Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage Impact Assessment - Proposed Development - 30-40 Margaret Ave1 7I'r,I,C~r~ City of Kitchener l~ 1 ~evelo ment& P Technical Services City Hall, 200 King St. West P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Date: October 21, 2008 To: Members of Heritage Kitchener From: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning cc: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner Subject: Heritage Impact Assessment Proposed Development 30-40 Margaret Avenue Please find enclosed a copy of a Heritage Impact Assessment for 30-40 Margaret Avenue. The subject vacant parcel of land is located within the proposed Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District, and has been prepared as a condition of the consideration of a Site Plan application for development. The consultant team representing the applicant will be making a presentation to Heritage Kitchener regarding this HIA. City staff would like to solicit the Committee's comments and input prior to making a decision. Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. landscape architects, environmental planners, heritage planners 319 Woolwich Street, Guelph, ON N1H 3W4 (519) 824-8664 fax (519) 824-6776 email landplan~a~thelandplan.com Website www.thelandplan.com October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue. Kitchener Table of Contents 1.0 BACKGROUND -REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) .... 1 2.0 HERITAGE and DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS -the HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT . 1 2.1 Present owner contact information ......................................... 4 2.2 Site history ............................................................ 4 2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes ...................................................... 4 2.4 Documentation of the heritage resource ..................................... 5 2.5 The proposed development ............................................... 7 2.6 Conservation -principles and mitigation ..................................... 7 2.7 Summary of conservation principles and how they will be used .................. 10 2.8 Proposed demolition /alterations explained ................................. 10 2.9 Alternatives for salvage mitigation ........................................ 10 2.10 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Statement ............ 11 3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 11 4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION .......................................... 11 Appendix 1 -City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Appendix 2 -email correspondence to Owen Scott from Leon Bensason, February O1, 2008 (including) Internal Memo (City of Kitchener), to Juliane von Westerholt from Leon Bensason subject: 30-40 Margaret Avenue -Site Plan Pre Application Meeting, Cultural Heritage Planning Comments, October 4, 2007 Appendix 3 -Tree survey Appendix 4 -Qualifications of the author The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 1 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener 1.0 BACKGROUND -REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) In response to a Site Plan Pre-Application for 30-40 Margaret Avenue property, comments from Cultural Heritage Planning were provided in a memorandum of October 4, 2007' . The currently vacant property falls within the newly created Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCHCD). The vacant parcel of land at 30-40 Margaret Avenue was recognized within the CCHCD Study as a candidate site for redevelopment. The following statement was made in the Study document: Given relatively recent development activity, along with the large vacant property on Margaret Avenue and the range of designations that contemplate some form of integrated redevelopment and mixed uses, it is also apparent that much of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood has the potential for additional, and possibly dramatic changes in the future. If not sensitively handled, such changes could permanently alter both the visual and historical character of the neighbourhood and streetscape. Given Council's acceptance of the CCHCD Study conclusion that the Civic Centre Neighbourhood is of significant cultural heritage value and deserving of designation; and given that the sensitive development of the subject property was specifically identified as a matterthat deserves particular attention ifthe visual and historical character ofthe Civic Centre Neighbourhood and Margaret Avenue streetscape is to be conserved; in compliance with Provincial Policy Statement 2.6.1, staff required that a Heritage Impact Assessment be a submission requirement for any development application made forthis property. This HIA follows the City of Kitchener Heritage ImpactAssessmentTecros of Reference (see appendix 1) and recommendations found in a memorandum to Owen Scott (author of this HIA report) from Leon Bensason of the City, February O 1, 2008 (see appendix 2). 2.0 HERITAGE and DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS -the HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2 The CCHCD Plan provides specific guidance regarding the development of the subject property. In this regard the following comments are made in the HCD Plan document. The large vacant lot on Margaret Avenue is currently designated Medium Density Multiple Residential, which is intended to permit some integrated medium density development while maintaining the overall character of the neighbourhood. Zoning for the large vacant parcel is R8, which permits a floor space ratio of 2 and a maximum height of24 metres (approximately 8 storeys) for multiple dwellings. The majority of buildings beside, across from and backing onto the large vacant site on Margaret are still the original detached dwellings, primarily 2 to 2-% storeys in height. One high rise apartment is situated across from the east end of the site. While the zoning would allow for construction of an 8 storey building, itwould be more difficultfor a building of this height to "maintain the overall character of the neighbourhood". Actual architectural and design elements, along with siting of buildings would likely play an equally importantrole in whether new developmentwas compatible with the character ofthe neighbourhood. 1 Internal Memo (City of Kitchener), October 4, 2007. to: Juliane von Westerholt, from: Leon Bensason, cc: Alain Pinard. subject: 30-40 Margaret Avenue -Site Plan Pre Application Meeting, Cultural Heritage Planning Comments z ibid The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 2 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener With the permitted floor space ratio of 2, it would be very possible to achieve the maximum floor area within a building envelope of S storeys or less. As a result, consideration should be given to reducing the maximumpermittedheightin this area to approximately 16. S metres to reducepotential height impacts on the street and adjacent neighbours. Height impacts could also be addressed through the addition of angular planes and/or stepback requirements in the zoning by-law or guidelines to minimize building heights nearest the street. In addition, a maximum frontyard setback of 10 metres is recommended to establish a street edge similar to the opposite side of Margaret Avenue. It is also recognized that there are quite a number of mature trees that are located on the property. Opportunities to retain and/or design around these trees should be encouraged. 