HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2021-05-04Heritage Kitchener
Agenda
Tuesday, May 4, 2021
4:00p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Office of the City Clerk
Electronic Meeting
Kitchener City Hall
nd
200 King St.W. - 2Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
Page 1Chair –S. HossackVice-Chair –J. Haalboom
Due to COVID-19 and recommendations by Waterloo Region Public Health to exercise physical
distancing, City Hall is closed to the public. Members of public are invited to participate in this meeting
electronically by contacting the Committee Administrator.
While in-person delegation requests are not feasible at this time, members of the public are invited to
submit written comments or participate electronically in the meeting by contacting Dianna Saunderson
atdianna.saunderson@kitchener.ca. Delegates must register by in order to
participate electronically. Written comments will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of
the public record.
Delegations
Pursuant to Council’s Procedural By-law, delegations are permittedto address the Committeeforamaximumof
five (5)minutes.
Item4 - Owen Scott
Discussion Items
DSD-2021-58-Notice of Intention toDesignate(15 min)
-518 Bridgeport Road
DSD-2021-61-AddendumHeritage Permit ApplicationHPA-2021-IV-012(20min)
-171 Frederick Street (Suddaby Public School)
-Proposed Alterations toFrontFaçade
DSD-2021-60-Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-015
(10 min)
-59 Marianne Dorn Trail
-Masonry, Soffit and Roof Repairs,andInstallation of Skylights
Draft HeritageImpactAssessment (HIA)-35-43 SheldonAvenue North(20min)
-Construction3-storey Building
Heritage Kitchener2021-2022Work Plan(30 min)
StatusUpdates-Heritage Best PracticesUpdate and2021Priorities(5min)
-HeritageImpact Assessment Follow-ups
Information Items
Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet
Dianna Saunderson
Committee Administrator
** Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to
take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 **
REPORT TO:Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING:May 4, 2021
SUBMITTED BY:Bustamante, Rosa, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext.
PREPARED BY:Drake, Michelle,Heritage Planner,519-741-2200 ext. 7839
WARD(S) INVOLVED:Ward 1
DATE OF REPORT:April 9, 2021
REPORT NO.:DSD-2021-58
SUBJECT:Designation of 518 Bridgeport Road under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to
publish a Notice of Intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 518
Bridgeport Road as being of cultural heritage value or interest.
Location Map: 518 Bridgeport Road
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1 - 1
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to requestthatCouncil publish Notice of Intention to
designate 518 Bridgeport Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The key finding of this report is that 518 Bridgeport Road meets the criteria for
designation under Ontario Heritage Act regulation 9/06 and has been confirmed to be a
significant cultural heritage resource.
There are nofinancial implications.
Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the
agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting, consulting and
collaborating with the owner regarding implementation of the recommendations of the
HIA, and consultation with Heritage Kitchener. In addition, should Council choose to
give notice of its intention to designate, such notice will be served on the owner and
Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper (The Record).
This report supports the delivery of core services.
Façade and West Elevation (Barnes, A., 2020)
BACKGROUND:
The property municipally addressed as 518 Bridgeport Road East is located on the north
side of Bridgeport Roadbounded by Bridgeport Road, Lang Crescent and Lancaster Street
West. The 0.84-acreproperty contains a c. 1914 one and a half storey poured concrete
single detached dwelling built in the vernacular with influences from the Arts and Crafts
movement and the Georgian Revival architectural styles.In 2008, the property was listed as
a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City’s Municipal
Heritage Register. A copy of the Statement of Significance prepared for the listing in 2008
1 - 2
is attached as Appendix ‘A’ to this report. The submission and approval of a Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) was made a requirement of consent applications B2020-039 to B2020-
040to ensure that the request to create two new lots (severed lands) plus the retained lands
(for a total of three lots) had regard for and was consistent with Provincial, Regional and
Municipal policies related to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The HIA was
prepared by Amy Barnes Consulting and presented to Heritage Kitchener at their September
1, 2020 committee meeting. The HIA was approved by the General Manager of the
Development Services Departmentand concluded thatthe existing single detached dwelling
and associated landscape are heritage attributesand thereforethe subject property is a
significant cultural heritage resource that meets the criteria for designation under Ontario
Heritage Act Regulation 9/06. As a result, heritage planning staff provided comments as part
of the consent application process requesting that the property be designated under Part IV
of the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve its cultural heritage value and heritage attributes.
REPORT:
Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within our City is an important part of
planning for our future, and helping to guide change while conserving the buildings,
structures and landscapes that give our City its unique identity. The City plays a critical role
in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the
Ontario Heritage Act is the main tool to provide long-term protection of cultural heritage
resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the
local community; protects the property’s cultural heritage value; encourages good
stewardship and conservation; and, promotes knowledge and understanding about the
property. Designation not only publicly recognizes and promotes awareness, it also provides
a process for ensuring that changes to a property are appropriately managed and that these
changes respect the property’s cultural heritage value and interest.
The property municipally addressed as 518 Bridgeport Road East isrecognized for its
design/physical value and its historical/associate value. The design value relates to the c.
1914 one and a half storey poured concrete singled detached dwelling built in the vernacular
with influences from the Arts and Crafts movement and the Georgian Revival architectural
styles. Aone and a half storeyaddition at the rear and a one storey attached garage were
added in 1941.The historical/associative value relates to the indirect associations with
Thomas Pearce and the direct associations with the Sims family. Further, the landscape
demonstrates both physical/design value and associative value because of its direct
association with Carl Borgstrom, a prominent landscape architectwho immigrated from
Sweden to Ontario after World War I and together with eight other prominent Ontario
designers, founded the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA) in 1934.
The complete Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, including a list of Heritage
Attributes, is attached as Appendix ‘B’ and will form part of the Designation By-law.
Consent applications B2020-039 and B2020-040 were approved by the Committee of
Adjustment on October 20, 2020 subject to conditions. One of the conditions required the
owner to enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City outlining their agreement,
through the issuance of a Notice of Intention to Designate, that the retained lands will be
designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, in accordance with the heritage
attributes listed in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by Amy Barnes
1 - 3
Consulting, dated June 2020, prior to application for and issuance of any building permits.
In order to satisfy this condition, it is recommended that the City Clerk be directed to publish
a Notice of Intention to Designate 518 Bridgeport Road.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of
the Heritage Kitchener committeemeeting.
CONSULTand COLLABORATE – Heritage Planning staff have consulted and collaborated
with the applicant and owner regarding implementation of the recommendations of the HIA,
including designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The owner has confirmed their support
for designation subject to consideration by Heritage Kitchener and Council.
