HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-09-126 - HPA 2009-V-010 - 393-411 Queen St S Barra Castle
MITI E~
fJevePopment &
Technical Services
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener Committee
DATE OF MEETING: September 1, 2009
SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning
PREPARED BY: Michelle Wade, Heritage Planner (519-741-2839)
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 6
DATE OF REPORT: August 19, 2009
REPORT NO.: DTS-09-126
SUBJECT: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION 2009-V-010
393-411 QUEEN STREET SOUTH (BARRA CASTLE)
PROPOSED PARTIAL DEMOLITION
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA-2009-V-010 be approved to permit the demolition of the sections of the Barra Castle
building known as the middle, back, annex and south-west balcony at the property
municipally addressed 393-411 Queen Street South in accordance with the Heritage
Impact Assessment submitted with the application, subject to the following condition:
i) That photo documentation of the building be undertaken, in accordance with
the City's Photo Documentation and Recording Guidelines, and submitted to
heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit;
ii) That modified measured drawings/photographs of the exterior of the front
section of the building, including the south-west balcony, be prepared and
submitted to heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit;
and,
iii) That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance
issued 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-2009-V-010. The applicant is seeking Council's permission to demolish the
sections of the Barra Castle known as the middle, back, annex and south-west balcony at the
property municipally addressed 393-411 Queen Street South.
5-1
4~~
39331134
L !d
10
1521
General Map: 393-411 Queen Street South Aerial Map: 393-411 Queen Street South
REPORT:
The subject property is located on the east side of Queen Street South between Mitchell Street
and Courtland Avenue in the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District, and is subject to
designation under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject property contains two
buildings with the larger and more prominent building commonly known as the Barra Castle.
Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan
The Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District (VPHCD) Study indicates that the Barra Castle
Apartment building was built in 1930 in an unusual Scottish Baronial architectural style with
castellated 3-storey side towers finished in painted stucco. The VPHCD Study suggests that the
architect attempted to disguise the early apartment building with a traditional architectural style.
The VPHCD Study notes that the architectural style is significant within the District as an
example of changing tastes and preferences for residential development. The VPHCD Study
also notes that the architectural style is individually significant.
The Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District (VPHCD) Plan identifies a number of goals,
policies and guidelines. One of the primary goals is to conserve and maintain the visible history
of the Victoria Park area. More specifically, the VPHCD Plan aims to encourage the retention
and conservation of historic buildings while promoting heritage conservation as positive for
development in the area. The VPHCD Plan indicates that it is important to conserve the
architectural integrity and details of apartment buildings, including the Barra Castle. The building
conservation policy related to demolition states that "There shall be a presumption against
demolition. The conservation of historic buildings in the Area is a primary goal. Property owners
are encouraged to work with existing buildings, altering, adding to and integrating them into new
development rather than demolishing."
Property Standards By-law and the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District
In 2007, Electrical Safety Code violations led the Electrical Safety Authority to shut off hydro to
the Barra Castle building. Consequently, the lone remaining tenant was evicted given the
building no longer had fire monitoring capabilities and had inadequate fire separation barriers.
The removal of electrical service to the building resulted in prohibiting occupancy of the building.
As a result, the building has remained vacant with no heat or hydro, which has resulted in the
deterioration of the building and its heritage attributes.
5-2
On June 23, 2008 Council passed By-law 2008-124 amending Chapter 665 of the City of
Kitchener Municipal Code (Property Standards By-law). The amended Property Standards By-
law enables the City to enforce bringing identified heritage attributes in vacant designated
heritage property up to a minimum acceptable standard in order to prevent and protect against
their deterioration.
By-law 2008-124 defines heritage property as property designated under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act (individually designated) and property designated under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act (located within a Heritage Conservation District) identified as being of very high
cultural heritage value or interest. The Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District Study or
Plan did not specifically identify property of very high cultural heritage value or interest. As a
result, in April of 2009 Heritage Planning staff evaluated the properties located within the
Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District in order to identify property of very high cultural
heritage value or interest.
On May 19, 2009 City Council considered Development and Technical Services report DTS-09-
073, which recommended that the property municipally addressed 393-411 Queen Street South
(commonly known as the Barra Castle) and located within the Victoria Park Heritage
Conservation District be identified as a property of very high cultural heritage value or interest
for the purpose of enforcement under the Property Standards By-law. The report referenced the
definition provided in By-law 2008-124 to identify property within Heritage Conservation Districts
as being of very high cultural heritage value or interest. The report noted that the Barra Castle is
consistent with this definition for the following reasons: it is a particularly fine example of an
architectural style; it exhibits unique qualities or details that make it a landmark; it is of any age
that contributes to its heritage value; it is associated with a significant known historic event or
person; and, it contributes to the streetscape because it is part of an unusual sequence,
grouping, or situated in a unique location.