3 The high rise building referred to in the Stantec report is 18 storeys and there is another apartment building of 4 storeys opposite the west end of the property. The CCHCD Plan also contains area and site specific design guidelines including the following guidelines for 30-40 Margaret Avenue, which should be considered during the building and site design process: • New development on the vacantlot onMargaretAvenueshould establish a strong relationship to the street similar to that which exists on the south side of the street, by having a maximum front yard setback of 10 metres. • A minimum rear yard setback of I O to 1 S metres is encouraged to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street West, given that the topography slopes downwards from Margaret Avenue to Ellen Street. This rear yard setback is also more consistent with that of existing development on Ellen Street. • Building stepbacks are encouraged for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. Stepbacks should be a minimum of 2 metres to provide for useable outdoor terraces on the upper levels. • Street level architecture of any new development on Margaret Avenue should incorporate a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and compatibility with existing buildings across the street. Details could include cornices, pilasters, varied roof lines, pitched roofs, gables and dormers, decorative door and window details, turrets, porches, bays and other similar features. • Create transitions in building width and massing by dividing the building visually into smaller units or sections that are more representative of the predominantly single family nature of the neighbourhood. • The use of brick and/or stone is strongly encouraged for the front facade of any new development, to establish consistency with other heritage buildings in proximity to this parcel of land. • Parking for new development will not be permitted in the front yard. Underground parking is strongly encouraged, or appropriately landscaped and screened surface parking at the rear or side of the development. • Retention and incorporation of healthy trees currently located on the vacant land parcel is strongly encouraged to provide the new development with an `instant' amenity and to help it blend into the heritage landscape that exists in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Design new buildings around the existing trees to the extentpossible. Where trees mustbe removed, they s Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, Stantec, August 2007 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 3 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener should be replaced with new ones at appropriate locations in the landscape. The illustrations ...... show a conceptual design for the Margaret Avenue site that would result in relatively high density, yet be compatible with the heritage character of the neighbourhood with respect to built form, relationship to the street, building articulation, use of upper storey stepbacks and incorporation of architectural features such as porches, pitched roofs, window proportion and placement. a ~ , ~, r '~~', ., f ~'„ i. Y~ 3 G.~G_.f.,11: ,f~:~fl~ v'Yf^h v ... -~. r5.li ',., 1`' ,^~M4' wftil X11^tY.l lk klIYI.SI IYI.f ~Y a ibid The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue. Kitchener 2.1 Present owner contact information Margaret Holdings c/o Community Expansion Inc. 519-745-1142 2.2 Site history s The property was purchased by the current owners in a City of Kitchener tax sale about five years ago. The structures had been removed by previous owners prior to purchase. This property was home to a number of significant mansions which were allowed by their property owners to go into serious disrepair and eventually were demolished in the 1980s and 1990s. 6 The property, prior to the structures being removed, consisted of eight lots. The residence at 54 Margaret maybe typical of the homes that once graced these lots from the mid-19~'to the mid-20~' century. 2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes' There are no extant structures on the property, nor are there any visible remnants. Heritage elements consist solely of a number of mature trees, many planted in the early part of the 20~' century or before. (see appendix 3) Some of the former lot fabric can still be discerned, mainly via the location of the trees and former driveways still visible. It appears that portions of Ellen Street rear lots were purchased and added to the property at the time of land assembly. (see figure 2) `~~ , ~ ' ~ ~ ~t~ 3 ~ 3 ~n~xAG'~ w P . fi'_. :sus . ~•,+zde 7N~ ~ Y J I. i{Y ~ti4H ~~hJ ~t , former lot fabric -Lots 194-203 and 211-217 figure 2 s to reference previous use and include a site biography, but need not be detailed. (Leon Bensason memo to Owen Scott, February O1, 2008) 6 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, Stantec, August 2007, page 3.10 ~ to reference existing cultural attributes such as the mature vegetation, setting, and any evidence of previous development (Leon Bensason memo to Owen Scott, February O1, 2008) The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 s photographs of property and approaches to property, archival photographs or images (ibic~ The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue. Kitchener ti~ -o- .., ~;; w,, '~, s Af L; ~~ ~ ~ r fir, ' ~,. ~ ~ ,t ,< (y: ~ o~ + , ,. ~t ., ' c r „v ,^~a a` ~ ''yam i n ''r~R E 1, ., „~ ~ ~ ,., ~.,o°' e u~ ~, r ~, #1 - 18 storey apartment tower #2 -single family residences #3 -four storey apartment east side of Margaret street from subject property ,, ,~ .I M i~. (V ,; a t Z`~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~..pp~~ ,~. n L ".lam 'C i ii ~ ~ ft f ~'1 ~TS'.T. ~' .. s > >~t ~t ~ 1• i 1~~ ~ v f~~~~ -~' - ~ .,S,F IY.. r ~ S ~, ~tif ~ i y .. s, , N { 4 d ~ ~ ; Y` } ~ ,~ ~ ~ .}~`i. ~i ~ SS ~K ,. i~ ~~ T . .. i ~ V 3' r ~' 1 ' ~ W , ~ ~ ~ E~ "W ~,tfi~t ~ ~ ~ ,n MM ..~~~,~ ~ i s '' Ha tea, ,.,. #4 -Church of the Uood Shepherd #5 -church parking lot 3 - 4 storey church on southern border of subject property ~~ ~.~ a ~~z. 1,,~ F~ 1 t' fW e ~ ak., I F:, ~~, ~y~ F~ '( 1 x 4 u~`~'c~ E r +~ ` ~,, ~" ~ ~... ~,.°~- #6 -residence 2 '/2 storey residence on northern boundary of property i Y' ,i .s :~ ~ , ti #7 -panorama from north to south looking east at rear of Ellen Street houses, garages and sheds on deep lots The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue. Kitchener 2.5 The proposed development The Civic CentreNeighbourhoodHeritage ConservationDistrictPlan, (Stantec, August2007) notes with respectto the property: A large parcel ofland on the eastside ofMargaretAvenue is currently vacant, except for a number of mature trees......... Because it is such a large site and is located on one of the more highly travelled streets in the District, it has pronounced visibility with the potential to significantly enhance or detract from the overall character of the neighbourhood depending on the ultimate appearance of development on the site. 9 Figure 4 illustrates how the proposed development reflects the streetscape and scale of Margaret Avenue opposite and how it creates a rhythm that reflects the original lot configuration. Driveways at either end of the development lead to an underground garage. Setbacks reflect those in the neighbourhood. Landscape plantings are consistent with historic patterns. Placement of buildings perpendicular to the street in the established pattern of the neighbourhood, step backs of the upper floors, and rear yard setbacks are designed to prevent shading issues associated with the structures. The proposed development respects the historic context of both the property and the neighbourhood. ,~ ~ _ ;~ r-`A .~. J ~~.~ a ~,.v ;~ ~,. .«.: ,~~ ~ k ..r p k - i I ~ S \~ ~ ,)'<., 't i ~ `; ~' fib' .