria Place residential building looking north-west from east side of Queen Street South, (Source:
MHBC October, 2017)
December2078 MHBC 17
M1117
r
_WI 1.�
Figures 6 & 7: (left) View of York Apartment building looking north-west from west side of Queen Street South,
(right) View of Victoria Place residential building looking north-west from east side of Queen Street South, (Source:
MHBC October, 2017)
December2078 MHBC 17
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
2.2 Description of Built Features
The following provides a description of the buildings of cultural heritage value or interest located
at 254 and 262 Queen Street South. As the building located at 242 Queen Street South was
constructed in 2007 and is not of cultural heritage value or interest and has been approved for
demolition, it is not described in this section of the report. A more detailed description of the
history of the subject lands and the evaluation of heritage value is provided in the Phase I HIA.
2.2.1 254 Queen Street South
The building located at 254 Queen Street South was constructed c.1884 in the Italianate
architectural style. The building is 2 storeys with a hipped roof, constructed in yellow brick. The
building displays features common to the Italianate architectural style such as arched window
openings, wood brackets, and brick quoins. All elevations include a deep overhang cornice with
wood dentils.
The building located at 254 Queen Street South is comprised of different components or
'sections', described in this report as Sections 'A' through V. Each section of the building was
constructed at different periods of time for different purposes. The original portion of the building
constructed c.1884 is described in this report as Section 'A' and includes original features of the
building indicative of the Italianate architectural style. This includes yellow brick quoins at the
corners of the building, a hipped roof with wide overhang, wood cornice with fascia with dentils
and wood brackets with finials. The foundation is constructed of stone.
Section 'B' of the building can be described as two separate rear yellow brick additions (B 'i' and B
'ii'), both of which are visible on the 1908 revised 1925 Fire Insurance Plans. Section 'B i' is directly
adjacent to the west elevation of the original building and is 1 1/2 storeys. Section 'B ii' is a single
storey brick addition to the west. Both additions are noted on Fire Insurance Plans are being part
of the dwelling.
Sections 'C' and 'D' are described as single storey brick additions constructed after 1947 (as they
are not depicted on available Fire Insurance Plans). While both of these additions were
constructed of yellow brick, the patina, texture and composition of brick is different than that of
original bricks, providing additional confirmation that these sections of the building were later
additions.
Section 'E' can be described as a verandah/porch constructed post 1947 as it is not visible on
available Fire Insurance Plans. This portion of the building includes a wood -frame deck with
hipped roof supported by four yellow half -brick pillars with Doric order columns. Section 'F' of the
building can be described as a wood frame accessibility ramp which appears to have been added
December2018 M H BC 18
Heritage ImpoctAssessment Report, Phase II
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
in recent years (post 1997) as it is not visible on the 1997 aerial photograph of the property
available on the City of Kitchener Interactive Map web application.
4
Figure 8: Aerial Photo of 254 Queen Street South noting different Sections of the building (Sections 'A'through 'F')
(Source: City of Kitchener, 2017)
Identifier:
Date Range:
Notes:
A
c. 1884
Original Building
Footprint
B (i and ii)
1892-1925
Rear Additions
C
Post 1947
South Addition
D
Post 1947
S/W Corner addition
E
Post 1947
PorticoNeranda
F
Post 1997
Accessibility Ramp
December2078 MHBC 19
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
2.2.2 Design/Physical Value
The property located at 254 Queen Street South has design/physical value as a representative
example of a building constructed in the Italianate architectural style c.1884. The building is
comprised of different sections (described in this report as Sections 'A' through 'F'). Section 'A' is
the original portion of the building constructed c. 1884 in the Italianate architectural style. The
building is not considered early, rare or unique. The building was constructed in the latter half of
the 18th century, where 15% of the building stock in the VPNHCD constructed during this period.
The construction date is not considered early for the City of Kitchener or the province of Ontario.
While the Italianate architectural style is not considered rare in the context of the City of Kitchener
of the province of Ontario, the VPNHCD Study indicates that 4% of the 377 buildings in the
District are of the Italianate architectural style. The building does not demonstrate significant
value related to scientific achievement, craftsmanship or artistic merit.
Sections 'B (i) and (ii)' have modest design/physical value. While they are not part of the original
building footprint, they were likely constructed in the late 19th century and are compatible with
the original portion of the building. These two rear additions were not constructed with the same
level of detailing indicative of the Italianate architectural style. These additions do not offer
significant information which contributes to the site and therefore, their removal would be
considered a minor adverse impact. The remainder of the additions to the building (described as
Sections 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F') were constructed in the latter half of the 20th century and are not of
design/physical value.
2.2.3 Historical/Associative Value
The building located at 254 Queen Street South has modest historical/associative value. The
building is associated with C. Knipfel (widow) who likely had the building constructed for her after
she received a grant from Emil Vogelsang in 1884. C. Knipfel resided at the house until the turn -of -
the -century with various boarders. No information in the historic record is available to
demonstrate that she was significant to the local community.
The property is associated with members of the Hallman family, who purchased the lands in 1903.
The 1921 census confirms Orlando Hallman resided on the subject lands and was occupied as a
reverend. There is no information in the historic record to demonstrate that members of this
branch of the Hallman family were significant members of the local community. It is important to
note that the subject property is not associated with Lyle S. Hallman (philanthropist) b. 1922, d.
2003.
December2018 MHBC 110
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
2.2.4 Contextual Value
The property located at 254 Queen Street South has modest contextual value for its location
within the Victoria Park Area HCD. The building helps to frame the street and contributes to the
overall Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and maintains its prominent location on
Queen Street South, which was formerly known as 'Schneider Road', one of the earliest roads in
Waterloo Region. However, the context of the Queen Street South corridor is variable, having a
range of building types and forms. Queen Street South is no longer a residential streetscape and
has evolved to include higher density mixed use. Contextual values are primarily related to the
location of buildings close to the street, forming a relatively consistent street edge. The building is
not functionally related to its surroundings and is not part of a significant grouping.
2.2.5 List of Identified Heritage Attributes
The following provides a list of identified heritage attributes for the property located at 254
Queen Street South:
Section 'A':
• Overall 2 1/2 storey yellow brick massing with overhang hipped roof, brick quoins and
wood cornice, fascia with dentils;
• East and south elevation brick bay window projections with window openings;
• All original window and door openings visible from the street including brick voussoirs;
• Remaining yellow brick chimneys;
• Wood brackets with finials;
• Frontage, orientation, and relatively shallow building setback from Queen Street South.
Sections'B (i and ii):
• 1 1/2 and single storey massing yellow brick construction;
• Original window openings including the north elevation round window and raised brick
details of Section' B (i)'.