Council's consideration of the recommendation to identify the Barra Castle as a property of very
high cultural heritage value for the purposes of enforcement under the Property Standards By-
law was deferred to the June 22, 2009 Special Council meeting in order to allow further dialogue
among all interested parties. On June 22, 2009 Council's consideration of this recommendation
was deferred to the August 24 Council meeting in order to allow the prospective purchaser to
meet due diligence, including the completion of a structural engineering report. It is anticipated
that Council, at its August 24, 2009 Council meeting, will once again defer consideration of this
recommendation until the September 14, 2009 Special Council meeting. The purpose of this
deferral is to allow Council the opportunity to consider both the recommendation made in DTS-
09-073 as well as the recommendations from Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener
Committee regarding a Heritage Permit Application, which proposes a partial demolition of the
building. Heritage Planning staff are in receipt of a Heritage Permit Application supported by a
Heritage Impact Assessment and Structural Assessment. The Heritage Permit Application will
be considered by Heritage Kitchener on September 1, 2009 and by Council on September 14,
2009.
Heritage Permit Application: Request for Partial Demolition
The applicant is proposing a partial demolition of the building. The partial demolition of the
building will apply to the middle, back, annex and south-west balcony (see Figure 1.0). The
original front section is proposed to be restored under a future Heritage Permit Application. The
partial demolition request is supported by a Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Robert J
5-3
Dyck Architect & Engineer Inc. dated August 12, 2009 as well as a Structural Assessment
prepared by Colin A Lee Engineering Ltd. dated July 2009. Heritage Planning staff have had an
opportunity to review and comment on both the Heritage Impact Assessment and the Structural
Assessment.
Heritaae Impact Assessment
Heritage Planning staff required the Heritage Permit Application for partial demolition to be
supported by a Heritage Impact Assessment and Structural Assessment. The applicant was
provided a copy of the City's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference.
The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by Robert J Dyck Architect & Engineer Inc.
dated August 12, 2009 describes the c. 1930 Barra Castle as a unique and outstanding
example of the Tudor Castle /Scottish Baronial architectural style. Further, the HIA states that
the building is recognized as a landmark and is located within the Victoria Park Heritage
Conservation District and therefore designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The HIA identifies the long term vision for the property, which includes three phases. Phase 1
will involve the proposed demolition of the middle, back, and annex sections of the building as
well as the proposed demolition of the south-west balcony on the front section of the building.
This phase will also include the boarding of all openings on the front section of the building
(Current Heritage Permit Application). Phase 2 will involve the proposed restoration of the front
section of the building (Future Heritage Permit Application). Phase 3 will involve the proposed
5-4
Figure 1.0: Sections of the Building
construction of an addition to the rear of the front section of the building (Future Heritage Permit
Application supported by a Heritage Impact Assessment).
The HIA identifies and describes the condition of the heritage attributes and concludes that all of
the heritage attributes require some level of intervention ranging from repair to replacement.
Further, the HIA concludes that the middle, back and annex sections of the building possess
little heritage significance. Based on the condition of the heritage attributes and the significance
of the front versus the middle, back and annex sections, the HIA identifies five conservation
options being: 1. Do nothing; 2. Restore the entire building; 3. Demolish middle, back and annex
section of building and restore the front section of the building and construct a new building at
the rear; 4. Demolish the entire building and replicate the front section of the building and
construct a new building at the rear; and, 5. Demolish the entire building and construct a new
building. The conservation options were evaluated using the Parks Canada Standards and
Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
The HIA concludes that the preferred conservation option, Option 3, is to demolish the middle,
back and annex sections of the building and to restore the front section of the building. The HIA
also concludes that the south-west balcony located on the front section of the building should be
documented for future restoration and then demolished due to structural issues.
Heritage Planning Comments Regarding Heritage Impact Assessment
Heritage Planning staff have had the opportunity to review the Heritage Impact Assessment
submitted in support of the current Heritage Permit Application. The following comments are
provided in response to the review of the HIA.
The HIA concludes that the heritage significance relates to the front section of the building (see
Page 30, Section 5.5.2 Heritage Recommendations). Contrary to this conclusion, it is the
opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the heritage significance relates to the entire building and
that the middle, back and annex sections are important in understanding the history and
evolution of the property. For instance, a review of the 1925 Fire Insurance Map (see Figure
2.0) and corresponding 1924/25 Vernon's Directory suggests that building was originally built as
a 2~/2 storey house with two separate additions at the rear as well as other accessory buildings.
The 1933 Vernon's Directory identifies the property as the Barra Castle Apartments with 12
units. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the original house was converted to the Barra
Castle sometime between 1924 and 1933 and therefore the later additions may in fact be
related to the original Barra Castle but not the original house. In addition, the HIA identifies the
heritage attributes (see Page 10, Section 3.5) of the building and these heritage attributes are
not limited to the front section of the building. For instance, the HIA identifies common heritage
attributes such as the roof and roofline; the stucco facade; the window and door openings; and,
the original windows and doors. The HIA also identifies more specific heritage attributes such as
the lower flat roof and the squared entranceways, which are located in the middle, back and
annex sections of the building.
5-5
-°---1~==- -
L~~~ r ,e rJ<<I; The Barra Castle Property in 1925
~.~ -~ . ,;
Q v
I
~L J ~. f I f ~ -_ .G. ~ ~ ;.