Section 29(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the Municipal
Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) before giving notice of its intention to designate a
property. Heritage Kitchener will be consulted via circulation and consideration of this report
(see INFORM above). Members of the community will be informed via circulation of this
report to Heritage Kitchener and via formal consideration by Council. In addition, should
Council choose to give notice of its intention to designate, such notice will be served on the
property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper (The
Record). Once notice has been served, the owner has the right of appealto the
Conservation Review Board.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
DTS-08-179Listing of Non-Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or
Significance on the Municipal Heritage Register
DTS-08-208Property Owner Notification Regarding Municipal Heritage Register
Listings
DSD-20-171B2020-039 and B2020-040
Heritage Act, 2019
Planning Act, 2020
APPROVEDBY: Justin Readman, General Manager
APPENDICES:
APPENDIXA– Statement of Significance
APPENDIXB– Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for Designating By-law
1 - 4
APPENDIX ‘A’: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Statement of Significance
518 BRIDGEPORT ROAD
Municipal Address:
518 Bridgeport Road, Kitchener
Legal Description:GCTPt Lot 59
RP 58R-8657 Part 1
Year Built: 1914
Architectural Style:Vernacular with
influences from Craftsman & French
Colonial Revival
Original Owner:Ernest Snow
Original Use:Residence
Condition:Excellent
Description of Historic Place
th
518 Bridgeport Road is a one-and-one-half storey early 20century concrete block
residence built in the Vernacular architectural style with influences from the Craftsman
and French Colonial Revival style. The residence is situated on the crest of a hill on a
1.43acre parcel of land located on the north side of Bridgeport Roadbetween Mackie
Placeand Lancaster Street Westin the Bridgeport WestNeighbourhood of the City of
Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principalresources that contribute to the
heritage value include the house, attached garage, and landscaped gardens.
Heritage Value
518 Bridgeport Road is recognized for its aesthetic and historic value.
The design, physical and contextual value relate to the architectureand constructionof
the residenceand attached garage as well as the landscaped gardens. The house is a
unique example of Vernacular architecture with influencesfrom theCraftsman and
FrenchCanadianColonial architectural styles.The house is in excellent condition with
many intact original elements. The house features poured concrete (1910) and cinder
block (1941) construction with concrete pargework that ispainted grey andscored to
resemble square cut stone.Architectural detailsare executed in wood, glass, stone, and
concrete including brackets, multi-pane windows, and balustrades.The landscaped
gardens display a blend of both structure and natural forms. The gardens were built in
tiers, starting with a flagstone terrace and balustrade, which stretched along the length
of the ivy-covered house. A few steps lead to a grassy level bounded by geometric
hedges before another stairway descends to a concrete pathmarking the perimeter of
the buried pool. The structured tiers give way to a sweeping lawn edged by curved beds
and towering trees. On the north edge of the property lies a steep wooded area with a
1 - 5
APPENDIX ‘A’: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
meandering path. The gardens host rare and unique speciessuch as the Carolinian
rose, Indian bean tree, and catalpa tree.
The historicand associativevalue relates to the historical ownership of the property as
well as its association with a prominent landscape architect. The house was built in
1914 by ThomasPearce as a wedding gift for his daughter, Harriet, who married
English sea captain Ernest Snow. In 1939, the property was sold to William and Mary
Sims, whonamed the house “Hilltop House.” The Sims family was well-known in
Kitchener’s legal circles. William, his brother J. Kenneth, and their father Harvey all had
law practices. Hilltop House was the first of two Sims family estates in Kitchener. In
1929, Harvey Sims built the second estate in the Chicopee area, which was later
occupied by his son J. Kenneth Sims. In 1941, a one-and-a-half storey addition to the
rear of the house was constructedby local builder Ball Brothers Construction. The
architect of the addition was T.H. Wells of Waterloo. Extensive landscaping was added
to the property in 1945 anddesigned by prominent landscape architect Carl A.
Borgstrom of Churchville, Ontario. Borgstrom also designed the landscaping at the
second estate. In addition to thetwoSims estates, Borgstrom designed the Rock
Garden at the Royal Botanical Gardens in Hamilton and was one of the founding
members of the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects.
Heritage Attributes
The heritage value in 518 Bridgeport Road lies in the following heritage attributes:
All elements related to the construction and architectural style, including:
o Concrete block construction with pargework that is painted grey and scored to
resemble square cut stone;
o All windows, window openings, and stone sills;
o All exterior doors and door openings;
o Segementally-arched portico entrance withflat canopy and brackets;
o Roof, roofline, and dormers;
o Wood soffits and brackets; and
o Brick chimneys.
All Borgstrom-designed landscape features, including:
o Curved driveway lined with trees and shrubs;
o Front lawn with grass, trees and shrubs;
o Terracedgrassslope on east side of property;
o Flagstone walkways, stairs, ramp, and concrete balustrade;
o Stone pool liner;
o Coniferous and deciduousshrubs adjacent to thehouse, on top level of
terrace;
o Trees and shrubs bordering the east side of the property; and
o Trees and sloped terrain of the east side of the property.
1 - 6
APPENDIX ‘A’: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Photos
South (Front) Elevation
East (Side) Elevation
1 - 7
APPENDIX ‘A’: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
South (Front) Elevation with driveway
East Elevation with terraced grass slopes, coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs
1 - 8
APPENDIX ‘A’: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
West (Side) Elevation
East Elevation with concrete balustrade, coniferous and deciduous shrubs
1 - 9
APPENDIX ‘A’: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Landscape Feature
1 - 10
APPENDIX ‘A’: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
City of Kitchener
Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form
Address:518 Bridgeport RoadPeriod:1914Recorder Name:T.B.
Description:Vernacular with influences from the Craftsman and French Canadian Colonial Revival architectural style
Photographs:Front Façade Left FaçadeRight FaçadeRear FaçadeDetailsSettingDate:April 13, 2008
Design or Physical Value RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Style Is this a notable,rareor uniqueexample ofa N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
particular architectural styleor type?
Construction Is this a notable,rare,uniqueor earlyexample N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
of a particular materialor methodof construction?
Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
structure because of themerits of its design,
composition, craftsmanship or details?
Does this structure demonstrate a high degree N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
of technical or scientific achievement?
Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
and/or detail noteworthy?
Notes -
Recorder: Porch woodwork, decorative brickwork, and decorative eave brackets give look of Queen Anne (modified); front gable without return eaves and
rectangular transom give the look of Berlin Vernacular
Subcommittee:Decorative Berlin Vernacular
Notes –
Subcommittee:additional research required to determine style and construction.
Contextual Value RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Continuity Does this structure contribute to the continuity N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown NoYes
or character of the street,neighbourhood or area?
Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structureN/AUnknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
or landscaping noteworthy?
Does it provide a physical, historical, functionalN/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
or visual link to its surroundings?
Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark R N/A Unknown NoYes N/A Unknown No Yes
within the region,city orneighbourhood? C
(indicatedegree of importance) N
Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
notable landscaping orexternal features that
complete the site?
Notes –
Subcommittee:Continuity – attractive, mature vegetation, similar setbacks to adjacent properties, not necessarily consistent with other side of street; Setting –
relationship of estate residence to garden structure (similar to Sims Estate ‘Chicopee’); Landmark – no differentiation between adjacent properties;
Completeness – confirm presence of outbuildings and landscape features
Integrity RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Site Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
Note: if relocated, i.e. relocated on its
original site, moved from another site, etc.
Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes
and design features?
Is this a notablestructure due to sympathetic N/A Unknown No Yes N/AUnknown No Yes
alterations that have taken placeover time?