December2018 MHBC 111
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
set
Figures 9 & 10: (left) View of east (front) elevation looking west from west side of Queen Street South, (right) Front
yard sign identifying Bullas Travel Agency (Source: MHBC October, 2017)
Figures 11 & 12: (left) View of east (front) elevation verandah from west side of Queen Street South, (right) Detailed
view of roofline, cornice and wood brackets (Source: MHBC October, 2017)
Figures 13 & 14: (left) View of existing covered verandah looking north towards Queen Street South, (right) View of
existing accessibility ramp looking south towards east (front) elevation,(Source: MHBC October, 2018)
December2078 MHBC 112
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Figures 15 & 16: (left) View of north elevation from west side of Queen Street South detailing brick exterior, (right)
Detailed view of chimney, roofline, cornice, and wood brackets (Source: MHBC October, 2017)
Figures 17 & 18: (left) View of north elevation looking east towards Queen Street South, (right) Detailed view of
north elevation of Section'B ii' noting bricked -over door opening (Source: MHBC October, 2018)
Figures 19 & 20: (left) View of south elevation from west side of Queen Street South detailing brick exterior and
single storey addition (right) Detail view of second storey addition (Source: MHBC, 2018
December2018 MHBC 113
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Figures 21 & 22: (left) Detail view of south elevation of Section 'C' noting graffiti, (right) Detail view of Section 'D'
looking north-west noting bay window and foliage. (Source: MHBC, 2018)
Figures 23 & 24: (left) View of south and west (rear) elevations, looking north-east towards Queen Street South,
(right) Detail view of west (rear) elevation (Sections 'B (i)' and 'B (ii)'(Source: MHBC, 2018)
Figure 25: View of west (rear) elevation looking east towards Queen Street South and Sections 'A', 'C', and 'B' (i and
ii). (Source: MHBC, 2018)
December2078 MHBC 114
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
2.2.6 262 Queen Street South
The building located at 262 Queen Street South can be described as a 2 1/2 storey building
constructed in the Queen Anne architectural style. The existing building includes different
components or sections which were constructed for different purpose at different periods of
time. These sections of the building are described in this report as'A','B','C', and U.
The original portion of the building constructed c. 1891 (Section 'A') includes features which are
indicative of the Queen Anne architectural style including gabled roofs, large parlour windows,
and ornamental brackets.
Section 'B' of the building can be described as a 2 storey brick addition to the original portion of
the building constructed between 1891 and 1925. The building includes a front-end gabled roof
oriented east -west. A wood -frame verandah and balcony was added to the north elevation of
Section '13' between 1891 and 1925.
The original building footprint included an ornate wood -frame verandah at the east and north
elevations. This portion of the building has been removed and is indicated on Figure 26 with a
dotted red line. In the early 20th century, a new verandah was added which spanned the majority
of the east (front) and north elevations. This verandah included stone half -pillars and columns.
Portions of this alteration remain and can be described as part of Section 'C', of the building. In
more recent years, this verandah has been enclosed.
The building has been adaptively re -used as a business and has lost a number of its original
heritage features through the alterations described above.
December2018 MHBC 115
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
*f
Figure 26: Aerial Photo of 262 Queen Street South noting different Sections of the building (Sections'A'
throuah 'D') (Source: Citv of Kitchener, 2017)
Identifier:
Date Range:
Notes:
A
c. 1891
Original Building
Footprint
B
1891-1925
Rear Addition
C
Early 20th century,
Altered in later half of
20th century
Veranda (later enclosed)
D
1891-1925
Verandah and Balcony
2.2.7 Design/Physical Value
The property located at 262 Queen Street South has design/physical value as it includes a
representative example of a building constructed in the Queen Anne architectural style. This
includes the original portion of the building (described in this report as Section 'A'). Section 'A'
includes features indicative of the Queen Anne architectural style including low and moderately
pitched gables, large parlour windows, and ornamental brackets. The building is not considered
December2018 MHBC 116
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
early, rare or unique. The building was constructed in the latter half of the 18th century, where 15%
of the building stock in the VPNHCD constructed during this period. According to the VPNHCD
Study, Queen Anne buildings make-up 19% of the 377 buildings present within the District. This
architectural style is not considered rare or unique in the context of the City of Kitchener or the
province of Ontario. The building does not demonstrate significant value related to scientific
achievement, craftsmanship or artistic merit.
The remaining sections of the building are described in this report as Sections 'B' through 'D' and
have modest design/physical value as they were previously complementary to the building, but
have been subject to a number of unsympathetic alterations. Section 'B' does not include details
and ornamental features which are similar to that of the original portion of the building, but is
complementary to its overall construction, scale and massing.
L+ .
a
Rz?SIr: EM -1,F OF C. A. AHRENs. .1N.
Figure 27: Photograph of 262 Queen Street South (formerly 118 Queen Street South) (no date — likely late
19th century) (Source: Busy Berlin, 1897)
December2018 MHBC 117
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Figure 28: Photograph of 262 Queen Street South (formerly 118 Queen Street South), east elevation (no date — likely
early 20" century) (Source: OurOntario.ca)
2.2.8 Historical/Associative Value
The property located at 262 Queen Street South has historical/associative value for its associations
with C. A. Ahrens (senior) who purchased the property from C. Knipfel in 1891 and likely
constructed the existing building. C. A. Ahrens was a prominent businessman and shoe
manufacturer. His son, Charles August Ahrens (junior) has been inducted into the Region of
Waterloo Hall of Fame. He is described as serving as an apprentice at the Henry Roth harness
making shop in Berlin, Ontario. He later joined his father in the shoe manufacturing business
(located at what is now 45 Queen Street South) and later on Linden Street. C. A. Ahrens (junior) is
noted as being highly respected as a'business man and leading citizen'. C.A. Ahrens (senior) died
in 1903 and left his estate to his son, C. A. Ahrens (junior), who died in 1937.
December2078 MHBC 118
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
q. h, .ilS xc.�',3 A— Co,.'- -41.x FA --V'
Figure 29: Photograph of C. A. Ahrens & Co. Shoe Factory (Source: Ancestry.ca) (now 45 Queen Street South)
Figure 30: Photograph of C. A. Ahrens (junior) (Source: Waterloo Region Hall of Fame)
December2078 MHBC 119
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
2.2.9 Contextual Value
The property located at 262 Queen Street South has modest contextual value for its location
within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. The building helps to frame the street
and contributes to the overall Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. The building
maintains its prominent location on Queen Street South, which was formerly known as'Schneider
Road', one of the earliest roads in Waterloo Region. The context of the Queen Street South
corridor is variable, having a range of building types and forms. Queen Street South is no longer a
residential streetscape and has evolved to include higher density mixed use. Contextual values
are primarily related to the location of buildings close to the street, forming a relatively consistent
street edge. The building is not functionally related to its surroundings and is not part of a
significant grouping.
2.2.10 List of Identified Heritage Attributes
The following provides a list of identified heritage attributes for the property located at 262
Queen Street South:
Section 'A':
• Overall 2 1/2 storey brick massing with gables and bay windows;
• All original window and door openings visible from the street;
• Paired wood brackets at the corner -ends of projecting bay windows;
• Wood scalloped and trellis cladding within attic gables; and
• Frontage, orientation, and relatively shallow building setbackfrom Queen Street South.
Section 'B':
• Overall brick construction and 2 1/2 storey massing with front-end gable;
• Original window and door openings;
Section'C":
• Remaining stone half -pillars and features of the early 20th century alterations to the east
elevation verandah, where existing.