-: i - ' .. _. Fi site plan figure 4 2.6 Conservation -principles and mitigation 10 Heritage features on the property are limited to the mature trees as no structures or remnants of structures remain. Guidance to conservation is provided in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation DistrictPlan, (Stantec, August 2007) as outlined in section " 2.0 Heritage and Design Considerations -the Heritage Impact Assessment" of this report. The principles are re-stated here, with comments 9 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, (Stantec, August 2007) io discussion regarding if and how the development proposal meets the HCD Plan guidelines and if not, what mitigative measures are recommended and discussion regarding how the mitigative measures or recommended conservation option address the specific principles and guidelines within the HCD Plan relating to this property (Leon Bensason memo to Owen Scott, February O1, 2008) The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue. Kitchener on how they are to be implemented. • New development on the vacant lot on MargaretAvenue should establish a strong relationship to the street similar to that which exists on the south side of the street, by having a maximum front yard setback of 10 metres Residences on the opposite side ofthe street have setbacks that range from 0 to 10 metres. These setbacks are a guide for 30 - 40 Margaret Avenue, assuming that the proposed buildings are in scale with those that exist opposite. The residential units proposed for the property are four storeys set back 4.5 m from the street, with the 5th and 6th storeys set back another 3 m. The scale of the buildings at the 4.5 metre setback is consistent with the existing streetscape and well within the maximum front yard setback of 10 metres recommended. • A minimum rear yard setback of 10 to 1 S metres is encouraged to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street West, given that the topography slopes downwards from Margaret Avenue to Ellen Street. This rear yard setback is also more consistent with that of existing development on Ellen Street. Proposed rear yard setbacks range from 8.3 to almost 30 metres. The stepped-backed configuration at the rear of the buildings, in concert with the generous rear yard setbacks, prevents shadows from encroaching on the neighbouring Ellen Street properties. • Building stepbacks are encouraged for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact ofnew development on the pedestrian environment of the street. Stepbacks should be a minimum of 2 metres to provide for useable outdoor terraces on the upper levels. See first bullet point above. • Street level architecture ofany new development onMargaretAvenue should incorporate a high degree ofbuilding articulation and architectural detail to provide interestand compatibility with existing buildings across the street. Details could include cornices, pilasters, varied roof lines, pitched roofs, gables and dormers, decorative door and window details, turrets, porches, bays and other similar features. Figures 5 and 6 show how the first floor is separated from the next three floors with a strong, stone cornice, breaking the verticality of the building. As well, the fifth floor is set back from the floors below and the mansard roof contains the sixth floor. French windows, balconies and metal railings add interest unlike the apartment buildings across the street. ~ ~ ~i:~ .~~.~ , i, ~. ~~ ~ .. .-- I _.- i - --- - .._ ._~ _._ . -- - - --~~ _ i i -.. _ _ -" ~_ _ _.~_ ------- -`_ -- 'i t , r~ i>~i ~ r partial south elevation figure 5 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue. Kitchener Create transitions in building width and massing by dividing the building visually into smaller units or sections that are more representative of the predominantly single family nature of the neighbourhood. Although much ofthe neighbourhood is single family housing, the property on Margaret Avenue is anchored at one end by a church and at the other by a large late 19~' / early 20~' century residence, while across the street are five 2 '/2 storey residences flanked by an 18 storey apartment building and a four storey apartment. The proposal reflects the original lot configuration with a varied setback resembling individual buildings providing a transition from the scale of development on the other side of the street to the residences to the east. The use of brick and / or stone is strongly encouraged for the front facade of any new development, to establish consistency with other heritage buildings in proximity to this parcel of land. The facade materials and colours of the development are selected from a pallette reminiscent of adjacent neighbourhood historic building '' materials, namely brick fields with ~ ~'Tr' ' F ~'`'r~'- - ~~ proposed facade materials figure 7 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue. Kitchener stone accents and metal railing details. (See figure 7) • Parking for new development will not be permitted in the front yard. Underground parking is strongly encouraged, or appropriately landscaped and screened surface parking at the rear or side of the development. Surface parking is limited to the rear yard. Approximately thirty-two spaces are provided at grade in the rear yard, with the remainder in a two level underground structure. Two driveways enter on Margaret Avenue, one at either end of the development. The remainder of the streetscape is automobile-free. • Retention and incorporation of healthy trees currently located on the vacant land parcel is strongly encouraged to provide the new development with an `instant' amenity and to help it blend into the heritage landscape that exists in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Design new buildings around the existing trees to the extent possible. Where trees must be removed, they should be replaced with new ones at appropriate locations in the landscape. Unfortunately, it is impossible to preserve the existing, mature trees on this property. In order to accommodate the principles noted above, i. e. reduce the height of the buildings; divide the building visually into smaller units or sections; encourage underground parking; etc. , a parking garage footprint that encompasses most ofthe site is required. With the extent ofthe excavation required for the garage, trees within 10 metres of the foundation walls would be affected negatively. A survey of the existing trees was conducted in July 2008 and the results can be found in appendix 3. Many of the trees are in fair to very poor condition and are not worthy of conservation. New trees of appropriate species will be planted to replace those being removed. There is ample opportunity to re-plant in the landscaped areas which comprise approximately 27% of the property. Unlike the illustrations inthe Civic Centre NeighbourhoodHeritage ConservationDistrictPlan, the proposal locates the new buildings in the same orientation as the original residences andthose in the neighbourhood. This arrangement not only respects and mimics the historic patterns of the property, but also avoids shadowing its neighbours. 2.7 Summary of conservation principles and how they will be used " See 2.6 above. 2.8 Proposed demolition /alterations explained 12 See 2.6 above. ii discussion regarding how the mitigative measures or recommended conservation option address the specific principles and guidelines within the HCD Plan relating to this property (ibid) i z rationale regarding the removal of identified heritage attributes and impact - in this case this may include discussion regarding the impact of the removal of trees (ibid) The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener 2.9 Alternatives for salvage mitigation is Not applicable 2.10 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Statement See appendix 4. 