Condition Is this building in good condition? N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown NoYes
1 - 11
APPENDIX ‘A’: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Historical or Associative Value & Significance RECORDEREVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or Unknown No Yes Unknown No Yes
contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization
or institution thatis significantor uniquewithin the City?
Is the original, previous or existing use significant? N/AUnknown No Yes Unknown No Yes
Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage UnknownNo Yes Unknown No Yes
resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the
Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act?
A property or structure valued forthe important contribution it
makes to our understanding of the history of aplace, an event,
or a people?
Notes –
Subcommittee: Landscape Architect – Carl Borgstrom; Sims Family
1 - 12
APPENDIX ‘B’
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
Description of the Property
The subject property is municipally addressed as 518 Bridgeport Road in the City of
Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo and the Province of Ontario. It is located on the
north side of Bridgeport Road, Regional Road 9, in the Bridgeport West Neighbourhood
and bounded by Lancaster Street West to the east, and Lang Crescent to the north and
west.
The subject property includes a one-and-one-half storey single detached dwelling with a
rear addition,attached garageand landscaped gardens. The property has formal
designed gardens. The dwelling is situated on the crest of a hill on a 0.84-acre parcel.
The property has a large lot and generous set back from Bridgeport Road.
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
Thesubject property demonstrates design/physical value as well as historical/associative
value.
The property demonstrates design/physical value as representative example of an early
20th century, poured concrete, vernacular building with influences from the Arts and
Crafts movement and Georgian Revival architecture style.The residence was built c.
1914 and a one-and-a-half storey addition and a one storey garage was added in 1941.
The addition was designed by local architect T.H. Wells and built by Ball Brother
Construction. The three-bay residence is built with poured concrete(c. 1914)and cinder
block (1941) with concrete pargework scored to resemble square cut stones. The ivy-
covered house features a gable end roof with overhanging eaves and dormers. It has
recessed and decorative front entrance. Many of the features are original and intact. The
house sits prominently on the highest area of the property, fronting towards Bridgeport
Road.
The property demonstrates historical/associative value because of its direct association
with Thomas Pearce and direct association with the Sims family. The residence was built
by Thomas Pearce as a wedding gift for his daughter Lena ‘Harriet’ Pearce and her
husband, English sea captain Ernest Snow. Thomas Pearce played a prominent role in
the development of the educational system in Waterloo County. In 1937, the Snows sold
the property to William ‘Bill’ and Mary Sims, who named the house “Hilltop House.”The
Sims were a well-known and respected family in Kitchener due in part to the prominence
and success of Bill’s father, Harvey Sims. Harvey Sims is directly associated with the
property known as the Sims Estate (Chicopee Estate) which featured a Humphrey Carver
and Carl Borgstrom designed landscape. Bill, along with his father and brother J. Kenneth
were lawyers in Kitchener.
1 - 13
The landscape demonstrates physical/design value and associative value because of its
direct associationwith Carl Borgstrom. Carl Borgstrom was a prominent landscape
architect from Churchville, Ontario who, in addition to various private commissions,
designed the Rock Garden at the Royal Botanical Gardens in Hamilton. He was one of
the founding members of the Canadian Associationof Landscape Architects, which
evolved into provincial chapters. Carl Borgstrom designed the garden layout for the Sims
in 1946. The landscaped gardens display a blend of both structure and natural forms. The
gardens were built in tiers, starting with a flagstone terrace and balustrade. A few steps
lead to a grassy level bounded by geometric hedges before another stairway descends
to a concrete path marking the perimeter of the buried pool. The structured tiers give way
to an open lawn edged by plantings and mature trees. The gardens host rare and unique
species such as the Carolinian rose, Indian bean tree, and Catalpa tree.A steep
unmaintained wooded area with a meandering path is found along the north side of the
property.
Description of the Heritage Attributes
The heritage attributes supporting the cultural heritage value or interest of 518 Bridgeport
Road are represented in the one-and-a-half-storey single detached dwelling, one storey
garage and the designed landscape.
Key heritage attributes associated with the built heritage resourcesinclude:
One-and-a-half storey height and south facing orientation;
The large setback from the street;
The use of poured concrete construction(c. 1914)with pargework scored to
resemble square cut stone;
The one storey garage(1941) (1941);
The window openings and sills;
The original single sash wood windows on the c. 1914 single detached dwelling;
The three-bay front facade with original wood door, side lights, and panelled
transom;
The recessed entrance with segmentally arched opening and flat canopy with
brackets, wood soffits, and woodwork scored to resemble purlins; and,
The gable roof, dormers, and roofline with overhanging eaves, wood soffits with
woodwork scored to resemble purlins.
Key heritage attributes associated with Borgstrom’s landscape features include:
The spatial order surrounding the house including the terraces, grass tier, primary
walkway in and out of the formal garden, and stone stairs and ramp;
The curved driveway and vegetation (north side) which limits views into the formal
garden and lawn;
Thefront lawn with mix of grass, trees and plantings;
The flagstone terrace with balustrade and retaining wall with centrally placed stone
stairway;
The stone edging which defines the original pool area;
The open lawn area with sloping terrain;
1 - 14
The treesand plantings bordering the east edge of the property;
The rare and unique species such as the Carolinian rose, Indian bean tree, and
Catalpa tree;
Vistas into and out of the terrace; and,
The unmaintained wooded area at the north of the property.
1 - 15
REPORT TO:Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING:May 4, 2021
SUBMITTED BY:Bustamante, Rosa,Director of Planning,519-741-2200 ext. 7319
PREPARED BY:Drake, Michelle, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839
WARD(S) INVOLVED:Ward10
DATE OF REPORT:April 16, 2021
REPORT NO.:DSD-2021-61
SUBJECT:Addendum HPA-2021-IV-012
171 Frederick Street(Suddaby Public School)
Proposed Alterations to the front façade at Suddaby Public School
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA- 2021-IV-012 requesting permission to replace the existing wood windowson the
front façade of 171 Frederick Street (Suddaby Public School) with aluminum clad
wood windowsas outlined in DSD-2021-61, in accordance with specifications
described in the followingdocuments: (a) the application form and drawings dated
February 26, 2021as contained in Appendix A; (b) the slide deck from the
presentation to Heritage Kitchenerdated April 6, 2021as containedin Appendix B;
and, (c) the email providing information to complete the application dated April 13,
2021as contained in Appendix C, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
i)That documentation in the form of current photographs and measured
drawings be prepared and submitted for each individual window on the
front elevation prior to the removal of any windows;
ii)That a full-scalesample window be produced for review on site by Heritage
Planning staff and related heritage clearanceissuedby staff to proceed
prior to the removal of any windows;
iii)That the final shop drawings for the windows be submitted for review and
heritage clearanceissuedby staff to proceed prior to the installation of any
windows; and further,
ndrd
iv)That one sample window on the 2or 3floor be installed for heritage
clearance by staff prior to proceeding with the installation of the remaining
windows.