Section 'D':
• Overall 2 storey wood frame verandah and balcony including original wood detailing,
where existing;
December2018 MHBC 120
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Figures 31 & 32: (left) View of east (front) elevation, looking west from east side of Queen Street South (front) View
of east and south elevations, looking north-west from west side of Queen Street South (Source: MHBC, 2018)
ilm '//'00�"'.'IW
Figures 33 & 34: (left) Detailed view of east (front) elevation showing gable roof and window facing Queen Street
South, (right) Detailed view of second storey bay window and wood brackets (Source: MHBC October, 2017)
Figures 35 & 36: (left) Detailed view of east (front) elevation showing the east elevation addition with stone columns,
(right) View of east elevation showing building addition and remaining bay window at the first storey (Source: MHBC
October, 2017)
December2018 MHBC 121
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Figures 37 & 38: (left) View of north elevation showing gable roof and window, (right) View of north elevation noting
: MHBC 2018)
Figures 39 & 40: (left) View of west and north elevations looking east noting first storey of Section 'D' (right) View of
west and north elevations noting second storey of wood frame balcony (Section 'D') (Source: MHBC October, 2018)
Figures 41 & 42: (left) Detail view of north elevation of Section 'D' (second storey balcony), (right) Detail view of
north elevation of Section 'D' (first storey verandah) (Source: MHBC October, 2017)
December2078 MHBC 122
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Figures 43 & 44: (left) View of south elevation of Section 'A' noting gable roof and windows, (right) View from south
elevation noting stone foundation and brick exterior (Source: MHBC October, 2017)
Ilk
Figures 45 & 46: (left) Detail view of two window openings at the first and second storey of Section '13', (right) Detail
view of contemporary window at the south elevation of Section 'A' (Source: MHBC, 2018)
Figure 47: (left) Detail view of tall stone foundation at south elevation of Sections 'A' and 'B' (Source: MHBC, 2018)
December2078 MHBC 123
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Figures 48 & 49: (left) View of south and west (rear) elevations, looking north-east towards Queen Street South ,
(right) View of west (rear) elevation looking east noting Sections 'B' and 'D' (Source: MHBC 2018)
Figures 50 & 51: (left) Detail view of second storey of Section 'B' noting location of window openings and chimney,
(right), Detail view of main floor window opening and window/access to basement in Section 'B', (Source: MHBC
October, 2018)
December2078 MHBC 124
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
3.0 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.
December2018 M H BC 125
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Figure 52: Rendering of proposed new building (Neo Architecture Inc., 2018)
December2078 MHBC 126
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
4.0 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:
December2018 MHBC 127
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
• 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.
December2018 MHBC 128
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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.
December2018 MHBC 129
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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.
December2018 MHBC 130
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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.
December2018 MHBC 131
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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.
December2018 MHBC 132
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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 o
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
December2018 MHBC 133
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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 an 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.
December2018 MHBC 134
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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.
December2018 MHBC 135
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
5.0 Alternative Development Approaches
5.1 Alternative Development Approaches
Alternative development options are described in the Phase I report. The revised development
proposal that is subject of this Phase 11 HIA represents one of the alternative development
approaches described in the Phase I report.
December2018 MHBC 136
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
6.0 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
December2018 MHBC 137
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
• 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
December2018 MHBC 138
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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
December2018 M H BC 139
Heritage Impact Assessmen t Report, Phase 11
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
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.
December2018 MHBC 140
Heritage ImpoctAssessment Report, Phase II
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
8.0 Bibliography
Bloomfield, Elizabeth. Waterloo Township through two Centuries. Region of Waterloo: St Jacobs
Printery, 2006.
Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township.
Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971.
English, John and McLaughlin, Kenneth. Kitchener on Illustrated History. Toronto: Robin Brass
Studio, 1996.
Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Waterloo, ON: Waterloo Historical Society,
1997.
McLaughlin, Kenneth and Sharon Jaeger. Waterloo: An Illustrated History, 1857-2007. City of
Waterloo, 2007.
na. Busy Berlin; jubilee souvenir. 1897.
Ontario Ministry of Culture (Now the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). Infosheet # 5 Heritage
ImpactAssessments and Conservation Plans. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Winter 2006.
Waterloo Historical Society, Fifty Second Annual Volume of the Waterloo Historical Society, 1964.
Waterloo Historical Society. Sixteenth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society, 1928.
December2018 MHBC 141
Heritage ImpoctAssessment Report, Phase II
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Appendix A: Architectural Design Drawings
December2018 MHBC 142
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
-------------
---- ----------
W
W
-�---
77
-- ---�----
_, --e_--- -
I
��o o
�o
c o _ CO
&; La > w
,C�1
C 0 T
Lp _ w
a
a a W i^ li��
Q
C 0_ � CO
Lp _ w
a
C 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��
C 0_ � CO
Lp _ w
a
T--�g
li��
1
C 0_ � CO
Lp _ w -
a �
9 oyer 1 T T-ogli��
C
. ....
_
CO
>
gig"
-
� ML
Z,-1
a
C.
....
_
M
>
gig"
-
� ML
Z,-1
a
v�D
s
�
o�
�
���
m
�g
>
E Y
gi
g"
L p
-
u
� ML
a
s
�
o�
�
Heritage ImpoctAssessment Report, Phase II
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Appendix B: Shadow Study
December2018 MHBC 143
m�
0
` w
/ o
a
T
CL
I�D
0-1
>o
>
a
N
a
CL
w
EM
I�D
0-1
>o
>
a
M
a
CL
w
ME
0w
>o
>
Heritage ImpoctAssessment Report, Phase II
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Appendix C: Structural Conditions Assessments
December2018 MHBC 144
STRIK
BALDINELLI
• MONIZ
CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL
Structural Condition Assessment
254 Queen Street S
Kitchener, ON
June 2018
File No.: SBMW-18-175
London Office: Kitchener Office:
14361 Medway Rd. PO Box 29 1415 Huron Road, Unit 225
Arva, Ontario, NOM 1CO Kitchener, Ontario, N211 OD
P: 519 4716667 F: 519 4710034 P: 519 725 8093
Aaron Strik, P.Eng Michael Baldinelli, MESc, P.Eng Kevin Moniz, P.Eng
STRIK
BALDINELLI
* MONIZ
CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL
Executive Summary
ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION
CIVIL /S%R LIC IURAL DIVISION MECHANICAL i EIECIRICAL DIVISION
14361 Medway Rd., P.O. Box 29 1514 Woodcock St., Unit #7 1415 Huron Ad., Unit 225
Arvo. Ont. NOM ICO London. 0nt. N6 5S Kitchener.Ont, N2R OL3
P: 519.471.6667 P: 519.641.3044 P: 519.725.8093
www.sbm1td.co sbrn@sbrnitd.cc
Strik Baldinelli Moniz ("SBM") was retained by Vive Development Corporation to conduct a preliminary structural
condition assessment for 254 Queen Street S., subject to the limitations outlined in Section 6.0 of this report. The review
consists of a general visual review of the site, structure and building envelope. Our inspection was a visual review only,
viewed from the exterior and interior, where access was permitted.
Based on the original construction, the building appears to be at least 80 years old. It is a two storey building with a full
basement. The building appears to have originally been constructed as a house but is currently used as office space for
Bullas Travel Inc. The roof framing, floor framing and interior load bearing walls are conventional stick framed
construction using rough sawn lumber. The exterior walls are double wythe brick which are supported on a rubble stone
foundation wall.
