Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-07-140 - HPA 2007-V-006, 89 Joseph St~ ~, ~ T~ E Development & Technical Services Report To: Heritage Kitchener Committee Date of Meeting: September 4, 2007 Submitted By: Leon Bensason, Heritage Planner (741-2306} Prepared By: Stephanie Barber, Assistant Heritage Planner (741-2839} Ward(s~ Involved: Ward 6 Date of Report: August 20, 2007 Report No.: DTS 07-140 Subject: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION 2007-V-006 89 JOSEPH STREET DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA 2007-V-006 (89 Joseph Street} be approved, to permit the demolition of an existing single detached dwelling. BACKGROUND: The Development and Technical Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA 2007-V-006. The applicant is seeking Council's permission to demolish an existing single detached dwelling for the purposes of underground environmental remediation. The subject property is located at 89 Joseph Street, within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District (VPHCD). REPORT: The subject property is located within the VPHCD on the south side of Joseph Street between Richmond Avenue and Gaukel Street. The existing dwelling is cone-and-a- half storey Berlin Vernacular style painted-brick structure with a front gable roof and a small addition attached to , ar~. the southeast corner. The front gable end is clad with '% r , ~ ~t , aluminium siding and the front two-storey verandah is "F ~ ~ M F~ ~z;, constructed of unpainted pressure-treated wood. The ,,,,~ ~~.~ ~~' ~~~ .. .. a~ r, ~, ~~ house is in the area where environmental remediation is ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~` ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ``~~~ ~~'~~~~ being undertaken by the City to remove coal tar- ~~~~~~~~~ ~~' ~` contaminated soils. It was discovered that an abandoned storm sewer pipe is located beneath the house and requires removal as part of the clean-up. As a result, the existing building must be removed to facilitate removal of the pipe. The option of moving the house and reinstating it on the site is neither feasible nor warranted therefore it is to be demolished. When the work is completed and the site re-graded, the property owner intends to rebuild a dwelling on the site and will submit a proposal with a future heritage permit application for approval. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost to the City to demolish the house located at 89 Joseph Street is estimated to be $15,000 and is provided for in the budget for the Joseph/Gaukel reconstruction/remediation capital project (account number #880141). CONCLUSION: Heritage planning staff have undertaken an assessment of the existing building to determine its cultural heritage significance as an individual building as well as a contributing resource to the VPHCD. Staff determined that it does not possess sufficient merit as an individual heritage resource and it is not a significant contributing resource to the VPHCD. Upon completion of the remediation work, a separate heritage permit application will be submitted for approval of the replacement house which is expected to be no less effective as the existing house as a contributing resource. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of HPA 2007-V-006. Leon Bensason, MCIP, RPP, CAPHC Heritage Planner Att~chmPnt Stephanie Barber, BES Assistant Heritage Planner Heritage Permit Application 2007-V-006