BACKGROUND:
The Development Services Department is in receipt of acompleteHeritage Permit
Application HPA-2021-IV-012, which is seeking permission to replace the original wood
windows with new aluminum clad wood windows on the property municipally addressed as
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 1
171 Frederick Street (commonly known as Suddaby Public School). The request relates to
the pandemic and the need to address ventilation concerns in the school. Fundingthrough
the Federal Investing in Canada Infrastructure Programis availableunder the Province’s
COVID-19 Resilience Infrastructure Stream: Education Related Projectsto assist with the
window replacement program. The Waterloo Region District School Board is eager to move
forward to tender this spring, startreplacementsthissummer and finishby September 2021
in time for the new school year. In the interestof time and moving the proposal forward,
Heritage Kitchener hadthe opportunity to review the incomplete application and provide
th
comments at the April 6committee meetingfor the applicant to consider in finalizing their
submission.
REPORT:
The subject property is located on the south side of Frederick Street between Irwin Street
and Lancaster Street East in the Central Frederick planning community. The property is
designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.Originally known as Central School
when it opened on this site in 1857, the school was the first permanent common (public)
school in the Town of Berlin. The school was renamed after long-time principal Jeremiah
Suddaby.
Location Map 1: 171 Frederick Street (Suddaby Public School)
2 - 2
Designating By-law 1980—216 describes the reasons for designation and identifies the
primary heritage attributes as the façade of Suddaby Public School. As a result, a Heritage
Permit Application is required to alter the exterior of the building.
Description of Proposal
The application form outlines a proposal to replace approximately 85 of the inoperable single
hung wood windows on the front facade with new single hung aluminum clad wood windows.
A set of drawings was submitted as supporting information. The drawings were issued for
heritage approval by aba architects inc. dated February 26, 2021. The proposed aluminum
clad wood windows will offer the look of real wood on the interior but provide the durability
of aluminum on the exterior.
Photograph: Front Façade of Suddaby Public School (171 Frederick Street) (A. Clark, 2021)
Current Condition of the Front Façade (Frederick Street) Windows
The windows on the first and second floor of the school are original true divided lite (TDL)
single hung, single glazed wood windowswith a muntin width ranging from 5/8” to 3/4” and
depth of 3/8”. The basement windows were replaced approximately 25 years ago. Allthe
windows have deteriorated over time due to weathering, vandalism,and poorly executed
repairs. All window frames are in poor condition with the majority being warped with broken
seals. Signs of rot and general decay are visible on both the exterior and interior.About 10%
of the windowpanes have been replaced with plexiglass. The large size (36” wide by 106”
2 - 3
high) and weight of the windows is not user friendly and poses a safety hazard to users.
Further, not all windows are operable due to warped frames, broken opening mechanisms,
and/or being painted shut.
Review of Window Replacement Options
The owner has shared that they reviewed sixwindow products. The Ridley Windows &
Doors Norwood NORCLAD windows were chosen as they best suite the owner’s needsin
terms of price, availability, and ease of maintenance. Basic information on the other five
window products is outlined below:
Two window products can not be made large enough – Golden Windows & JeldWen
(JeldWen can’t closely match the architectural details)
Two window products are American made with a delivery and cost premium – CR
Pacific and Pella (Pella only has one muntin type, which isn’t a close match)
One window product is almost identical in details and design to the Norwood
NORCLAD product (Both are Canadian made) – LePage Double XL
Aluminum Clad Wood Windows versus Wood Windows
The applicant has outlined several advantages to using aluminum clad wood windows. The
extruded aluminum provides long-lasting colour and performance, low maintenance and
great weather resistance, and higher U-Values and less susceptible to water damage and
decay. The wood will maintain its appearance during temperature changes, provide
insulation, contribute to a warm and natural look on the interior, and allow for the duplication
of the existing wood windows on the interior.
Conversely, the owner has outlined their reasons for not replacing with wood windows. In
their opinion, wood windows would not provide the required thermal performance, user
friendly operation and low maintenance product. The owner also shared that they did not
consider a true divided lite (TDL) window because it is more expensive than a simulated
divided lite (SDL)window, and the aluminum clad wood window is not available from any
manufacturer as a true divided lite (TDL)window.
Based on the review of different window products, the owner determined that the proposed
aluminum clad wood window would be best suited based on the following criteria: low
maintenance, consistent exterior finish that matches the original windows, wood look from
interior spaces, high thermal performance, 30-50 year life expectancy, and easily operable.
Ridley Windows & Doors Norwood NORCLAD 500 Series Hung Clad Series
The applicant is proposing a window produced by Ridley Windows and Doors from their
Norwood NORCLAD series. The proposed replacements would be aluminum clad wood
windows with simulated divided lights (SDL) with both exterior and interior 5/8” profiles.
These profiles will not be an exact replica of the original but will be close.
AdditionalWork (Replacements and Repairs)
Along with the replacement of windows, the wood details around the existing windows will
need to be sanded and/or stripped of paint (where required), wood replaced (where
required), and repainted to match. All sealants willbe removed, including oil based and
asbestos containing caulking, and replaced with new latex-basedsealants. The current
aluminum infill panels are warped and separating from their backing. These panels will be
2 - 4
replaced withnew colour matched aluminum panels. This work would also involve removing
and restoring the wood molding around the new panels.
Any other replacements or repairs to the front façadenot outlined in this report and its
recommendationrequire consultation with heritage planning staff and may require a
Heritage Permit Application.
Heritage Planning Comments
In reviewing the merits of the application, heritage planning staff note the following:
The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
A heritage permit application is required to make alterations to the exterior of the
building.
The windows form a significant portion of the front elevation of the building, and the
façade is identified as a heritage attribute.
The building contributes to a terminating vista at the end of Otto Street.
The school is a local landmark.
The first and second floor windows are original while the basement windows were
replaced approximately 25 years ago.
Allofthe existing windows are in poor condition.
Documentation of each individual window has not been submitted.
A brief review of other window products was completed.
Cost, ease of maintenance and energy efficiency are important considerations in the
selection of window replacements; however, the appearance of the replacement
windows and the degree to which they respect and complement the architectural
integrity and character of the building are of considerable cultural heritage interest.
The ideal window replacement alternative would match each individual original
window in terms of material, design, proportion, operation, colour, detail, etc.
The proposed Norwood NORCLAD product is described as a simulated divided lite
(SDL), single hung, aluminum clad wood window featuring a similar design,
proportion and detail and matching operation and colour; however, a full scale sample
window has not been provided for verification on site.
The existing aluminum infill panels areto be removed and replaced with new to match
existing, including removing and restoring the wood molding around the new panels.
Based on the above, heritage planning staff recommend that HPA-2021-IV-012 BE
APPROVED subject to conditions that address documentation, verification that the
proposed window is a reasonably close match to the original windows, submission of the
final shop drawings, and installation of one sample aluminum clad wood window.