Overall the building appeared to be in fair condition, commensurate with its age and in comparable standing with other
buildings in the area. A review of the structural systems did not reveal any obvious signs of excessive deflections or over
stressing. The building appears be structurally sound and constructed in general accordance with standard building
practices in place at the times of construction.
The following deficiencies were noted that require immediate repair:
The two retaining walls at the back of the property are in very poor condition and should be replaced.
Other deficiencies noted which are currently not a structural concern, but may lead to future structural damage if not
properly maintained or repaired include:
Cracks and deteriorated mortar joints in the exterior masonry walls. We recommend repointing the
cracked or deteriorated mortar joints to avoid a structural issue in the future.
iii. Properly insulate and caulk or seal around all penetrations in the exterior wall.
iv. Install a drain in the landing at the exterior walk out stairs to keep water away from the bottom of the
exterior door.
Review and repair the exterior waterproofing around the foundation.
vi. Review the roofing and confirm there are no active leaks.
STRIK
BALDINELLI
* MONIZ
CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL
Vive Development Corporation
Attention: Mr. Stephen Litt
Re: Structural Condition Assessment
254 Queen Street S, Kitchener, ON
1.0 Introduction
ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION
CIVIL /S%R LIC IURAL DIVISION MECHANICAL i EIECIRICAL DIVISION
14361 Medway Rd., P.O. Box 29 1514 Woodcock St., Unit #7 1415 Huron Ad., Unit 225
Arvo. Ont. NOM ICO London. Ont. N6 5S Kitchener.Ont, N2R OL3
P: 519.471.6667 P: 519.641.3044 P: 519.725.8093
www.sbm1td.co sbrn@sbrnitd.cc
June 29, 2018
This structural condition assessment has been prepared for Vive Development Corporation. This is a preliminary
review completed in accordance with the Professional Engineers of Ontario practice guideline "Structural
Condition Assessments of Existing Buildings and Designated Structures Guideline" as well as the National Building
Code, commentary L "Application of NBC Part 4 of Division B for the Structural Evaluation and Upgrading of
Existing Buildings."
The purpose of the review is to provide our professional opinion as to the property's overall structural condition,
subject to the limitations outlined in Section 6.0. This preliminary assessment is a qualitative, visual review only
using a systematic approach to ensure the condition of all structural systems have been noted, where access is
available. No destructive investigations or calculations have been completed unless specifically noted.
We are pleased to present this report of our observations, conclusions and recommendations herein.
2.0 Building Description
The building is located at 254 Queen Street South in Kitchener, between Courtland Avenue W and Joseph Street.
Based on the original construction, the building appears to be at least 80 years old. It is a two storey building
with a full basement. The building appears to have originally been constructed as a house but is currently used as
office space for Bullas Travel Inc.
The front and left sides of the property are nicely landscaped. The right side of the property is an asphalt
driveway which leads to the asphalt paved parking area at the rear of the building.
The roof framing, floor framing and interior load bearing walls are conventional stick framed construction using
rough sawn lumber. The exterior walls are double wythe brick which are supported on a rubble stone foundation
wall.
There is a wood framed barrier free entrance ramp which has been added to the front entrance. It appears that a
two storey and one storey addition was added to the rear of the building many years ago. The addition has cast -
in -place concrete foundation walls and a brick veneer which matches the original brick.
www.sbmltd.ca
3.0 Methodology
SBMW-18-175
Darryl Cowan, P.Eng of Strik Baldinelli Moniz attended the site on the morning of June 25, 2018 with Mark
Roswell of Vive Development Corporation to complete a general overall visual inspection of the above noted
property. Our inspection was a visual review only, viewed from the exterior and interior, where access was
permitted. No specialist reviews, physical or destructive investigations were completed unless specifically noted.
The following information has been reviewed /obtained for the purposes of completing this report:
• A visual examination of the property.
No other drawings, reports, assessments or description of previous repair work was available for review. For
purposes of this report north is considered the front (King Street) wall.
4.0 Observations
4.1 Site Conditions
a. The asphalt paved driveway and parking lot are in poor condition with lots of map cracking and
rutting/settlement in the driveway and parking lot. The asphalt paving is not a structural item and is therefore
not a concern on the overall stability of the building.
b. There is a timber retaining wall approximately 29" high on the right side of the property separating the driveway
from the adjacent property at 242 Queen Street. The wall is in very poor condition as there is severe rot, missing
timbers and the wall has a considerable lean towards the driveway (see photo 4). The wall should be replaced
immediately.
c. There is a concrete retaining wall approximately 24" high separating the driveway from the parking lot. The
concrete retaining wall is in poor condition (see photo 3). There is severe spalling on the back of the wall, there
are several large vertical cracks through the width of the wall and a large chunk missing from the top of the wall.
Additionally the wall has a significant lean towards the parking lot. This wall should be replaced immediately. It
is recommended a vehicle guard be installed in front of this wall on the high side to prevent impact damage.
d. There is a set of concrete walkout stairs from the basement to the rear parking lot (see photo 7). The following
deficiencies were noted with the concrete stairs -on -grade:
a. There is no handrail provided at the stairs. The Ontario Building Code (OBC) requires a handrail on one
side.
b. There is no drain in the floor at the bottom landing of the steps. This condition permits water to
accumulate to in the landing and cause flooding and moisture damage to the wood door frame. Water
staining was noted on the basement floor just inside the walk out door.
e. The concrete approach at the bottom of the barrier free ramp is in poor condition with large cracks and
deterioration. This approach slab should be replaced. This is a non-structural item.
www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-175
4.2 Building Exterior/Envelope
a. The exterior double wythe brick wall is in overall fair condition. There are some small step cracks in mortar
joints, particularly over some windows and at joints between the original building and the addition. All cracks in
the exterior brick should be repointed. Cracks in the brick allow moisture to penetrate the surface which may
lead to structural damage such as spalling after several freeze thaw cycles.
b. The brick veneer for the addition at the rear extends down to grade. The brick has severe deterioration in the
mortar joints and the face shells have spalling in the bottom courses adjacent to the driveway (see photo 5). The
mortar joints in the bottom courses are the rear entrance door have severe deterioration (see photo 6). The
bricks require replacement and repointing to avoid escalated deterioration with each freeze thaw cycle.
c. The portion of the rubble stone foundation wall above grade appears to be in fair to poor condition. The mortar
has severe deterioration which appears to have caused some stones to become loose. Repointing is required for
the exterior foundation wall above grade.
4.3 Building Structure
a. It is unknown if the building underwent a full structural review when it was converted from residential use to
business and personal service use. The current OBC requires the main floor of an office to support a 60 Ib/sq.ft.
(psf) higher live load and a 10 psf higher live load on the second floor than what is required for residential use.
