HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-08-112 - Heritage Permit Application 2008-V-010, 63 Schneider AveREPORT
Report To: Mayor Zehr and Members of Council
Date of Meeting: August 18, 2008
Submitted By: Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning (519-741-2325}
Prepared By: Michelle Wade, Heritage Planner (519-741-2839)
Ward(s) Involved: Ward 6
Date of Report: August 12, 2008
Report No.: DTS-08-112
Subject: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION 2008-V-010
63 SCHNEIDER AVENUE
PROPOSED NEW ROOF AND DORMER
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA 2008-V-010 be approved, to permit the construction of a new roof and a dormer at 63
Schneider Avenue, in accordance with the plans submitted with the application; and, subject to
the final building permit drawings being reviewed and confirmed as acceptable by Heritage
Planning staff, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
BACKGROUND:
The Development and Technical Services
Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit
Application HPA 2008-V-010. The applicant is
seeking Council's permission to construct a new
roof and a dormer, on the property municipally
addressed 63 Schneider Avenue.
Alteration applications are typically reviewed by
Heritage Kitchener prior to being considered by
Council. Since Heritage Kitchener is under a
summer recess the application was circulated
electronically to the Committee for comment. No
concerns were identified by the Committee.
REPORT:
The subject property is located on the south side of Schneider Avenue in the Victoria Park
Heritage Conservation District, and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The applicant wishes to construct a new roof on top of the existing roof of the building. The
purpose is to add insulation without damaging the existing ceiling of the attic. The applicant
obtained an ecoENERGY audit which found that the house has significant air leakage within the
attic areas. In order to address the air leakage, the applicant needs to add additional insulation.
The applicant has indicated that installation of insulation on the interior of the attic is not feasible
for three reasons. First, the existing finished height of the attic area is 7'2" and the interior
installation of insulation will lower this height thereby reducing the useable space. Second, the
ceiling of the attic is finished with a hand drawn plaster mural. The applicant wishes to preserve
this mural. Third, the removal of the sheathing from the exterior to add additional insulation may
damage the mural ceiling and the existing space between rafters will only provide limited room
for new insulation.
The applicant also wishes to construct a third storey dormer on the east side close to the rear of
the building. The dormer will be faced with white horizontal vinyl siding to match the existing
dormer located in the same location on the second storey. The dormer will contain one vinyl
casement window. The new dormer will not be visible from the front of the building due to the
scale of the building and the tree located in the front yard. The dormer will only be partially
visible from a very specific angle located in front of the neighbouring property (59 Schneider
Avenue).
Originally, the applicant proposed to construct the new roof directly on top of the existing roof
resulting in a taller fascia board and a deeper soffit overhang. The size of these proposed
features would have been approximately double the size of the existing features. In addition, it
was proposed that the new roof on the gable ends would project approximately 1.5 feet beyond
the existing soffit overhang. Heritage Planning staff expressed concerns with the applicant's
proposal especially in terms of the visual impact that the new roof would have on the existing
building and surrounding streetscape. In response to these concerns, the applicant submitted a
revised application. The revised application proposes to construct a new roof on top of the
existing roof; however, the existing soffit overhang will be maintained through the removal of the
tail ends of the roof joists. This will result in a taller frieze board.
Heritage Planning staff reviewed previous Heritage Permits, spoke with Building staff, and
contacted other Municipalities to determine if there were any similar examples that would
provide staff, Heritage Kitchener and Council with a visual understanding of the potential impact.
No examples were found. In an effort to understand the potential visual impact, Heritage
Planning staff met with a member of Heritage Kitchener who has expertise in the field of
architecture. This meeting assisted Heritage Planning staff to identify the visual impact and
potential solutions. The main visual impact will be a frieze board that is approximately double in
size. In order to reduce this impact, it was suggested that the existing frieze board be
maintained but that the new frieze board that will conceal the original roof} will project 3/4 inch
beyond the existing frieze board. This projection will provide an element of detail and visual
relief. It was also suggested that a small trim detail be provided at the interface between the
new frieze board and the soffit of the new roof.