In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application
under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law
of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including but not limited to, the requirements of the
Ontario Building Code and the City’s Zoning By-law.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
2 - 5
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of
the Heritage Kitchenercommittee meeting.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
DSD-21-035Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-012, 171 Frederick Street,
Proposed alterations to the front façade at Suddaby Public School
CSD-16-028Heritage Permit Application HPA-2016-IV-028, 171 Frederick Street,
Window and door replacement (rear and rear sides of building)
Ontario Heritage Act, 2019
APPROVEDBY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
APPENDICES:
APPENDIXA– Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-012
th
APPENDIXB– April 6Heritage Kitchener presentation slides
th
APPENDIXC– April 13email with required information to complete the HPA
2 - 6
HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION &
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
th
Planning Division –200 King Street West, 6Floor
P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca
STAFF USE ONLY
Date Received:Accepted By:Application Number:
HPA-2021-
PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
1.NATURE OF APPLICATION
ExteriorInteriorSignage
DemolitionNew ConstructionAlterationRelocation
2.SUBJECT PROPERTY
282!Gsfefsjdl!Tu/!Ljudifofs-!PO
Municipal Address:
Legal Description (if know):
Building/Structure Type:ResidentialCommercialIndustrialInstitutional
Heritage Designation:Part IV (Individual)Part V (Heritage Conservation District)
Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement?YesNo
3.PROPERTY OWNER
Xbufsmpp!Sfhjpo!Ejtusjdu!Tdippm!Cpbse
Name:
62!Bsefmu!Bwf/
Address:
Ljudifofs-!PO!O3D!3S6
City/Province/Postal Code:
62:/612/2:76
Phone:
ebmf`xjefnboAxsetc/db
Email:
4.AGENT (if applicable)
Kpti!Cfebse
Name:
BCB!Bsdijufdut!Jod/
Company:
212!Sboebmm!Esjwf-!Voju!C
Address:
Xbufsmpp-!PO!O3W!2D6
City/Province/Postal Code:
62:/995/3822!y336
Phone:
kcfebseAbcbsdijufdu/db
Email:
2021 City of Kitchener – Heritage Permit Application &Submission RequirementsPage 7 of 9
2 - 7
5.WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail
as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric
is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener
Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction.
Up!ifmq!xjui!uif!obuvsbm!wfoujmbujpo!pg!uif!tdippm!uif!jopqfsbcmf!tjohmf!ivoh!xppe!xjoepxt!bsf
cfjoh!sfqmbdfe!xjui!ofx!xppe!bmvnjovn!dmbe!tjohmf!ivoh!xjoepxt/
6.REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work:
Fyjtujoh!xppe!xjoepxt!bsf!jopqfsbcmf!evf!up!tj{f!boe!xfjhiu/!Jo!sftqpotf!up!uif!dvssfou
qboefnjd!boe!bwbjmbcmf!gvoejoh!uif!XSETC!xjtift!up!sfqmbdf!uiftf!xjepxt!xjui!ofx!pqfsbcmf
xjoepxt!up!ifmq!xjui!cfuufs!wfoujmbujpo/
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage
Conservation District Plan:
Uijt!qspqptbm!jt!dpotjtufou!xjui!Qbsu!JW!pg!uif!Ifsjubhf!bdu!bt!ju!bjnt!up!sfqmbdf!uif!xjoepxt!xjui
xjui!xppe!bmvnjovn!dmbe!xjoepxt!uibu!nbudi!uif!dibsbdufsjtujdt!pg!uif!fyjtujoh!xjoepxt!po!uif
Wjdupsjb!Tusffu!gbdbef/
Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada’sStandards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx):
Uif!dibsbdufs!efgjojoh!fmfnfout!pg!uif!fyjtujoh!xjoepxt!bsf!cfjoh!nbudife!xjui!ofx!xjoepxt
uibu!bsf!cfjoh!qspqptfe!up!sfqmbdf!uifn/
7.PROPOSED WORKS
Bvhvtu0!Tfqu/!3132
Kvof0Kvmz!3132
a)Expected start date:Expected completion date:
b)Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff?YesNo
Wjdupsjb!Hspio
- If yes, who did you speak to?
c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? YesNo
- If yes, who did you speak to?
d)Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? YesNo
e)Other related Building or Planning applications:Application number
5.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this
application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this
application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a ‘complete’ application.
Theundersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the
information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and
the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or
issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application
will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available HeritageKitchener committee and
Council meeting. Submission ofthis application constitutesconsentforauthorized municipal staff to enter
upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are
2021 City of Kitchener – Heritage Permit Application &Submission RequirementsPage 8 of 9
2 - 8
necessaryfor the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has
been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and
this person is authorized to act on behalf of theowner for all matters respecting the application. The
undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and
understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Actshall not be a waiver ofany
of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the
requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event
this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener
or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could
result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act.
3132013035
Signature of Owner/Agent:Date:
Signature of Owner/Agent:Date:
6.AUTHORIZATION
If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must
be completed:
I / We, , owner of the land that is subject of this application,
hereby authorize to act on my / our behalf in this regard.
Signature of Owner/Agent:Date:
Signature of Owner/Agent:Date:
The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2),
and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of
administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under
Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection
of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division,
City of Kitchener (519-741-2769).
STAFF USE ONLY
Application Number:
Application Received:
ApplicationComplete:
Notice of Receipt:
Notice of Decision:
90-Day Expiry Date:
PROCESS:
Heritage Planning Staff:
Heritage Kitchener:
Council:
2021 City of Kitchener – Heritage Permit Application &Submission RequirementsPage 9 of 9
2 - 9
2 - 10
2 - 11
2 - 12
2 - 13
2 - 14
2 - 15
2 - 16
2 - 17
2 - 18
2 - 19
2 - 20
2 - 21
¸¸¸¸¸¸
2 - 22
2 - 23
2 - 24
2 - 25
2 - 26
2 - 27
2 - 28
2 - 29
REPORT TO:Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING:May 4, 2021
SUBMITTED BY:Bustamante, Rosa, Director of Planning,519-741-2200ext. 7319
PREPARED BY:Grohn, Victoria, Heritage Planner,519-741-2200ext. 7041
WARD(S) INVOLVED:Ward 4
DATE OF REPORT:April 20, 2021
REPORT NO.:DSD-2021-60
SUBJECT:Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-015
59 Marianne Dorn Trail
Masonry, soffit, and roof repairs and installation of skylights
RECOMMENDATION:
Thatpursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2021-IV-015 be approved to permit masonry, soffit and roof repairs and the
installation of skylights on the property municipally addressed as 59 Marianne Dorn
Trail, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the
application and subject to the following conditions:
1.That a test panel of the proposed masonry work be undertaken to the
satisfaction of City Heritage Planning staff before proceeding with such work
on the entire building; and
2.That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance
provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of any required
building permit.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to present the alterations detailed in HPA-2021-IV-015.
The key finding of this report is that the alterations will not adversely affect the heritage
character of the building or property.
There are no financial implications associated with this report.
Community engagement includedconsultation with the Heritage Kitchener committee.
This report supports the delivery of core services.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
3 - 1
BACKGROUND:
The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA-
2021-IV-015 which is seeking permission to undertake masonry, soffit and roof repairs and
install skylights on the property municipally addressed as 59 Marianne Dorn Trail. The
subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Actand was formerly
addressed as 324 Old Huron Road.