3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS There are no extant structures on the property; thus, the significance and heritage attribute is the context of the property situated in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. Impacts of the proposed development on the cultural heritage resource are limited to the removal of the existing trees to accommodate development. Impact on the surroundings is expected to be minimal with the measures taken to provide a development that is sympathetic to the streetscape and the neighbourhood, fulfilling the objectives outlined in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. Mitigating measures include: • scaling the building to be consistent with neighbouring structures on the street; • providing less than 10 metre front yard and 8.3 to 30 metre rear yard setbacks; • stepping back the buildings to reduce the streetscape scale and prevent shadowing issues; • providing a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and compatibility with existing neighbourhood buildings; • a varied setback resembling individual buildings, providing a transition from the scale of development on the other side of the street to the residences to the east; • limiting surface parking to the rear yard. A specific measure recommended in the HCD Plan, i. e. retention of the existing trees, cannot be accomplished. New trees will be planted to replace those being removed on the approximately 27% open space of the property 4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION The HIA terms of reference require the consultant to write a recommendation as to whether the subjectproperty is worthy ofheritage designation in accordance withthe heritage designation criteria per Regulation 9/06, Ontario Heritage Act. The following questions must be answered in the final recommendation of the report: 1. Does the property meet the criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Regulation 9/06, Ontario Heritage Act? Ontario Regulation 9/06 states: A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example ofa style, type, expression, material or construction method, is not applicable (ibid) The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue. Kitchener ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. The property does not meet the criteria for Part IV heritage designation. However, it is within a Heritage Conservation District and is; therefore, designated under Part V. 2. If the subject property does not meet the criteria for heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why it does not. The property is vacant and has been for many years. There are no extant heritage features other than trees on the property. 3. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage designation, does the property warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement: Conserved: means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservationplan or heritage impactassessment. The property warrants conservation in the context of the Heritage Conservation District within which it is situated. Furthermore, conservation should follow the guidance to conservation provided in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, (Stantec, August 2007). This heritage impact assessment is respectfully submitted by: The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. ., ! ; ~% _ -~ ~~.tt~~ ~ t ~~~~ per: Owen R. Scott, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. October 16, 2008 Appendix 1 CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT TERMS OF REFERENCE 1. Background A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future development. The study shall include an inventory of all heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known heritage resources, an evaluation of the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures thatwould minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage ImpactAssessment may be required on a property which is listed on City's Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; the City's Municipal Heritage Register; a property designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; or where development is proposed adjacent to a known heritage resource. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded heritage resources which are discovered during the development application stage or construction. 2. Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development or alteration. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as early as possible. When the subject property is a Plan of Subdivision, or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre-application meeting, followed by a written notification. The notice will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide a guideline to completing the study. The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment: 2.1 Present owner contact information for property proposed for development and/or site alteration. 2.2 A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). 2.3 A complete listing and full written description of all existing structures, with specific mention of all heritage resources on the subject property to include: structures, buildings, building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, landscaping, and archaeological resources, as applicable. Description will also include a chronological history of the structure(s) developments, such as additions, deletions, conversions, etc. The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource. 2.4 Documentation ofthe heritage resource shall include current photographs, from each elevation, and/or measured drawings, floor plans, and a site map, at an appropriate scale for the given application (i.e. site plan as opposed to subdivision), indicating the context in which the heritage resource is situated. Also to include historical photos, drawings, or other archival material that may be available or relevant. The applicant must provide a description of all relevant municipal or agency requirements which would apply to the subject property and which could impact the conservation ofthe heritage resource(s) (i.e. Building Code requirements, Zoning requirements, Engineering requirements, etc.). 2.5 An outline of the proposed development, its context and how it will impact the heritage resource and neighbouring properties shall be required. This may include such issues as the pattern of lots, roadways, setbacks, massing, relationship to natural and built heritage features, recommended building materials, etc. The outline should address the influence of the development on the setting, character and use of lands on the subject property, adjacent lands, streetscape and neighbourhood. 2.6 Options will be provided to the City on how the heritage resource may be conserved, relating to its level of importance. This method of mitigation may include but is not limited to preservation/conservation, adaptive re-use, or incorporation to an altered function. Each mitigative measure is meant to create a sympathetic context for the preserved heritage resource. 2.7 A summary of conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. The conservation principles may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada -Standards and Guidelines for the Appendix 1 2 Conservation ofHistoric Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties, Ontario Ministry of Culture; and the Ministry of Culture's Heritage Tool Kit Series (all available online.). Ifthe property is designated under Part V ofthe Ontario Heritage Act, guidance may be provided in the corresponding Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan. 2.8 Proposed demolition/alterations must be explained as to the loss of cultural heritage value interests in the site and the impact on the streetscape and sense of place. 