None of the original framing that could be viewed in the basement was noted to be reinforced. In our
professional experience, the existing rough sawn framing typically does not conform to current loading
requirements for an office. It is recommended that the existing framing be reviewed by a structural engineer for
structural adequacy.
b. The attic was inaccessible and therefore the roof framing could not be reviewed or commented on.
c. The second floor and main floor are generally all covered with finishes leaving the structural framing inaccessible
for review. In most cases the finishes are the original plaster, which was noted to have hairline cracking
throughout. These cracks are common for this type of construction and are likely shrinkage cracks due to
thermal expansion and contraction of the finishes.
d. The second and main floors have a noticeable slope in several areas. This is a common deficiency for this type of
construction due to construction tolerances at the time of original construction, but may also be related to
settlement of the foundations.
e. Water damage was noted in several areas in the second floor ceiling (see photo 8). It is recommended that the
roofing and attic space be reviewed to ensure there are no active leaks. Over a prolonged period of exposure,
leaks have the potential to ruin finishes and reduce the integrity of the structural framing.
f. There is a door from the second floor hall hallway to a front porch over a portion of the main floor. There is no
guard installed around the elevated porch. It is recommended that a proper guard is installed or that the door is
permanently fixed shut.
g. The main floor joists are visible from the basement and were noted to be rough sawn 2"x10" joists @ 15"± o/c,
which bear on the exterior rubble stone foundation wall and an interior load bearing stud walls. The floor joists
appear to be in good condition with no signs of excessive knots, splits or deflections.
www.sbmltd.ca
SBMW-18-175
h. The left foundation wall near the middle of the building was noted to be in fair to poor condition. There is
efflorescence on the inside of the wall indicating that water is leaking through the structural (see photo 9).
Additionally the plaster finish is peeling off the wall and water staining is present in the corner by the wall. The
foundation wall appears plumb and structurally stable; however over time the water damage will continue to
deteriorate the wall. The waterproofing on the exterior of the building should be reviewed and repaired.
i. There is a section of basement near the front left that is not accessible due to a permanent wall which has been
constructed in the basement without a door.
j. There are two penetrations in the middle of the left foundation wall where daylight can be seen from the inside
(see photo 10). These areas allow moisture to actively enter the building. These penetrations should be properly
insulated and sealed.
k. The footings are all below grade and are therefore not accessible for review.
5.0 Conclusions & Recommendations
Overall the building appeared to be in fair condition, commensurate with its age and in comparable standing with
other buildings in the area. A review of the structural systems did not reveal any obvious signs of excessive
deflections or over stressing. The building appears be structurally sound and constructed in general accordance
with standard building practices in place at the times of construction.
Although we have not performed any calculations to verify, it is our opinion that the original framing is likely not
sufficient to support the prescribed office loading. Consider completing a full review of each floor to ensure the
floors support office loads as prescribed in the current OBC.
The following deficiencies were noted that require immediate repair:
The two retaining walls at the back of the property are in very poor condition and should be replaced.
Other deficiencies noted which are currently not a structural concern, but may lead to future structural damage if
not properly maintained or repaired include:
Cracks and deteriorate mortarjoints in the in the exterior masonry walls. We recommend repointing
the cracked or deteriorated mortar joints to avoid a structural issue in the future.
iii. Properly insulate and caulk or seal around all penetrations in the exterior wall.
iv. Install a drain in the landing at the exterior walk out stairs to keep water away from the bottom of the
exterior door.
Review and repair the exterior waterproofing around the foundation.
vi. Review the roofing and ensure there are no active leaks.
www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-175
6.0 Limitations
• This report is intended exclusively for the Client(s) named in the report. The material in it reflects our best
judgment in light of the information reviewed by Strik Baldinelli Moniz at the time of preparation. This report is
not a certification of compliance with past or present regulations. No portion of this report may be used as a
separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety.
• Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are
the responsibility of such third parties.
• Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. The consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes
or insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of the
information. The Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its services and is entitled
to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof.
• Budget figures are our opinion of a probable current dollar value of the work and are provided for approximate
budget purposes only. Accurate figures can only be obtained by establishing a scope of work and receiving quotes
from suitable contractors
• This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future costs,
hazards or losses in connection with a property. No site inspections, physical or destructive testing and no
design calculations have been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions existing but not recorded
were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can perform further investigation on items of
concern if so required.
• Any time frame given for undertaking work represents an educated guess based on apparent conditions
existing at the time of our report. The actual service life or optimum repair/replacement process may vary
from our estimate.
• We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are
specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at
that time. Any user of this report specifically denies any right to claims against the Consultant, Sub -
Consultants, their Officers, Agents and Employees in excess of the fee paid for professional services.
Please contact us if additional engineering or inspections are required. We trust this report meets your satisfaction, if you
need further clarification please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
Civil • Structural • Mechanical • ElectricalRQFSSiOLfi�G�
( D. H. UNAN
T:Iq w
100072514
Darryl Cowan, P.Eng �.,Gy 3,�a[
Associate •O,p� ¢`O
OF:
www.sbmltd.ca
APPENDIX "A
PHOTOGRAPHS
SBMW-18-175
grjmk 9" -4 ?1-
www.sbmltd.ca
SBMW-18-175
Figure 3: The concrete retaining wall between the driveway and parking lot is in poor condition.
Figure 4: The timber retaining wall along the right property line of the building is in poor condition.
www.sbmltd.ca
Figure 5: The mortar joints in the brick veneer at grade have severe deterioration and spalling.
SBMW-18-175
Figure 6: The mortar joints in the brick veneer at the rear main floor entrance have severe deterioration.
www.sbmltd.ca
SB MW -18-175
Figure 7: The rear walk out stairs do not have a hand rail or adequate drainage at the bottom landing.
Figure 8: Typical water damage to the finishes on the second floor ceiling.
www.sbmltd.ca
SBMW-18-175
Figure 9: The interior foundation wall has minor spalling and efflorescence where the plaster finish has peeled away.
Figure 10: A penetration in the foundation wall has daylight visible to the exterior. Moisture damage is present around
the opening. The penetration requires insulation and to be sealed.
STRIK
BALDINELLI
• MONIZ
CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL
Structural Condition Assessment
262 Queen Street S
Kitchener, ON
June 2018
File No.: SBMW-18-174
London Office: Kitchener Office:
14361 Medway Rd. PO Box 29 1415 Huron Road, Unit 225
Arva, Ontario, NOM 1CO Kitchener, Ontario, N211 OD
P: 519 4716667 F: 519 4710034 P: 519 725 8093
Aaron Strik, P.Eng Michael Baldinelli, MESc, P.Eng Kevin Moniz, P.Eng
STRIK
BALDINELLI
* MONIZ
CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL
Executive Summary
ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION
CIVIL /S%R LIC IURAL DIVISION MECHANICAL i EIECIRICAL DIVISION
14361 Medway Rd., P.O. Box 29 1514 Woodcock St., Unit #7 1415 Huron Ad., Unit 225
Arvo. Ont. NOM ICO London. 0nt. N6 5S Kitchener.Ont, N2R OL3
P: 519.471.6667 P: 519.641.3044 P: 519.725.8093
www.sbm1td.co sbrn@sbrnitd.cc
Strik Baldinelli Moniz ("SBM") was retained by Vive Development Corporation to conduct a preliminary structural
condition assessment for 262 Queen Street S., subject to the limitations outlined in Section 6.0 of this report. The review
consists of a general visual review of the site, structure and building envelope. Our inspection was a visual review only,
viewed from the exterior and interior, where access was permitted.