REPORT:
The subject property is located on the southeast side of Marianne Dorn Trail in the
Brigadoon community, near Templewood Drive and Old Huron Road. The property was
designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in 2013.
Location Map: 59 Marianne Dorn Trail
th
The property features a one-and-a-half storey mid-19century stone cottage built in the
Georgian architectural style. The property is associated with the Wildfong family, early
settlers of the Biehn and Bechtel Tracts. Designation by-law 2013-114 identifiesthatthe
heritage value of the property resides in the following heritage attributes:
All building elevations;
Symmetrical façade;
Stone construction, including random-coursed fieldstone walls;
Door openings, including front door with transom;
Window openings, including unusually small window openings;
Vestiges of whitewash under rear porch wall;
Roof and roofline (excluding rear shed dormer), including:
o Gable roof;
3 - 2
o Roof pitch, and
o Return eaves; and
Brick oven in former basement kitchen.
Front Elevation: 59 Marianne Dorn Trail
Masonry and Soffit Repairs
The property owner has identified holes within the fieldstone walls which require sealing to
reduce moisture and other potential damages. The previous property owners attempted to
address these damages by using spray foam and stuffing holes with cloth material. The
current owners are seeking to properly repoint the fieldstone walls using mortar deemed
appropriate by an experienced mason. These works are proposed to be generally located
along the front façadeof the property.
Existing Holes in Fieldstone Walls
3 - 3
The property owner has also identified deficiencies to the existing soffits. To ensure further
deterioration does not occur, the owner is proposing to repair and/or replace the soffits using
wood cut to size and painted white to match the existing.
Soffits Requiring Repairs/Replacement
Roof Repair and Skylights
The roof of the property is visibly sagging where beams have broken. The property owner
proposes to reinforce the interior of the roofwith wood and change the way the load of the
roof is carried. The owner, in consultation with a structural engineer, proposes to install ridge
beams supported with pillars instead of the existing tie beam system. While these alterations
are interior to the existing dwelling, and typically such works do not require approvals
through the Heritage Permit process, the pitch of the roof is an identified heritage attribute
of this property and these changes will positively affect this attribute and restore the original
pitch of the roof.
In addition, the property owners propose the installation of two south-facing skylights,
approximately 22.5 inches by 46.5 inches in size to accommodate additional light into the
second storey of the home. The owner is proposing skylights so as not to adversely affect
the stone façade of the dwelling nor the symmetrically placed window openings. The
skylights will not be visible from the public right-of-way, however this is an alteration that
affects an identified heritage attribute of the property by creating a new window opening.
3 - 4
Image of Proposed South-Facing Skylights
Additional Works
The property owner is proposing the construction of a fence around a portion of the property
and a knee-high wall across the front of theproperty. While these works are noted in the
Heritage Permit Application form submitted, additional information about these works is
required, particularly with respect to location, material, and dimensions. As such, these
works are not subject to HPA-2021-IV-015 and will be considered as part of a future Heritage
Permit Application. Additionally, the property owners are also proposing a privacy screen
across the rear of the property. While not subject to a Heritage Permit Application given the
location and type of structure, it is noted that this privacy screen is proposed to be
constructed of wood, be approximately 9 feet height high and constructed in two segments,
31 feet and 11 feet respectively, for a total of 42 feet in length.This is in keeping with the
City’s Fence By-law requirements.
Heritage Planning Comments
In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following:
The proposal to repair the fieldstone walls using materials and methods consistent
with good conservation practices follows Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines
for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada;
The property owner proposes to use an experienced and qualified mason to
undertake the stone masonry repairs;
The soffit repair/replacement will be consistent with the existing;
The interior roof repairs will restore the original pitch of the roof and positively affect
this identified heritage attribute;
The installation of south-facing skylights will not be visible from the front of the
dwelling and will not negatively affect the attributes of the property;
The works proposed will not adversely affect the heritage character of the building
and property.
In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application
under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law
of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the
3 - 5
Ontario Building Code and Zoning By-law. In this regard, staff confirm that a Building Permit
is required to undertake the roof repairs.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of
the Heritage Kitchenercommittee meeting.
CONSULT – Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit
Application.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Ontario Heritage Act
APPROVEDBY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-015
3 - 6
HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION &
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
th
Planning Division 200 King Street West, 6Floor
P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca
STAFF USE ONLY
Date Received:Accepted By:Application Number:
HPA-2021-
PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
1.NATURE OF APPLICATION
ExteriorInteriorSignage
DemolitionNew ConstructionAlterationRelocation
2.SUBJECT PROPERTY
Municipal Address:59 Marianne Dorn Trail
Legal Description (if know):
Reference Plan 58R-17549, formally known as a portion of
324 Old Huron Road
Building/Structure Type: Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional
Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement?YesNo
3.PROPERTY OWNER
Name:Sebastian Amadeus Prins
Address:59 Marianne Dorn Trail
City/Province/Postal Code:Kitchener, ON, N2R 0H4
Phone:1.647.687.9049
Email:sebastian.prins@gmail.com
4.AGENT (if applicable)
Name:Click or tap here to enter text.
Company Address:Click or tap here to enter text.
City/Province/Postal Code:Click or tap here to enter text.
Phone:Click or tap here to enter text.
Email:Click or tap here to enter text.
3 - 7
5.WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed.
Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details,
whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages
as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission
Guidelines for further direction.
There are three items, each to be considered individually, which we would like to undertake.
Item 1: Façade repair
There are multiple holes/gaps/openings which require sealing to reduce possible
moisture/pest entry and related damages. The previous owner seems to have used spray
foam (which does notmatch the aesthetics of the façade) or stuffed holes with old clothing.
Proper repointing with lime mortar is required to restore the façade and prevent deterioration
of the heritage value of the home.
In addition, the soffits need to be repaired/replacedto prevent continued deterioration. Style
would be maintained, with wood cut to size, and painted white to match.
For both repairs described under Item 1, see the at
for images of damage, as well as image of what current stonework/soffits look like.If
particular project is in keeping with the objectives of that grant.
Item 2: Fencing
We are keen to put up some fences on the property.
The first proposed fence is a high,nearly six foodwooden panel fence between the adjacent
properties for backyard privacyon the north and south side of the property.The south side
of the property already has a low, chain link fence, with the northside of the property having
no fence whatsoever.There is already a high wooden fence on the west side of the property.
We propose leaving the eastern side of the property unfenced, as there is contextual
heritage value in view of the ravine historically as a source of water, and now as a view.
Across the front of the property, we would like to consider a low, knee-high stone wall. We
would match the construction of the knee-
using similarly sized fieldstone, with ample mortar between stones. In addition, we want a
small, sidewalk-facing stone bench built into the wall. If the city is open to it, we would be
keen to have a heritage plaqueorsignpostspeaking to the history of the property adjacent
to the stone bench.This plaque/signpost
settlement and construction of the cottage, as well as note the Georgianarchitectural
elements.
will highlight location and provide sample photos to help the reader understand style.