Heritage Planning staff met with the applicant to discuss the suggestions. The applicant has
confirmed the following revisions to the application:
2
That the soffit overhang will be extended by 2 inches in order to reduce the height of the
frieze board;
The new frieze board will project 3/4 inch beyond the existing in order to provide an
element of detail and visual relief; and,
A concave trim piece will be installed at the interface of the new frieze board and the
soffit of the new roof in order to provide an additional element of detail.
The Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District Plan contains specific policies that address the
location, massing, height and materials of new additions. The plan indicates that additions
should complement the architectural style of the building and the integrity of the streetscape.
Additions should blend in comfortably and inconspicuously and seem at one with the principal
building.
In reviewing the merits of the application, City staff note the following:
^ The existing pitch and shape of the roof is conserved;
^ The height of the frieze board will be reduced by extending the soffit overhang 2 inches;
^ The height of the frieze board will be softened by a 3/4 inch projection between the
existing and new frieze board as well as the introduction of a concave trim detail at the
interface of the new frieze board and the soffit of the new roof;
^ The existing decorative brackets will be retained; and
^ The proposed dormer will only be partially visible from a specific angle.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed new roof and dormer will not detract from the heritage character of the Victoria
Park Heritage Conservation District. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of HPA-2008-V-
010.
Alain Pinard, MCIP, RPP Michelle Wade, BES
Manager of Long Range and Policy Planning Heritage Planner
Atta~hmPnt
Heritage Permit Application 2008-V-010
Jeff Willmer, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
3
CITY OF HITCHENER
HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION
Nature of Application
Exterior ,
,.
Demolition ^
Subject Property
Interior ^
New Construction ~ Alteration
Application No.
HPA...~~..~ ~ n~~
Relocation ^
Municipal Address or Legal Description: z ~' ~`~ _ s
Building/Structure Type:
Institutional ^
Residential
ether
Commercial ^ Industrial ^
Herita a Designation: Part IV ^ Part V: ~' ' ~ ~ ~~~ ~ *~ ~`~'~'
g
owner
Name: ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
Address: ~ ~'f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Telephone: (Home) _ ~ ~ ~ ~- S ~~`~ ~ ~~~~ (Work) -~ J °I '° ~'~~ ~..~5~~-
,-
Fax : ~ `~ ~- ~ ~ ~- ~6 c bar E-Mail: r~ irn ~ ~- r ~ ~~,
Agent (if applicable) ~//1~
Name:
Address:
Fax
E-Mail:
Telephone:
Builder(s)/Contractor{s}
1. Name: ~ ~ i '' Telephone: S~~ ~~~
Address: '~~~ e
Fax : ~ ~cr~ E-Mail: 5~ae ~baye - ---
2. Name:
Address:
Fax
E-Mail;
Telephone:
~2007/heritage permit application)
Proposal Outline
Please provide a written description of the project proposal including any conservation methods you plan to use. 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. Scale drawings showing the full scope of work, including
specifications and the elevations} to which the work is being done, are required. Enclose additional drawings, photos and/or other
material necessary for a complete understanding of the proposed work. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit
Application Submission Guidelines for further guidance.
~. I~
Swine ~
Expected Start Date:Tf ~Og Expected Completion Date: ' ~I ~~J~` ~DO$'
(Day/Month/Year) (Day/Month/Year)
Have ou made a Buildin Permit A lication for this work? Yes No ~ ~ ~~~ ~'~ ~'~-~
g PP ^
Y ~
Declaration
The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be
deemed part of this application for all purposes. The undersigned acknowledges that Council of the City of Kitchener shall
determine whether the information submitted in this application is sufficient. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall
be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act
shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the
requirements of the Building Code Act. 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 as provided for under the Ontario Heritage
Act.
I, the undersigned, (PRINT} ~ 1 P declare that the statements contained in this application
are true.
C
Owner's Si nature: Date: ~ ~" ~~
Heritage Permit Application Number;
Date of Notice of Receipt of Completed Application Served on Applicant:
(2007/heritage permit application)
K~e~l~sed
Philip Drader
63 Schneider Ave
(519} 5 79-8646
Dear SirslMadams,
I wish to do several renovations to my house on Schneider Ave. which will impact the outward
appearance of the house. This house is within the Victoria Park Heritage District, and means
that the approval process includes several steps not undertaken by other homes. As such, I wish
to present to your persons the reasons behind my wishes, and what those desires are.