2.9 When a property can not be conserved, alternatives will be considered for salvage mitigation. Only when other options can be demonstrated not to be viable will options such as relocation, ruinfication, or symbolic conservation be considered. Relocation of a heritage resource may indicate a move within or beyond the subject property. The appropriate context of the resource must be considered in relocation. Ruinfication allows forthe exterior only of a structure to be maintained on a site. Symbolic conservation refers to the recovery of unique heritage resources and incorporating those components into new development, or using a symbolic design method to depict a theme or remembrance of the past. All recommendations shall be as specific as possible indicating the exact location ofthe preferred option, site plan, building elevations, materials, landscaping, and any impact on neighbouring properties and streetscape/neighbourhood context. 2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Statement shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The Statement will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. Applicants looking for professional assistance are encouraged to refer to the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals web site: www.caphc.ca. 3. Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The summary statement should provide a full description o£ 1 the significance and heritage attributes ofthe cultural heritage resource, including the reference to a listing on the Heritage Register, or designation by-law or heritage district designation, it is applicable. 2 the identification of any impact that the proposed development will have on the cultural heritage resource and its surroundings. 3 an explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. 4 clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. 4. Mandatory Recommendation The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject property is worthy of heritage designation in accordance with the heritage designation criteria per Regulation 9/06, Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9/06. The following questions must be answered in the final recommendation of the report: 1. Does the property meet the criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Regulation 9/06, Ontario Heritage Act? 2. If the subject property does not meet the criteria for heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why it does not. 3. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage designation, does the property warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement: Conserved: means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. Appendix 1 3 Please note that failure to provide a clear recommendation as per the significance and direction of the identified cultural heritage resource may result in the rejection of the Heritage Impact Assessment. 5. Approval Process Five hardcopies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic in pdf format burned on CD shall be provided to the City's Heritage Planner. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to evaluate the preferred option(s). Heritage Impact Assessments maybe circulated to the City's Heritage Advisory Committee for information and discussion. Heritage Impact Assessments maybe subj ect to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. Appendix 2 Email correspondence from: Leon.Bensason@kitchener.ca sent: Friday, February O1, 2008 3:14 PM to: oscott@thelandplan.com cc: Michelle.Wade@kitchener.ca; Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchener.ca Subject: RE: 30 - 40 Margaret Avenue HIA Hello Owen, I am not sure whether in addition to having received a copy of our standard HIA guidelines, you also received a copy of my Oct. 4, 2007 memo in relation to the site plan pre-application meeting, which was made available to the applicant. If not, I have attached it to this e-mail for your information. The property represents the most significant gap within an identified historic streetscape, and its redevelopment could alter the visual and historic character of the neighbourhood and streetscape if it is not sensitively handled. The attributes contributing to the cultural heritage significance of the area are well documented in the Council approved Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan documents, which were also made available to the applicant. I can provide you with a copy. The subject property served as the location of several large estate houses once owned by local industrialists and business leaders, and demolished in the 1980s. I am uncertain whether any evidence of these structures (e.g. foundations) remain, however the property contains quite a number of the mature trees which likely framed the setting of these estate houses. Existing structures immediately to the east and west have received the highest architectural rating, and other buildings across from and backing on the property have also been identified as being of cultural heritage significance. The memo references that the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan provides considerable guidance regarding the redevelopment of the subject property; and highlights several of the policies and principles which should be considered in its redevelopment. Staff note that the HIA should use the information contained within the HCD Plan in evaluating the appropriateness of the development proposal. In response to your specific inquiry and request for direction, I make the following recommendations relating to the minimum requirements for the HIA to assist in scoping the assessment. 2.1 - applicable 2.2 - applicable (should reference previous use and include a site biography but need not be detailed) 2.3 - applicable (should reference existing cultural attributes such as the mature vegetation, setting, and any evidence of previous development) 2.4 - applicable (photographs of property and approaches to property, archival photographs or images) 2.5 - applicable 2.6 - applicable (discussion regarding if and how the development proposal meets the HCD Plan guidelines and if not, what mitigative measures are recommended) 2.7 - applicable (discussion regarding how the mitigative measures or recommended conservation option address the specific principles and guidelines within the HCD Plan relating to this property 2.8 - applicable (rationale regarding the removal of identified heritage attributes and impact - in this case this may include discussion regarding the impact of the removal of trees) 2.9 - not applicable 2.10 - applicable All other minimum requirements should be addressed in accordance with the City's HIA guidelines. In this case, City Council has already recommended designation. Internal Memo (City of Kitchener), October 4, 2007 to: Juliane von Westerholt Appendix 2 2 from: Leon Bensason cc: Alain Pinard subject: 30-40 Margaret Avenue -Site Plan Pre Application Meeting, Cultural Heritage Planning Comments Requirement for a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Since Apri12006 the City has been working with a consultant team at establishing a Heritage Conservation District within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. This initiative has involved extensive consultation with and opportunities for comment from property owners. The vacant property located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue is included within the HCD Study Area boundary. On October 30, 2006 City Council formally accepted the recommendations and conclusions of the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District (CCHCD) Study, which includedthatthe Civic Centre Neighbourhood was of significant