Item 3: Roof Repair and Skylight
One of the protected elements under By-Law 2013-114is the pitch of the roof.Dueto a lack
ofmaintenance, the roof is visiblysagging where beams have broken.In order to repair and
enhance the support,a structural engineer hired on behalf of the homeownersuggests
3 - 8
reinforcingthe interior of the roof with wood, and changing the way theload is carried
moving away from the current tie beamsystem,to a ridgebeamsupported with pillars
running to through to the roof.
Given the poor insulation of the roof, this is an opportunity to move away from the existing
blown insulation (which, at a minimum would need to be redistributedto ensure better heat
retention) to spray foam insulation, which can have highR-values with lower depth.
Finally, the homeowners hope to use this opportunity to instaltwo south facing skylights in
the house -neither visible from the road, installed in a fashion to preserveoverall house
symmetry(along the median plane).
This will highlight location and provide sample photos to help the reader understand
proposed style.
Thestructural engineers stamped design is attached as Item 4. For the verticalbeams
proposed in thedrawings, thehomeownerwill use beams matching the existing vertical
beams.
6.REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION
GUIDELINES
Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work:
Item 1 is necessary. If not taken in a timely fashion, it increases the chance of additional
damage to the façade/roof related to moistureand/or pest (entry and related damages).
The current attempts to repair the façade are non-conforming to the heritage act (e.g. spray
foam on the exterior diminishes the heritage value of the property, and is not a period
method of repair). In addition, attempts to fill holes with old clothing is both a stop gap, as
well as diminishes the heritage value of the property (detracts from the overall look).
Item 2 is not necessary. It provides the current owners with some increased privacy, and
barrier between the property line and the road (safety, for future kids, pets, etc).The owners
have attempted to enhance theheritage value of the property while meeting our personal
goals by building a front wall that echoes the period style and has a location where the
history of theWildfong cottage can be celebrated (stone bench, and plaque/signpost
location).
Item 3 is necessary.If not taken in a timely fashion, it will increase the wear and tear on
portions of the shingling and roof in sagging portions. Withoutthis work, the pitch of the roof
will not conform to the originalpitch protected in By-law 2013-114.As a less necessary
aspect,to be considered individually, the homeowner would liketo add additional natural
light upstairs, with no modification to the heritage stone wall (as, skylight is through the roof,
which is made of modern materials). Installation would be only on the south facing slope of
the roof, which is not visible from the road when viewing the property (as, north facing slope
of the roof is visible).The skylight selected would not bowed out from the roofit would lay
flat, and be inline with the pitch.
3 - 9
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the
Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan:
For Item 1:
While this involves interacting with a protected element of the property, repair must be
completed for long-term upkeep. It is untenable to leave cracks in the mortar for extended
periods of time.
The owners propose repair in a fashion that is consistent with the heritage aesthetic of the
property, including the use of lime mortar in the pointing of the brick.
We do not believe the soffits are a protected feature of the property. The owners propose
using woodcut to size and painted the same white accent colour of the rest of the wood on
the roof. Given the relative simplicity of this repair, and the understanding that the feature
is not protected, the owners propose doing the repair themselves.
For Item 2:
By-Law 2013-114 articulates that there is contextual value in the stone cottages proximity
to the valley landscape originally for functional purposes (proximity to water), and now to
provide a view of the valley landscape.
In acknowledgement of this, the property owners have not proposed any fencing on the
eastern line of the property. This would keepan unobstructed view of the ravine, preserving
heritage value.
In addition, to enhance the heritage value, and celebrate the historical significance, the
property owners are proposing for the western fence to be a knee-high stone structure,
mirroring the random-coursed fieldstone construction of the house. In addition, the proposal
includes an external, sidewalk facing, stone bench which could feature a historical
plaque/signpostcottage
andGeorgian
architectural style.
For Item 3:
The roof pitch is a protected item under By-law 2013-114it is clear from the exterior that
additional work is needed to ensure the restoration of the roof pitch.This work is needed to
bring the pitch of the roof back to the originalpitch.
While the roof line, gable roof, roof pitch and return eaves are all protected under By-law
2013-114, the roofing itself is of modern make, with the shingling having been redone in
2015.
To add more sunlight to the upstairs floor, without impacting the stone façade, or the
symmetrically placedwindow openings in the stone face, we are proposing the addition of
two skylights.
To maintain the strong visual of a historical home on the property, we are proposing the
installation of two south facing skylights.This would mean that a pedestrian or vehicle
driving by the house would not be able to see the skylights on the roof. In addition, we
3 - 10
propose that the skylights be placed in a fashion maintains symmetry when viewed from the
Given that the by-
a skylight modifies a non-protected portion of the house, and can be done in a tasteful
fashion, that preserves the curbside heritage aesthetic of the Wildfong cottage.
Standards and Guidelines for
the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada(click for link)
Click or tap here to enter text.
7.PROPOSED WORKS
st
a)Expected start date:April 1, 2021
st
Expected completion date:August 31, 2021
b)Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff?Yes No
If yes, who did you speak to?
Victoria Grohnand Michelle Drake. In addition, both attendedthe site for avisual
inspection of these proposals.
c)Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff?Yes No
If yes, who did you speak to?
Thehomeowner is in the early stages of applying for a building permit for Item 3,
specifically theroof repaircomponent.It is the homeding that no
permits are required forItems 1 or 2façade repair, and building a fence (so long
as they are under the municipality designated height) do not require a building
permit.
d)Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work?Yes No
e)Other related Building or Planning applications: Click or tap here to enter text.
Application number:Click or tap here to enter text.
8.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of
this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt
of this application by the City of Kitchener -Planning
application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine
whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will
beundertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or
resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed
to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next
available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application
constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of
conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this
application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality
is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized
to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that
the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval
of this application under the Ontario Heritage Actshall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any
3 - 11
by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building
Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is
approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from
the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could
result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Recoverable Signature
X
March 16, 2021
Signature of Owner/Agent:
Signed by: Sebastian Prins
X
Signature of Owner/Agent:
3 - 12
9.AUTHORIZATION
If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following
authorization must be completed:
I / We, Click or tap here to enter text., owner of the land that is subject of this application,
hereby authorize Click or taphere to enter text.to act on my / our behalf in this regard.
X
Signature of Owner/Agent:
X
Signature of Owner/Agent:
The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section
42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes
of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt
under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about
this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated
Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769).
3 - 13
STAFF USE ONLY
Application Number: Click or tap here to enter text.
Application Received:Click or tap here to enter text.
Application Complete:Click or tap here to enter text.
Notice of Receipt:Click or tap here to enter text.
Notice of Decision:Click or tap here to enter text.
90-Day Expiry Date:Click or tap here to enter text.
PROCESS:
Heritage Planning Staff:Click or tap here to enter text.
Heritage Kitchener:Click or tap here to enter text.
Council:Click or tap here to enter text.