Based on the original construction, the building appears to be at least 80 years old. It is a two storey building with an
unfinished accessible attic and a full basement. The building appears to have originally been constructed as a house but is
currently used as office space for Kechnie Financial Centre. The roof framing, floor framing and interior load bearing walls
are conventional stick framed construction using rough sawn lumber. The exterior walls are double wythe brick which are
supported on a rubble stone foundation wall.
Overall the building appeared to be in good to fair condition, commensurate with its age and in comparable standing with
other buildings in the area. A review of the structural systems did not reveal any obvious signs of excessive deflections or
over stressing. The building appears be structurally sound and constructed in general accordance with standard building
practices in place at the times of construction, with the exception of the roof framing for the front left dormer. This
framing should be replaced or reinforced.
Other deficiencies noted include:
1. Consider completing a full review of each floor to ensure the floors support office or storage loads as
prescribed in the OBC.
2. A proper guard and handrail should be installed along the rear basement stairs.
3. Cracks in the exterior masonry walls. We recommend repointing the cracked or deteriorated mortar joints
and repairing the free standing guard wall at the front stairs to avoid a structural issue in the future. Further
consideration should be given to installing structural lintels over the exterior windows to prevent the
diagonal step cracking from re -occurring.
4. Properly caulk or seal around all penetrations in the exterior wall.
5. The wood siding and window frames should be re -painted to prevent further moisture damage to the wood.
STRIK
BALDINELLI
* MONIZ
CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL
Vive Development Corporation
Attention: Mr. Stephen Litt
Re: Structural Condition Assessment
262 Queen Street S, Kitchener, ON
1.0 Introduction
ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION
CIVIL /S%R LIC IURAL DIVISION MECHANICAL i EIECIRICAL DIVISION
14361 Medway Rd., P.O. Box 29 1514 Woodcock St., Unit #7 1415 Huron Ad., Unit 225
Arvo. Ont. NOM ICO London. Ont. N6 5S Kitchener.Ont, N2R OL3
P: 519.471.6667 P: 519.641.3044 P: 519.725.8093
www.sbm1td.co sbrn@sbrnitd.cc
June 29, 2018
This structural condition assessment has been prepared for Vive Development Corporation. This is a preliminary
review completed in accordance with the Professional Engineers of Ontario practice guideline "Structural
Condition Assessments of Existing Buildings and Designated Structures Guideline" as well as the National Building
Code, commentary L "Application of NBC Part 4 of Division B for the Structural Evaluation and Upgrading of
Existing Buildings."
The purpose of the review is to provide our professional opinion as to the property's overall structural condition,
subject to the limitations outlined in Section 6.0. This preliminary assessment is a qualitative, visual review only
using a systematic approach to ensure the condition of all structural systems have been noted, where access is
available. No destructive investigations or calculations have been completed unless specifically noted.
We are pleased to present this report of our observations, conclusions and recommendations herein.
2.0 Building Description
The building is located at 254 Queen Street South in Kitchener, between Courtland Avenue W and Joseph Street.
Based on the original construction, the building appears to be at least 80 years old. It is a two storey building
with an unfinished accessible attic and a full basement. The building appears to have originally been constructed
as a house but is currently used as office space for Kechnie Financial Centre. The attic is being used as file
storage.
The front and right sides of the property are nicely landscaped. Left side of the property is an asphalt driveway
which leads to the asphalt paved parking area at the rear of the building.
The roof framing, floor framing and interior load bearing walls are conventional stick framed construction using
rough sawn lumber. The exterior walls are double wythe brick which are supported on a rubble stone foundation
wall.
The exterior brick has been painted. There is a bay window addition on the front of the building which is clad
with horizontal vinyl siding. There is also an older second storey sunroom addition over part of the main floor at
the front, which is clad with painted horizontal wood siding. The dormers for the attic space are clad with
painted cedar shingles. The roof cladding appears to be asphalt strip shingles. At the rear of the building there is
a two storey porch which appears to be an addition.
www.sbmltd.ca
3.0 Methodology
SBMW-18-174
Darryl Cowan, P.Eng of Strik Baldinelli Moniz attended the site on the morning of June 25, 2018 with Mark
Roswell of Vive Development Corporation to complete a general overall visual inspection of the above noted
property. Our inspection was a visual review only, viewed from the exterior and interior, where access was
permitted. No specialist reviews, physical or destructive investigations were completed unless specifically noted.
The following information has been reviewed /obtained for the purposes of completing this report:
• A visual examination of the property.
No other drawings, reports, assessments or description of previous repair work was available for review. For
purposes of this report north is considered the front (King Street) wall.
4.0 Observations
4.1 Site Conditions
a. There are no site items which would be subject to a structural review.
b. The asphalt paved driveway and parking lot appeared to be in good condition with minimal cracking, rutting or
settlement.
4.2 Building Exterior/Envelope
a. The exterior double wythe brick wall has been painted on the exterior. The type of exterior paint is unknown,
however painting brick is not recommended as common paint is not permeable and will not all the exterior brick
to 'breathe' which may lead to future structural issues such as spalling after several freeze -thaw cycles. However,
considering the age of the building, the exterior brick appeared to be in good to fair condition. Diagonal step
cracking is commonly noted over the top corners of the exterior windows (see photo 7). The cracking is likely
caused from lack of proper bearing for the soldier course lintel. This is a common deficiency in this type of
construction. Installing a structural lintel over the windows should mitigate the reoccurrence of the stepped
cracks over the windows.
b. All cracks in the exterior brick should be repointed. Cracks in the brick allow moisture to penetrate the surface
which may lead to future structural damage such as spalling after several freeze thaw cycles.
c. The painted wood window frames are in fair to poor condition and have varying degrees of weathering or rot.
The wood siding and window frames should be re -painted to prevent further moisture damage to the wood.
Consider replacing the windows with vinyl framed windows at the end of their useful life.
d. The vinyl siding appears to be in good condition.
e. All penetrations through the exterior wall should be properly sealed. Sealant was noted to be absent on some
penetrations.
www.sbmltd.ca
4.3 Building Structure
SBMW-18-174
a. It is unknown if the building underwent a full structural review when it was converted from residential use to
business and personal service use. The current Ontario Building Code (OBC) requires the main floor of an office
to support a 60 Ib/sq.ft. (psf) higher live load and a 10 psf higher live load on the second floor than what is
required for residential use. In addition, storage areas are required to support a 100 psf live load. None of the
original framing was noted to be reinforced. In our professional experience, the existing rough sawn framing
typically does not conform to current loading requirements for an office, especially the storage loads in the attic
spaces. It is recommended that the existing framing be reviewed by a structural engineer for structural
adequacy.
The roof framing was all exposed for review from within the attic. As is typical with the age and construction
style of the house, not all the framing conforms to the current building code; however it is generally considered
acceptable since this is an existing condition and our review of the framing did not expose any excessive
deflections, notches or splits which would limit the structural capacity, with the exception of the following:
The top of the rafters over the front dormer on the left side appear to have some previous char damage.