cultural heritage value and met the City's criteria for Heritage Conservation District designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The vacant parcel of land at 30-40 Margaret Avenue was recognized within the CCHCD Study as a candidate site for redevelopment. The following statement was made in the Study document: "Given relatively recentdevelopmentactivity, along with the large vacantproperty on MargaretAvenueavd the range of designations that contemplate some form of integrated redevelopment and mixed uses, it is also apparent that much of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood has the potential for additional, and possibly dramatic changes in the future. If not sensitively handled, such changes could permanently alter both the visual and historical character of the neighbourhood and streetscape. " Given Council's acceptance of the CCHCD Study conclusion that the Civic Centre Neighbourhood is of significant cultural heritage value and deserving of designation; and given the sensitive development of the subject property was specifically identified as a matter that deserves particular attention if the visual and historical character ofthe Civic Centre Neighbourhood and Margaret Avenue streetscape is to be conserved; in compliance with Provincial Policy Statement 2.6.1, staff will require that a Heritage Impact Assessment be made a submission requirement for any development application made for this property. Heritage and Design Considerations in Completing the Heritage Impact Assessment In approving the CCHCD Study, City Council directed staff to work with the consultant team to complete a Heritage Conservation District Plan, so as to provide the framework by which the heritage attributes of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood can be protected, managed and enhanced as the community evolves and changes over time. Again, this process involved extensive public consultation and opportunity for input. The CCHCD Plan was presented to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee on October 2nd, 2007 and the Committee passed a resolution recommending that City Council formally designate the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District and adopt the CCHCD Plan. Council is scheduled to consider the Heritage Kitchener resolution on October 22, 2007. In following up on the observations made in the HCD Study, the CCHCD Plan provides specific guidance regarding the development of the subject vacant parcel of land on Margaret Avenue. In this regard the following comments are made in the HCD Plan document. The large vacantlotonMargaretAvenue is currently designatedMedium DensityMultiple Residential, which is intended to permit some integrated medium density development while maintaining the overall character of the neighbourhood. Zoning for the large vacant parcel is R8, which permits a floor space ratio of 2 and a maximum height of 24 metres (approximately 8 storeys) for multiple dwellings. The majority of buildings beside, across from and backing onto the large vacant site on Margaret are still the original detached dwellings, primarily 2 to 2-1/2 storeys in height. One high rise apartment is situated across from the east Appendix 2 end of the site. While the zoning would allow for construction of an 8 storey building, it would be more difficult for a building of this height to "maintain the overall character of the neighbourhood ". Actual architectural and design elements, along with siting of buildings would likely play an equally important role in whether new development was compatible with the character of the neighbourhood. With the permitted floor space ratio of 2, it would be very possible to achieve the maximum floor area within a building envelope of S storeys or less. As a result, consideration should be given to reducing the maximum permitted height in this area to approximately 16.5 metres to reduce potential height impacts on the street and adjacent neighbours. Height impacts could also be addressed through the addition of angular planes and/or stepback requirements in the zoning by-law or guidelines to minimize building heights nearest the street. In addition, a maximum frontyard setback of 10 metres is recommended to establish a street edge similar to the opposite side ofMargaretAvenue. It is also recognized that there are quite a number of mature trees that are located on the property. Opportunities to retain and/or design around these trees should be encouraged. The CCHCD Plan also contains area and site specific design guidelines including the following guidelines for 30-40 Margaret Avenue, which should be considered during the building and site design process: • New development on the vacant lot on Margaret Avenue should establish a strong relationship to the streetsimilar to that which exists on the south side of the street, by having a maximum frontyard setback of IO metres. • A minimum rear yard setback of 10 to IS metres is encouraged to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street West, given that the topography slopes downwards from Margaret Avenue to Ellen Street. This rear yard setback is also more consistent with that of existing development on Ellen Street. • Building stepbacks are encouraged for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. Stepbacks should be a minimum of 2 metres to provide for useable outdoor terraces on the upper levels. • Street level architecture of any new development onMargaretAvenueshould incorporate a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and compatibility with existing buildings across the street. Details could include cornices, pilasters, varied roof lines, pitched roofs, gables and dormers, decorative door and window details, turrets, porches, bays and other similar features. • Create transitions in building width and massing by dividing the building visually into smaller units or sections that are more representative of the predominantly single family nature of the neighbourhood. • The use of brick and/or stone is strongly encouraged for the front facade of any new development, to establish consistency with other heritage buildings in proximity to this parcel of land. • Parking for new development will not be permitted in the front yard. Underground parking is strongly encouraged, or appropriately landscaped and screened surface parking at the rear or side of the development. • Retention and incorporation of healthy trees currently located on the vacant land parcel is strongly encouraged to provide the new development with an `instant' amenity and to help it blend into the heritage landscape that exists in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Design new buildings around the existing trees to the extentpossible. Where trees must be removed, they should be replaced with new ones at appropriate locations in the landscape. The illustrations on the following page show a conceptual design for the Margaret Avenue site that would result in relatively high density, yet be compatible with the heritage character of the neighbourhood with respect to built form, relationship to the street, building articulation, use of upper storey stepbacks and incorporation of architectural features such as porches, pitched roofs, window proportion and placement. Appendix 2 x~ ~r,n ~i :;' ~,_ `;~,.~ #, u. ~... 7r ~l, 1~ i ~ .. . -r t ~- ~°~°-_~` ~rr_. .:J'M1,r .~:_tin~~r1.'r~•fY't ,.~.': ..'. .:~..~';:. ~.n~17':. ..I,'.: ;~5"ti~f'~~'M'tlr~. ir,.',.Y';'t.'t'i,;~T .,, _.. ^: k`,9'1 _':`r ~. .. }: ~`. ~~~r~_ G'tMrr;.`f :4'~~~:i: I:~ 1+:~sf~ =,~.Sfi'1~t r=1 1~~':fl'1_' __..~~:4't ~:~~.. ~G:. -~. ^=M rS~.Yr.: :~ _.: :'T~',~:i'Tl7TM,=.t ,r. . ~r_.iM ;~: ,~_ J "; a 1" ~:~. M't ~;.',"ic~t .._.~ rxt~.. i 1 ' 1~: , 't _~. i'1._i ~f'~ -_~ ;~"...