3 - 14
LƷĻƒ Њ
3 - 15
LƷĻƒ Ќ
3 - 16
Nbs!37-!3132
3 - 17
Nbs!37-!3132
3 - 18
Date:April 22, 2021
To:Members of Heritage Kitchener
From:Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner
cc:
Subject:35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North
Draft Heritage Impact Assessment
The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated April 21,
2021and prepared by CHC Ltd. regarding the properties municipally addressed as 35 and43
Sheldon Avenue North. The subject properties are not listed or designated under the Ontario
Heritage Act, but are of heritage interest.
A draft Cultural Heritage Report (CHER) and draft CHER/HIA were prepared for 35 and 43
Sheldon Avenue North by CHC Ltd. and dated April 16, 2016and February 3, 2021, respectively.
The existing buildingson these propertiesare mirror images constructed in the “Tudor Revival”
style of architecture and the properties share prominent landscape features. There is a 3-storey
building proposed to be constructed behind the existing buildingsas part of a comprehensive
redevelopment plan. As such, the properties at 35 and 43 Sheldon Avenue North are being
evaluated and assessed together.
Theowner’s heritage consultant will be in attendance at the May 4, 2020 meeting of Heritage
Kitchener to present the draft HIA and answer questions. Heritage Planning staff will be seeking
the committee’s input and comments, which will be taken into consideration as part of staff’s
ongoing review of the HIA and the development application. A motion or recommendation to
Council will not be required at the May meeting.
A copy of the draft HIA is attached to this memo.
_____________________________
Victoria Grohn, BES
Heritage Planner
Attach.
Draft Heritage Impact Assessment for 35 and 43 Sheldon Avenue North prepared by CHC Limited
and dated April 21, 2021.
4 - 1
4 - 2
4 - 3
4 - 4
4 - 5
4 - 6
4 - 7
4 - 8
4 - 9
4 - 10
4 - 11
4 - 12
4 - 13
4 - 14
4 - 15
4 - 16
4 - 17
4 - 18
4 - 19
4 - 20
4 - 21
4 - 22
4 - 23
4 - 24
4 - 25
4 - 26
4 - 27
4 - 28
4 - 29
4 - 30
4 - 31
4 - 32
4 - 33
4 - 34
4 - 35
4 - 36
4 - 37
4 - 38
4 - 39
4 - 40
4 - 41
4 - 42
4 - 43
4 - 44
4 - 45
4 - 46
4 - 47
4 - 48
4 - 49
4 - 50
4 - 51
4 - 52
4 - 53
4 - 54
4 - 55
4 - 56
4 - 57
4 - 58
4 - 59
4 - 60
4 - 61
4 - 62
4 - 63
4 - 64
4 - 65
4 - 66
4 - 67
4 - 68
4 - 69
4 - 70
4 - 71
4 - 72
Date:February 16, 2021
To:Members of Heritage Kitchener
From:Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner
Michelle Drake, Heritage Planner
cc:
Subject:Heritage Kitchener 2021-2022 Work Plan
Each of the City’s Advisory Committees, with the assistance of staff, are required to develop and
implement a Work Plan for the coming term. The objective of these Work Plans is to outline the
various initiatives to be pursued in the coming term along with a proposed timeline for completion.
The 2019-2020 Heritage Kitchener Work Plan is attached for the Committee’s information and
can be referenced to help guide the development of the 2021-2022 Work Plan.
The core business areas of the Heritage Kitchener committee, as outlined in the committee’s
Terms of Reference,include the following:
Recommendations to City Council on:
o Designating property under the Ontario Heritage Act;
o Listing property on the Municipal Heritage Register;
o Heritage Permit Applications;
Review nominations and make recommendations for a Mike & Pat Wagner Heritage
Award; and
Promote awareness and education on heritage conservation related matters.
Heritage Planning staff areseeking input from the Heritage Kitchener committee to develop the
2021-2022 Work Plan. Heritage Kitchener members are encouraged to consider the following
when identifying action items for the Work Plan:
What initiative does the Action fall under?
o OHA related (designation, listing)
o Promotion & Awareness
When should the Action be undertaken in 2021-2022?
o One year or both years?
o Ongoing (year round) or does it have a more defined timeline?
Who would need to take the lead?
o HKmembers/joint with City Staff assistance?
What is the Priority from 1 to 3?
o Priority 1: budget related, Council directive, legislated requirement, time sensitive
o Priority 2: Work Plan priority but not necessarily time sensitive
o Priority 3: Subject to available time and resources (a nice to do)
Are there any budget / resourcing implications?
5 - 1
Additional discussions will take place over the following meetings to finalize the Work Plan in May
or June.
Attachment:
2019-2021 Heritage Kitchener Work Program
5 - 2
5 - 3
roof dormers
replace windows
dwelling to a duplex
HPA Description
installation of skylights
Suddaby Public School
Demolish a detached garage
Demolish a detached garage
Construct a detached garage
Ground floor façade alterations
Construction of a carport addition
Construction of a detached garage
Masonry, soffit and roof repairs, and
Proposed alterations to the façade of
Construct a one-storey addition to the
with an enclosed addition and balcony
Reconstruction of rear porch and balcony
Installation of solar panels and metal roof
second storey rear addition and construct
Construction of an addition and alterations
southwest side of the existing building and
Replace windows, replace roof, construct a
Remove rear porch and balcony and replace
Alteration and conversion of single detached
25-Jan-21
25-Jan-2125-Jan-2122-Feb-2122-Mar-2115-Mar-2116-Mar-21
Delegated Approval
Council Meeting Date /
eritage Kitchener
Recommendation
Carried UnanimouslyCarried UnanimouslyCarried UnanimouslyCarried UnanimouslyCarried UnanimouslyCarried Unanimously
H
Initial comments & feedback
6-Apr-216-Apr-21
5-Jan-215-Jan-215-Jan-215-Jan-21
2-Mar-212-Mar-21
2-Feb-212-Mar-212-Mar-212-Mar-21
4-May-214-May-21
HK Meeting
#
DSD-21-001DSD-20-003DSD-21-036DSD-21-038DSD-21-039
DSD-21-002DSD-21-002DSD-21-018DSD-21-041DSD-21-037
DSD-2021-34DSD-2021-35DSD-2021-61DSD-2021-60
Staff Report
2021 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS (HPA)
Date Complete
Legend: Unanimously approved by Heritage Kitchener permits an HPA to be approved through delegated authority.
17 Park St11 Park St
38 Shirk Pl
8 Devon St
23 Roland St
37 Heins Ave
172 Queen St N172 Queen St N
171 Frederick St
25 Margaret Ave
137-147 King St E
68 Saddlebrook Crt
Property Address
59 Marianne Dorn Tr
1249 Doon Village Rd
300 Joseph Schoerg Cres
Application Number
PA-2021-IV-012
HPA-2021-IV-001HPA-2021-V-002HPA-2021-V-003HPA-2021-IV-004HPA-2021-V-005HPA-2021-IV-006HPA-2021-IV-007HPA-2021-IV-008HPA-2021-V-009HPA-2021-V-010HPA-2021-V-011HHPA-2021-V-013HPA-2021-V-014HPA-2021-IV
-015
123456789
#
101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233
IF1 - 1