I have had an ecoENERGY audit done which has told me that my house has an EnerGuide
score of 35 and v~hen tested at SOPa (the standard for blower door tests), has an air change per
hour (ACH} of 10.39. An IZ2000 house has an air change below 1.5, far comparison, and
complaints from homeowners of new housing have been received because of drafts with
houses achieving 3,5 air changes per hour (source: Gard Cooke from Air Solutions Inc.,
located in Cambridge). To say the house is drafty is like saying water is wet: true, and easily
felt. While the blower door fan was running (during the ecoENERGY audit), exhausting air to
the outdoors, the energy advisor and myself did a walkthrough of the house, and found that a
signi~.cant portion of the leakage came from within the attic areas, as the stairwell felt
something like a wind tunnel. I am concerned about energy efficiency in the house, due not
only to the environment, but also to the number of $600+ utility bills we receive in the winter
(we heat with natural gas).
With the previous as a bit of a background, here is work I propose to do:
1. Replace shingles as existing ones are almost finished their useful life. I've looked in the
old fire•insurance maps at the University of Waterloo, but haven't been able to find
what the original roof was made of, though `composition shingles' was the likeliest. If I
could find what the original roof was, I would certainly consider it to take advantage of
the grant to that effect. Alas, I do not know of a way to find out with certainty what it
was.
2. Install (a) an air-tight vapor barrier on the roof (once shingles have been ripped off}, (b}
insulation (so that water won't condense, also part of Ontario Building Code (OBC},
(c} joists to provide space for the insulation, an air gap (required by OBC}, a layer of
(d} sheathing on the new joists, and then light-coloured (e} shingles overtop (to help
reduce attic heating and the urban heat-island effect). To seethe impact this would have
on the overhangs, please see the included drawings of the proposed changes (done to
scale, scale shown on drawings}.
3. On the side of the rear roof (about 80% of which cannot be seen from the street due to
our neighbour's house} I would like to install a dormer with the same roof pitch as the
rest of the house. Scale drawings are included in this package.
I realize that there are arguments for maintaining the same exterior appearance of the house,
however, I am strongly convinced that my reasons for doing the work are quite valid and
should take precedence over the desire to maintain the historical appearance. Please realize that
I do enjoy having a heritage property, and treasure it as a link to the past. It is due to safety
concerns and my legal obligations as a landlord that I propose these changes (damage to the
Philip Drader
63 Schneider Ave
(519) 579-8646
building and ongoing utility costs notwithstanding). Ihave tried to be clear with the reasoning
below, and if there are any questions or concerns I will try to answer them as best I can.
1. Replacing the shingles -reasoning:
• The fact that they need to be replaced at this point in time, is one of the main driving
factors behind doing all the other renovations noted below, at the same time. It is
included simply because it is necessary to avoid water damage to the structure, and
hence determines the time frame for the other renovations.
2, Adding an extra roof vapour barrier, insulation, air gap, sheathing, shingles) on
top of the existing one -reasoning:
• Much of the air leaks are from the attic area, due to the house construction style, only
realistically solvable from the outside
• The 10.39 ACH @SOPa for our house is terrible, incredibly drafty, 42% of our heating
bill (based on HOT2000 house modeling from ecoENERG~ is due to air infiltration
• receiving $600 utility bills for heating is a financial strain
• as a landlord, I have a legal obligation to maintain the premises at 21°C unless the
tenants) accept a lower temperature. The heaters in the attics are unable to maintain
21 °C on moderately cold days, nevermind when its below -20°C outside and the wind is
blowing. The attics have on occasion fallen as far as 13°C - clearly a possible cause for
complaint. I am fortunate in that the current tenants are very tolerant to the low
temperatures in winter, but iflwhen they leave, I cannot make the new tenants as
accommodating.
• I do not wish to install insulation on the inside of the house, as the attics are finished,
and there is a ceiling mural made of plaster which covers the entirety of the one attic
which I wish to preserve, while the other attic already has a maximum height at the
inside peak of 7' 2"; any lower would reduce functional use of space,
• The possibility of removing the exterior sheathing and insulate from without has been
considered and rejected due to: the likely damage to the finished ceiling from
construction/destruction efforts; the 2.5" air gap required by code would leave
insu~cient space for any reasonable insulation - I don't wish to spend $7,000 for a
minimal change that presents a great risk to the existing finished ceiling.