The top of the rafters are cut off where the damage begins and are improperly spliced with a non -full
length member. The new rafter members are not directly opposite each other on either side of the
ridge board, which is not permitted under the OBC (see photo 3). The rafters should be replaced or
sintered with new full length rafters which conform to the current OBC.
ii. One existing roof rafter over the front dormer on the left side has a spilt at the top end which will limit
the connection and load carrying capacity of the member. The rafter should be replaced.
c. The main floor joists are visible from the mechanical room and were noted to be rough sawn 2"x10" joists @ 17"
o/c, which bear on the exterior rubble stone foundation wall and an interior double wythe brick wall.
d. The second floor, main floor and basement are generally all covered with finishes leaving the structural framing
inaccessible for review. In most cases the finishes are the original plaster, which was noted to have hairline
cracking throughout. These cracks are common for this type of construction and are likely shrinkage cracks due
to thermal expansion and contraction of the finishes.
e. There is a small to medium diagonal crack on the office/corridor wall in the front office on the second floor. The
crack is the length of height of the wall, approximately 7'-0" long. The crack is larger than a typical shrinkage
crack (see photo 4).
f. The second and main floor have a noticeable slope in several areas. This is a common deficiency for this type of
construction due construction tolerances at the time of original construction, but may also be related to
settlement of the foundations.
g. The rear stairs to the basement are missing a proper guard and handrail (see photo 5). These should be installed
in conformance with the OBC.
h. The footings are all below grade and are therefore not accessible for review. The portion of rubble stone
foundation wall above grade appeared to be in good condition. Some mortar was missing between some stones
on the right elevation, however no stones appeared to be loose or missing.
i. There is a free standing stone wall which acts as a guard along the front entrance stairs to the building. The
mortar joints in the wall are in poor condition and have severe deterioration which have caused some of the
masonry to become loose (see photo 6). The wall should be repaired and repointed.
www.sbmltd.ca
5.0 Conclusions & Recommendations
SBMW-18-174
Overall the building appeared to be in good to fair condition, commensurate with its age and in comparable
standing with other buildings in the area. A review of the structural systems did not reveal any obvious signs of
excessive deflections or over stressing. The building appears be structurally sound and constructed in general
accordance with standard building practices in place at the times of construction, with the exception of the roof
framing for the front left dormer. This framing should be replaced or reinforced.
Although we have not performed any calculations to verify, it is our opinion that the attic floor framing is not
structurally sufficient to support file storage loads. To avoid a more serious structural issue in the future, it is
recommended that all file storage in the attic be moved to the basement, or the attic floor be reinforced to
support the intended loading. Consider completing a full review of each floor to ensure the floors support office
loads as prescribed in the current OBC.
A proper guard and handrail should be installed along the rear basement stairs.
Other deficiencies noted which are currently not a structural concern, but may lead to future structural damage if
not properly maintained or repaired include:
1. Cracks in the exterior masonry walls. We recommend repointing the cracked or deteriorated mortar joints
and repairing the free standing guard wall at the front stairs to avoid a structural issue in the future. Further
consideration should be given to installing structural lintels over the exterior windows to prevent the
diagonal step cracking from re -occurring.
2. Properly caulk or seal around all penetrations in the exterior wall.
3. The wood siding and window frames should be re -painted to prevent further moisture damage to the wood.
www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-174
6.0 Limitations
• This report is intended exclusively for the Client(s) named in the report. The material in it reflects our best
judgment in light of the information reviewed by Strik Baldinelli Moniz at the time of preparation. This report is
not a certification of compliance with past or present regulations. No portion of this report may be used as a
separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety.
• Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are
the responsibility of such third parties.
• Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. The consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes
or insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of the
information. The Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its services and is entitled
to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof.
• Budget figures are our opinion of a probable current dollar value of the work and are provided for approximate
budget purposes only. Accurate figures can only be obtained by establishing a scope of work and receiving quotes
from suitable contractors
• This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future costs,
hazards or losses in connection with a property. No site inspections, physical or destructive testing and no
design calculations have been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions existing but not recorded
were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can perform further investigation on items of
concern if so required.
• Any time frame given for undertaking work represents an educated guess based on apparent conditions
existing at the time of our report. The actual service life or optimum repair/replacement process may vary
from our estimate.
• We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are
specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at
that time. Any user of this report specifically denies any right to claims against the Consultant, Sub -
Consultants, their Officers, Agents and Employees in excess of the fee paid for professional services.
Please contact us if additional engineering or inspections are required. We trust this report meets your satisfaction, if you
need further clarification please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.
Civil • Structural • Mechanical • ElectricalRQFSSiOLfi�G�
T (6 :Iq w
� D. H. UNAN
100072514
Darryl Cowan, P.Eng �.,Gy 3,�a[
Associate •O,p� ¢`O
OF:
www.sbmltd.ca
APPENDIX "A
PHOTOGRAPHS
SBMW-18-174
www.sbmltd.ca
Figure 1: View of the front left elevation of the building (From Queen Street).
Figure 2: View of the front right of the building (from Queen Street).
SBMW-18-174
www.sbmltd.ca
SBMW-18-174
Figure 3: The roof rafters over the front left dormer are cut and improperly spliced at the top. These rafters should be
repaired or replaced.
Figure 4: The small to medium diagonal crack in the interior wall of the front office on the second floor.
www.sbmltd.ca
Figure 5: The rear basement stairs are missing a guard and handrail.
Figure 6: The mortar joints in the free standing wall at the front stairs has sever deterioration.
SBMW-18-174
www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-174
Figure 7: Typical step cracking in the mortar joints of exterior brick above the windows.
ISK
T R I ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION
BALDINELLI <.::_
14361 Medway Rd., P.O. Box 29 1516 Woodcock St., Unit #7 1415 Huron Rd., Unit 225
/�/+"�J� 7 Arva, Ont, NOM 1C0 London, Ont N6H 5S1 Kitchener, Ont, N2R Ota
�'� �.+/ �� � /.. P. 514.471.8667 P: 514.641.3040 P: 514.725.8043
�nl�
civil- -S``, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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��
.Pl
4
4
ZVI
Heritage ImpoctAssessment Report, Phase II
242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Appendix D: Curriculum Vitae
December2018 MHBC 145
140111[4 �_i Col
2016
Master of Arts in Planning,
specializing in Heritage
Planning
University of Waterloo,
School of Planning
2010
Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in
Historical/Industrial
Archaeology
Wilfrid Laurier University
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x 728
F 519 576 0121
vhicks@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CURRICULUMVITAE
Vanessa Hicks, M.A., c.A.H.P.
Vanessa Hicks is a Heritage Planner with MHBC and joined the firm after
having gained experience as a Manager of Heritage Planning in the public
realm where she was responsible for working with Heritage Advisory
Committees in managing heritage resources, Heritage Conservation Districts,
designations, special events and heritage projects (such as the Architectural
Salvage Program).
Vanessa is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals
and graduated from the University of Waterloo with a Masters Degree in
Planning, specializing in heritage planning and conservation. Vanessa
provides a variety of research and report writing services for public and
private sector clients. She has experience in historical research, inventory
work, evaluation and analysis on a variety of projects, including Heritage
Conservation Districts (HCDs), Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs), Cultural
Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs), Conservation Plans (CPS),
Documentation and Salvage Reports, and Commemoration Projects (i.e.
plaques). Vanessa is also able to comment provide comments regarding
Stages 1-4 Archaeological Assessments due to her experience as a practicing
field archaeologist and experience writing archaeological reports submitted
to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and sport.