--- ^ ~ ',wr +rt',,, ~v~" +~r ir.~ +r ti` yr i~+.'~ ..~. _'~~~ w ~rrT i.; w ^ ~r ^w: w ^ r-^' w w~. w ~i' ^r N' ^~ Yi [ : ;r< -. :. r r.:.w:. .,. ~,. yr ~, ._ .. , ~_ _ _ .4... a.~ -- .... _. _ .. ... .,.. 4 It is staff's recommendation that the HIA to be completed, use the information in the CCHCD Study and Plan documents in evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed development on the subject property. Heritage Planning staff do not believe the development of twin 8 storey apartment buildings on the subject property, as proposed in the plans submitted for discussion, represents a form of development that is Appendix 2 5 consistent with the heritage character of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood with respect to built form, relationship to the street and preservation of existing vegetation. Without the submission of building elevations, staff cannot comment on the appropriateness ofthe proposed building articulation and the incorporation of architectural features which are of great interest and importance in addressing matters associated with compatibility, context and design. Consequently, it is recommended that such detail and information be included with the HIA submission. Recommendation for Neighbourhood Consultation As mentioned, public consultation has been a key component of both phases of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District initiative. Staff note that during this process, a considerable amount of neighbourhood interest was expressed in the future development potential ofthe subject property and with the guidelines and design vision for the property, as identified in the CCHCD Plan. Staff suggest that as the property has remained vacant for over 15 years; and given the property represents the single largest parcel within the neighbourhood having redevelopment potential; there is merit in having some sort ofneighbourhood or public consultation meeting associated with any application for redevelopment of this property. Staff enclose a copy of the CCHCD Plan document, together with Staff Report DTS 07-151 to this memo, with extra copies for the applicant. Both the CCHCD Study and Plan are also available for viewing and download via the website created especially for this project at: http://www.kitchener.ca/cchcd.html Leon Bensason, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Heritage Planner Appendix 3 Tree Survey A survey of the trees on the property and within the adjacent right-of--way was conducted July 31, 2008 by Owen R. Scott. The trees are mapped on the accompanying drawing. The trees within the subject property and adjacent Margaret Street right-of--way are described below. Tree condition is ranked as poor, fair, or good. Good condition trees exhibit no signs of disease, insect or fungal infestation, dead branches, trunk cavities, etc. They also exhibit good form, typical oftheir species. Good condition trees should be retained if possible. Fair condition trees may have some minor twig dieback or trunk cavities and may not exhibit especially good form. Fair condition trees should be retained if possible if their survivability and general health can be improved through simple arboricultural measures and if they are not trees species fraught with endemic disease/health problems'. Each tree is keyed to the accompanying tree survey map by a number. Photographs of selected specimens are also provided. Of interest is the fact that many, but not all the trees, have been previously tagged with a stainless steel disc, stamped with a number. These numbers are indicated below in the table ("tag"). KEY 1 TAG 103 SPECIES Fagus sylvatica aLropurpurea SIZE (DBH) /CONDITION 79 cm /good (photo) REMARKS in proposed driveway 2 Tilia americana 30 cm /poor almost dead 3 101 Picea abies 41 cm /poor 4 104 P. abies 56 cm /fair (photo) 5 Acer platanoides 102 cm /fair 6 105 Larix decidua 76 cm /fair (photo) 7 132 Acer platanoides 56 cm /poor near property line 8 133 A.. platanoides 33 cm /poor near property line A.. platanoides 25 cm /poor near property line 10 A.. platanoides 20 cm /poor near property line 11 A.. platanoides 30 cm /poor near property line 12 Carya cordiformis 45 cm /poor near property line 13 136 Picea abies 56 cm /fair near property line 14 Acer saccharum 91 cm /poor 15 A. platanoides 53 cm / fair to poor 16 137 Thuja occidentalis 36 cm /poor near property line 1 American Elm (Ulmus americana), Rock Elm (Ulmus thomasii), Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra), Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila) and English Elm (Ulmus procera) all extremely susceptible to Dutch Elm Disease; Austrian Pine (Pious nigra), very susceptible to Diplodia Tip Blight; Ash (Fraxinus species) may be added to this list in the future should the Emerald Ash Borer become prevalent in this geographic area without a reasonable means of control being developed. Appendix 3 KEY 17 TAG 107 SPECIES Acer saccharum SIZE (DBH) /CONDITION 76 cm /poor (photo) REMARKS 18 A. platanoides 90 cm / fair to poor 19 138 Picea pungens 33 cm /fair 20 Acer saccharum 76 cm /fair 21 A. saccharum 89 cm /poor 22 139 Thuja occidentalis 38 cm /fair near property line 23 140 Fraxinus americana 30 cm /poor near property line 24 Acer platanoides (cultivar) 35 cm /fair in street right-of--way 25 141 Juglans nigra 63 cm /fair 26 142 J. nigra 30 cm /fair near property line 27 Carya cordiformis 30 cm /fair near property line 28 144 Tilia americana 35 cm /fair near property line 29 Acer platanoides 43 cm /poor in street right-of--way 30 A. saccharinum 58 cm /poor 31 A. saccharinum 90 cm /poor (photo) 32 115 A. saccharum 68 cm /poor (photo) 33 124 Picea abies 43 cm /fair 34 123 P. abies 51 cm /fair 35 145 P. abies 51 cm /fair near property line 36 146 P. abies 51 cm /fair near property line 37 Sorbus aria 20 cm /fair in street right-of--way 38 Acer saccharum 83 cm /fair 39 122 A. saccharum 76 cm /fair 40 150 Celtis occidentalis 75 cm /fair (photo) 41 149 Aesculus hippocastanum 30 cm /fair 42 148 Fraxinus americana 36 cm /fair 43 Juglans nigra 71 cm /good near property line 44 J. nigra 61 cm /good near property line 45 J. nigra 61 cm /good near property line 46 J. nigra 20 cm /good near property line 47 Tilia americana 25 cm /good near property line 48 49 Ulmus pumila Tilia americana 28 cm /good 35 cm /fair near property line near property line Appendix 3 KEY TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH) /CONDITION REMARKS 50 151 Juglans nigra 91 cm /good 51 152 J. nigra 75 cm /good 52 153 J. nigra 75 cm /good near property line 53 J. nigra 63 cm /fair on property line Tree #1 -Copper Beech -good condition Trees #4 & #6 -Norway Spruce & European Larch r a ~~ ~ c o q '~~1~ ~~`~~ ~ """~y , ~ ~ .ate f~y.~ rr 'd~ `~v r., ~~t ~T~~ ~~^' r ~i C ~` ~i ' ~ ~ ~ t,;: na1`~ ~E ~ '~E'w^' ~t ~',~~' i ~ Y Tree # 17 -Sugar Maple -poor condition ~~~ , ~' , ` ~~ ~ ~ K. 'Y ~,; ~ ,.'~ 1 1 yl ::11C~n P ~~, 1~' 4'i~ .. ~~ ~ ~. ?