• Due to the small amount of insulation in the cathedral ceiling, and the lack of an air
gap, not only do the attics get very hot in the summer and cold in the winter, but icicles
form due to the melting snow. These aren't standard icicles either, please see pictures
from this last winter for example. Please note that the broken light in the motion sensor
located above our main entryway was broken by a failing icicle.
• The large amount of melting snow has had the following results:
-damage to the eavestroughing from excessive weight and from ice forming
between the eavestrough and the fascia
-possible injury to people from falling icicles
-damage to the brick and mortar of the building in three fairly large areas (only
one area shown in the pictures, efflorescence comes from the bricks, not very
visible in pictures)
-possible rottingldamage to the existing rafters, fascia bflard and soffits (note the
coloured icicles in one picture, squeezing out from behind the frieze board)
Philip Drader
63 Schneider Ave
(519) 579-8646
The soffits are angled in some locations such that water is directed towards the house
wall (I only see evidence of this in winter) -- I haven't found signs of water damage on
the inside caused by the melting snow other than doors that are frozen shut, no damage,
but possibly dangerous in case of fire. The exterior brickwork has suffered a lot from
water and freezing temperatures as a quick look at the building will show numerous
areas where the exterior surface of the bricks has spoiled ofd, showing a rough texture.
3. Adding a dormer to the rear unit attic -- reasoning:
• Safety on the stairs - at the location where the first step is 9" deep die. Deep enough for
a foot to be safe), the height of the ceiling is 44". A dormer would mean a much higher
ceiling at this critical location
• VVe currently sleep in the attic, which was also the usage of the room before we
purchased the unit. My wife, both when pregnant, and now with carrying a squirming
child in her arms, is worried with falling down the steps because of the need to contort
to make it down the stairs
• As a sleeping location, which the room currently is, previously was, and likely will
conti~~e to b~, an egress window is desired in the case of fire. The proposed dormer
watild increase safety in case of fire.
for the reasons mentioned above I cordially ask that you approve my petition to improve safety
and reduce t impact that 63 Schneider his upon the earth's resources, achieved by
performing these renovations. I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank ybu for your time and patience.
~d regards,
Philip Drader
Michelle Wade
From: Philip Drader [pdrader a~mi-group.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:44 PM
To: Micheite Wade
Subject: Re: FW: 63 Schneider Ave.
Attachments: pdrader.vcf
pdrader.vcf (366
B)
Hi Michelle,
I believe the fascia, soffit, & eavesthrough material is galvalume, which is a combination
of steel and aluminum (ie. strength of steel, corrosion resistance of aluminum). I'd like
to have material that lasts for a long time with no issues, The coating will be powder
painted white.
The frieze board will be a wood 2x12 with flashing made of galvalume.
The trim piece will probably be wood with a bunch of coats of oil-based paint (trying to
match the existing white) to try and last longer -- if I can find a weather/corrosion
resistant material in the appropriate shape & colour then I would have a preference for
at.
Hope this helps,
Philip
Michelle.Wade@kitchener.ca wrote:
> Philip,
> Thank you for the revised information, One last question, please
> confirm the materials for the frieze board and trim detail. I believe
> that the fascia, soffits and eaves troughs were proposed to be
> aluminum. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> Thanks
> Michelle
-----Original Message------
From: Philip Drader [mailto:pdrader@mi-group,ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 200$ 9:35 AM
> To: Michelle Wade
> Cc: drader@golden.net
> Subject: Re: FW: 63 Schneider Ave,
> Hi Michelle,
> As we discussed an monday, I've made the proposed changes, with adding
> a visual relief to the new frieze board, a concave trim piece as
> suggested by the architect you talked with, and extended the eave down
> 2" as we had discussed to lessen the exposed size of the new frieze
> board. These changes are shown in the attached file.
> I believe that these were all the changes we had talked about. If you
> have anything else that you'd like, please let me know right away (I
> should be able to do it on my lunch hour).
> Have a good day,
> Philip
> PS, I've shown a 1" concave piece on the drawing, but am not sure what
i
> size would have been there historically. Any suggestions? It shouldn't
> be a big deal to change the size at any point....