Ialate] I0.1611I ]IFE0W1».]IaI[aI
June 2016 - Cultural Heritage Specialist/ Heritage Planner
Present MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Ltd.
2012- Program Manager, Heritage Planning
2016 Town of Aurora
May 2012 - Heritage Planning Assistant
October 2012 Town of Grimsby
2007- Archaeologist
2010 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.
1
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x 728
F 519 576 0121
vhicks@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CU RRICU LU MVITAE
Vanessa Hicks, M.A., C.A.H.P.
SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (HIAs) 2016-2018
Heritage Impact Assessment
-'Southworks', 64 Grand Avenue South, City of
Cambridge
Heritage Impact Assessment
- 47 Spring Street Waterloo, Albert/MacGregor
Neighbourhood HCD
Heritage Impact Assessment
- 107 Concession Street, City of Cambridge
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 33 Laird Drive, City of Toronto
Heritage Impact Assessment
— Badley Bridge, part of a Municipal EA Class
Assessment, Township of Centre Wellington
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 362 Dodge Drive, City of Kitchener
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 255 Ruhl Drive, Town of Milton
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 34 Erb Street East, City of Waterloo
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 474 and 484 Queen Street South (and
Schneider Haus National Historic Site), City of Kitchener
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 883 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 57 Lakeport Road, City of St. Catharines
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 8331 Heritage Road, City of Brampton
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 55 Fallbrook Lane, City of Cambridge
Heritage Impact Assessment
— Langmaids Island, Lake of Bays
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 1679 Blair Road, City of Cambridge
Heritage Impact Assessment—
13373 Guelph Line, Milton
Heritage Impact Assessment
- 64 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener
Heritage Impact Assessment
— 51 David Street, City of Kitchener
CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORTS (CHERs) 2016-2018
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - Dunlop Street West and Bradford Street,
Barrie - Prince of Wales School and Barrie Central Collegiate Institute
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - Lakeshore Drive, Town of Oakville
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - 317 Mill Street, 28/30 Elizabeth Street
South, 16 Elizabeth Street South, Town of Richmond Hill
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x 728
F 519 576 0121
vhicks@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CURRICULUMVITAE
Vanessa Hicks, M.A., c.A.H.P.
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report — Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage
Landscape
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report — 28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report — 13373 Guelph Line, Milton
HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (HCDs)
Heritage Conservation District Study — Southeast Old Aurora (Town of Aurora)
CONSERVATION PLANS
Strategic Conservation Plan — Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage
Landscape
Conservation Plan — 28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener
DOCUMENTATION AND SALVAGE REPORTS
Documentation and Salvage Report — Main Street Properties, Township of
Whitchurch-Stouffville
Documentation and Salvage Report & Commemoration Plan — 474 and 484
Queen Street South, City of Kitchener
Documentation Report — 64 Grand Avenue South, City of Cambridge
Documentation and Salvage Report — 487424 30 Side Road, Town of Mono
SPECIAL PROJECTS
Artifact Display Case -Three Brewers Restaurant(275 Yonge St., Toronto)
EDUCATION
2006
Masters of Arts (Planning)
University of Waterloo
1998
Bachelor of Environmental Studies
University of Waterloo
1998
Bachelor of Arts (Art History)
University of Saskatchewan
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x 744
F 519 576 0121
dcurrie@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CURRICULUMVITAE
Dan Currie, BA, BES, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
Dan Currie, a Partner with MHBC, joined MHBC Planning in 2009, after having
worked in various positions in the public sector since 1997 including the Director
of Policy Planning for the City of Cambridge and Senior Policy Planner for the City
of Waterloo.
Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients
including a wide range of policy and development work. Dan has experience in a
number of areas including strategic planning, growth plan policy, secondary
plans, watershed plans, housing studies and downtown revitalization plans. Dan
specializes in long range planning and has experience in growth plans, settlement
area expansions and urban growth studies.
Dan holds a Masters degree in Planning from the University of Waterloo, a
Bachelors degree (Honours) in Planning from the University of Waterloo and a
Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Saskatchewan. He is a registered
Professional Planner and a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and a
Professional Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Full Member, Canadian Institute of Planners
Full Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute
Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals
Past Board Member, Town and Gown Association of Ontario
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
2013 — Present Partner,
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited
2009-2013 Associate
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited
2007-2009 Director, Policy Planning, City of Cambridge
2000-2007 Senior Planner, City of Waterloo
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x 744
F 519 576 0121
dcurrie@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CURRICULUMVITAE
Dan Currie, BA, BES, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
1999-2000 Planner, City of Waterloo
1997-1998 Research Planner, City of Kitchener
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
MASTER PLANS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND POLICY STUDIES
Township of West Lincoln, Smithville Northwest Quadrant Secondary Plan
Township of Tiny Growth Management Strategy and Urban Expansion Analysis
Niagara -on -the -Lake Mary Street Streetscape Study
Richmond Hill, Bond Crescent Intensification Strategy
City of Cambridge Climate Change Adaptation Policy
Ministry of Infrastructure Pilot Test of Growth Plan Indicators Study
Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan
Township of Tiny Residential Land Use Study
Township of West Lincoln Settlement Area Expansion Analysis
Port Severn Settlement Area Boundary Review
City of Cambridge Green Building Policy
Township of West Lincoln Intensification Study & Employment Land Strategy
Ministry of the Environment Review of the D -Series Land Use Guidelines
Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan
City of Cambridge Trails Master Plan
City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy
City of Cambridge Growth Management Strategy
Cambridge GO Train Feasibility Study
City of Waterloo Height and Density Policy
City of Waterloo Student Accommodation Study
Uptown Waterloo Residential Market Study
City of Waterloo Land Supply Study
City of Kitchener Inner City Housing Study
CONTACT
540 Bingemans Centre Drive,
Suite 200
Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9
T 519 576 3650 x 744
F 519 576 0121
dcurrie@mhbcplan.com
www.mhbcplan.com
CURRICULUMVITAE
Dan Currie, BA, BES, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP
HERITAGE PLANNING
Town of Cobourg Heritage Master Plan
Municipality of Chatham -Kent Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan
City of Markham Victoria Square Heritage Conservation District Study
City of Kingston Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan
Burlington Heights Heritage Lands Management Plan
Township of Muskoka Lakes, Bala Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan
Municipality of Meaford, Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan
City of Guelph Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District Plan
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority St John's Master Plan
City of Toronto Garden District Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan
City of London Western Counties Cultural Heritage Plan
City of Cambridge Heritage Master Plan
City of Waterloo Mary -Allen Neighbourhood Heritage District Study
City of Waterloo Rummelhardt School Heritage Designation
Other heritage consulting services including:
• Heritage Impact Assessments
• Requests for Designations
• Alterations or new developments within Heritage Conservation Districts
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Provide consulting services and prepare planning applications for private sector
clients for:
• Draft plans of subdivision
• Consent
• Official Plan Amendment
• Zoning By-law Amendment
• Minor Variance
• Site Plan