\ ~V / j Appendix 3 ~ Y ~ 1 ~V' ` 7 n1 a r t x i I~ ~ ~E S. :Y 2 i } ~ ~'; ~ `f ~~ ~f Sri ~ ~ l:~~ ~~~ Tree #31 -Silver Maple -poor condition ~,~ Tree #32 -Sugar Maple -poor form & condition Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Qualifications of the Author OWEN R. SCOTT, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP Education: Master of Landscape Architecture (M.L.A.) University of Michigan, 1967 Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Landscape Horticulture), (B. S.A.) University of Guelph, 1965 Professional Experience: 1977 -present President, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Guelph, Ontario 1977 - 1985 Director, The Pacific Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Vancouver and Nanaimo, BC 1965 -present President, Canadian Horticultural Consulting Company Limited, Guelph, Ontario 1975 - 1981 Editor and Publisher, Landscape Architecture Canada, Ariss, Ontario 1969 - 1981 Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architecture, University of Guelph 1975 - 1979 Director and Founding Principal, Ecological Services for Planning Limited, Guelph, Ontario 1964 - 1969 Landscape Architect, Project Planning Associates Limited, Toronto, Ontario Historical Research, Heritage Landscape Planning and Restoration Experience and Expertise Current Professional Heritage Associations Affiliations: Member: Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation Member: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (formerly CAPHC) Member: Association for Preservation Technology Member: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Community and Professional Society Service (Heritage): Director: Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants (CAPHC), 2002 - 2003 Member: Advisory Board, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, 1980 - 2002 Member: City of Guelph Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), 1987 - 2000 (Chairman 1988 - 1990) Member: Advisory Council, Centre for Canadian Historical Horticultural Studies, 1985 - 1988 Personal and Professional Honours and Awards (Heritage): Award: 2001 Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement Award: 1998 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (10 year award) Award: 1994 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (5 year award) Selected Heritage Publications: Scott, Owen R., The Southern Ontario "Grid",ACORN Vol XXVI-3, Summer 2001. The Journal of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Scott, Owen R. 19th Century Gardens for the 20 th and 21 st Centuries. Proceedings of "Conserving Ontario's Landscapes" conference of the ACO, (April 1997). Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc., Toronto, 1998. Scott, Owen R. Landscapes ofMemories, A Guide for Conserving Historic Cemeteries. (19 of 30 chapters) compiled and edited by Tamara Anson-Cartright, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, 1997. Scott, Owen R. Cemeteries: A Historical Perspective, Newsletter, The Memorial Society of Guelph, September 1993. Scott, Owen R. The Sound of the Double-bladed Axe, Guelph and its Spring Festival. edited by Gloria Dent and Leonard Conolly, The Edward Johnson Music Foundation, Guelph, 1992. 2 pp. Scott, Owen R. Woolwich Street Corridor, Guelph, ACORN Vol XVI-2, Fall 1991. Newsletter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc. Scott, Owen R. guest editor, ACORN, Vol. XIV-2, Summer 1989. Cultural Landscape Issue, Newsletter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc. Scott, Owen R. Cultivars, pavers and the historic landscape, Historic Sites Supplies Handbook. Ontario Museum Association, Toronto, 1989. 9 pp. Scott, Owen R. Landscape preservation -What is it? Newsletter, American Society of Landscape Architects -Ontario Chapter, vol. 4 no.3, 1987. Appendix 4 2 Scott, Owen R Tipperary Creek Conservation Area, Wanuskewin Heritage Park. Landscape Architectural Review, May 1986. pp. 5-9. Scott, Owen R. Victorian Landscape Gardening. Ontario Bicentennial History Conference, McMaster University, 1984. Scott, Owen R. Canada WestLandscapes. Fifth Annual Proceedings Niagara Peninsula History Conference(1983). 1983. 22 pp. Scott, Owen R. Utilizing History to Establish Cultural and Physical Identity in the Rural Landscape. Landscape Planning, Elsevier Scientific Press, Amsterdam, 1979. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 179-203. Scott, Owen R. Changing Rural L andscape in Southern Ontario. Third Annual Proceedings Agricultural History of Ontario Seminar (1978). June 1979. 20 pp. Scott, Owen R., P. Grimwood, M Watson. George Laing -Landscape Gardener, Hamilton, Canada West 1808-1871. Bulletin, The Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. IX, No. 3, 1977, 13 pp. (also published in Landscape Architecture Canada, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1978). Scott, Owen R. The Evaluation of the Upper Canadian Landscape. Department of L andscape Architecture, University of Manitoba. 1978. (Colour videotape). Following is a representative listing of some of the many heritage landscape projects undertaken by Owen R. Scott in his capacity as a landscape architect withProjectPlanningAssociatesLtd., as principal of Owen R. Scott & Associates Limited, and as principal of The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. o Britannia School Farm Master Plan, Peel Board of Education/Mississauga, ON o Confederation Boulevard (Sussex Drive) Urban Design, Site Plans, NCC/Ottawa, ON o Doon Heritage Crossroads Master Plan and Site Plans, Region of Waterloo/Kitchener, ON o Downtown Guelph Private Realm Improvements Manual, City of Guelph, ON o Downtown Guelph Public Realm Plan, City of Guelph, ON o Dundurn Castle Landscape Restoration Feasibility Study, City of Hamilton, ON o Elam Martin Heritage Farmstead Master Plan, City of Waterloo, ON o Exhibition Park Master Plan, City of Guelph, ON o George Brown House Landscape Restoration, Toronto, ON o Government of Ontario Light Rail Transit Route Selection, Cultural and Natural Resources Inventory for Environmental Assessment, HamiltonBurlington, ON o Grand River Corridor Conservation Plan, GRCA/Regional Municipality of Waterloo, ON o Grey Silo Golf Course/Elam Martin Farmstead Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo, ON o Hespeler West Secondary Plan -Heritage Resources Assessment, City of Cambridge, ON o John Galt Park, City of Guelph, ON o Judy LaMarsh Memorial Park Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON o Landfill Site Selection, Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Region of Halton, ON o Langdon Hall Gardens Restoration and Site Plans, Cambridge, ON o MacGregor/Albert Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, City of Waterloo, ON o Museum of Natural Science/Magnet Schoo159/Landscape Restoration and Site Plans, City of Buffalo, NY o Muskoka Pioneer Village Master Plan, MNR/IIuntsville, ON o Phyllis Rawlinson Park Master Plan (winning design competition), Town of Richmond Hill, ON o Prime Ministerial Precinct and Rideau Hall Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON o Queen/Picton Streets Streetscape Plans, Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON o Regional Heritage Centre Feasibility Study and Site Selection, Region of Waterloo, ON o Rockway Gardens Master Plan, KHS/Kitchener, ON o South Kitchener Transportation Study, Heritage Resources Assessment, Region of Waterloo, ON o St. George's Square, City of Guelph, ON o St. James Park Victorian Garden, City of Toronto, ON o Tipperary Creek (Wanuskewin) Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, MVA/Saskatoon, SK o University of Toronto Heritage Conservation District Study, City of Toronto, ON o Waterloo Valleylands Study, Heritage and Recreational Resources mapping and policies, Region of Waterloo, ON o Winzen Developments Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON o Woodside National Historic Park Landscape Restoration, Parks Canada/Kitchener, ON 0 264 Crawley Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 927 Victoria Road South Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON Appendix 4 3 Expert Witness Experience (Heritage): Owen R. Scott has been called as an expert witness at a number of trials and hearings. These include Ontario Municipal Board Hearings, civil and criminal trials, Conservation Review Board Hearings, and Environmental Assessment Board and Environmental Protection Act Board Hearings. The heritage landscapes evidence he has presented has been related to cultural heritage issues where historical and landscape resources were evaluated.