> Michelle.Wade@kitchener.ca wrote:
» Philip,
» Further to our meeting, below is the advice provided by the Heritage
» Kitchener member, I recommend that you seriously consider this advice
» and contain it within the revised detail with written description. T
» feel that these elements will assist staff, Heritage Kitchener, and
» Council to provide a favourable recommendation for approval. Please
» provide the revised detail and written description asap. T would like
» to complete my staff report with recommendation and circulate to
» Heritage Kitchener for review and comment by the end of this week.
» That will provide Heritage Kitchener 2 weeks to respond (assuming the
» Aug. 11 Council date).
» Regards,
» Michelle
» T would suggest a 3/4" relief from the existing frieze board to the
» new frieze board, And ideally, your home owner would provide another
» small trim detail at the interface between the new frieze board and
» the soffit of the new roof. This trim piece could have a concave
'~ section to it or it could have both a concave and convex curve to it
creating an 's' shape in section. This is a typical crown moulding
» detail. I know that the current situation does not have a trim detail
» at the interface between the frieze board and the soffit, but that is
» because all the original detailing, save some brackets, has been
» removed from the house. I would assume that all this detailing was
» removed when the aluminum soffits were put into place. I just think
» that it would be appropriate to add back in this level of detail when
» they undertake the roof renovations.
> --
> Philip Drader
> Sustainable Design Specialist
>
> Mindscape Innovations
> ph: (519} 744-3592
fax: (519) 742-5644
. pdrader@mi-group.ca
> www.mi-group.ca
> FROM THE HORTZONS OF THE MTND, BUILDING DREAMS INTO REALITIES
> __-
> The content of this email is the confidential property of Mindscape
> Innovations
> Mindscape) and shall not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used
> for any purpose except with Mindscape's written authorization. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and notify
> us immediately.
Philip Drader
2
~~ructura~
'ing rafters to
trimm~
'e trim sectia
eze board w
aggested rel
,,.,,~„ng frieze bou,.~
Existing walllroof cross section Proposed walllroof cross section
~~tio•ozst6lS)
oairaoaaa~N~
o~anls ~ :~b~ SNOlld/~~1~ ~~~~ aN~' 1N0~~
O~SOdO~d
M
N ~ i s ~ a p~gtit :fig prrpw,p~ 'A3H 31111 {„~
D a ~ H ~ a 0 s'"z :"'~ ~~
~a~o6~p~/~aow ~~o~dadd~ soot 3Nnr era
018V1N0 M3N3H~11?I 0
. W1 ~ 'W~!6s~ ti uix,~ ~y~
~
'
~
D a$~ 4~ I~
'~Ab ~301~NH~S £9
-- ~
~~} ~ ~ ~
yl
~
,~, pu~pibu ~.y~„d,o,w. ,0-,l*,8/1. ~31VJS
~!P"15 u6np W~~D
~J ~ N i,aN4 ua ~"
~~,~
1N3w~~d~d~~ ~oo~
~ ~~ a-~I , 1~>ha~ ~~a~e ~s~urts ~a3roa~
~,
tr«p-~~9 t6~s~
a~~raodao~Nl ~ :~,~~ Noildn~~~ 1~~~
a~SOdO~d
otanis
N~ I S S O
OLSIb ~M:1B Ia^P!+!W4 •n~a ~ ~
(1 b V H a b 0 s' ~z :'"~ ~"~
•wyo6~p7/qao~ oloudo~ddo soot ~Nnr era.
OIbV1N0 b~N~Nall~
~a ul 'p~~n5w s! ~ ~
,~'~~~~ ~ I •.~~ ~~~
~ ~~ ~°
•~nd ~~ai~NH~s ~9
~~ t~ (r'a•r) a ~a 'a ~~!a
»pun pwp~6u P~W~wI p-,E= B/l ~31YJS
~ • •
~~ ub!wQ P~4~~Q
,~, ~ to ,~ ~ ,~
~
~
:~o,~ „~.N~w~ad~d~~ ~oo~
u hl~
1.Nl~
~P W7 ~1
v~ ^o!+a, ~ ~
~1VIa3d JNI~11ft8 ~S~itl1S
1~31'OHd
N
~~~ ~~