~~ 1i ~ l~L ~o ~ ~
~ o g~~ i"
•_ ,~ C
z ~~
=z~ z
~~~
- .~3~._
__
QUEEN STREET SOUTH _. ,
~, •:, -~
Figure 2.0: 1925 Fire Insurance Map
The HIA identifies five development options ranging from the do nothing approach to complete
demolition. Each of the five development options is evaluated based on the heritage
significance, the structural assessment, and the financial viability. Heritage Planning staff agree
that the middle, back and annex sections of the building are less significant. Staff also
acknowledge that the structural assessment has identified a number of major deficiencies in
these sections. Heritage Planning staff believe that it is important to consider the financial
viability of any project, particularly in relation to large projects; however, it is the opinion of
Heritage Planning staff that a sufficient level of detail regarding financial viability has not be
provided. Heritage Planning staff are unable to compare the costs associated with each option
as the cost of new construction was not provided. Heritage Planning staff believe that the ability
to compare the costs, and in particular the cost of restoration compared to the cost of new
construction, is critical missing information that should be provided for the Heritage Kitchener
Committee and Council's consideration.
Structural Assessment
The Structural Assessment prepared by Colin A Lee Engineering Ltd. dated July 2009 identifies
a number of structural deficiencies throughout the entire building. The Structural Assessment
concludes that many of these structural deficiencies can be addressed through repairs but that
some of these deficiencies can only be addressed through replacement. The Structural
Assessment does not conclude that the middle, back and annex sections must be demolished.
However, the consultant does provide an opinion indicating that it is more economical to
demolish and rebuild the middle, back and annex sections of the building.
5-6
Buildina Staff Comments Reaardina Structural Assessment
Building staff have had the opportunity to review the Structural Assessment submitted in support
of the current Heritage Permit Application. Building staff have confirmed that the Structural
Assessment was completed in accordance with good practice.
Heritage Planning Staff Review of the Heritage Permit Application
Heritage Planning staff have completed an analysis of the current Heritage Permit Application
based on the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada (Standards and Guidelines). The Standards and Guidelines are to be applied to historic
places and specific conservation projects in a reasonable manner while taking into
consideration financial and technical feasibility.
The Standards and Guidelines identify three levels of conservation including: preservation,
rehabilitation, and restoration. It should be noted that any given conservation project will often
include a combination of preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration. As noted earlier, the
preferred conservation option identified in the HIA is to demolish the middle, back and annex
sections of the building and to restore the front section of the building. This conservation option
combines elements of both rehabilitation and restoration. Rehabilitation involves the sensitive
adaptation of a historic place or of an individual component for a continuing or compatible
contemporary use, while protecting its heritage value. Rehabilitation is often achieved through
repairs, alterations and/or additions. With respect to the Barra Castle, rehabilitation will include
such items as the repair of existing features or the introduction of a modern addition.
Restoration involves revealing, recovering or representing the state of a historic place or of an
individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, as accurately as
possible, while protecting its heritage value. With respect to the Barra Castle, restoration will
involve the replication of features that have been lost or that are beyond repair based on
documentation such as drawings and photographs.
The following paragraph explains how the current Heritage Permit Application (HPA) proposes
to meet each Standard.
Conserve the heritage value of a historic place. Do no remove, replace, or substantially
alter its intact or repairable heritage attributes.
Conserve changes to a historic place which, over time, have become heritage attributes
in their own right.
Find a use for a historic place that requires minimal or no change to its heritage
attributes.
The current HPA proposes to demolish the middle, back and annex sections of the
building as well as the south-west balcony on the front section of the building. The long
term vision for the building proposes restoration of the front section and an addition on
the rear of the front section in order to accommodate residential apartment units. The
HIA suggests that the middle, back and annex sections of the building are not original.
Although these sections may not be original they are still important to the history and
evolution of the property and they contain heritage attributes. Although the heritage
attributes of the middle, back and annex sections of the building will be lost as a result of
the proposed demolition, the primary interest of the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation
District Plan is to conserve heritage attributes that can be seen from the public realm.
Those heritage attributes located on the middle, back and annex sections of the building
5-7
that will be lost have limited or no visibility from the public realm. In addition, the building
has been vacant for over 2 years, which has resulted in significant deterioration. The
current proposal includes a viable use and therefore the building will not be vacant and
subject to further deterioration.
• Protect and, if necessary, stabilize a historic place until any subsequent intervention is
undertaken.
The HIA identifies that the Barra Castle will be protected from further deterioration by
boarding the windows and covering the exposed rear wall of the front section of the
building with plywood and weather barriers. The HIA also indicates that the site will be
monitored.
The current Heritage Permit Application proposes to demolish the middle, back and annex
sections of the building as well as the south-west balcony located on the front section of the
building. The HIA has assessed the heritage significance, the structural condition, and the
financial viability of five conservation options. The HIA has concluded that only the front section
of the building has heritage value while the Structural Assessment has concluded that the
middle, back and annex sections may be repair, reinforced and replaced. However, the HIA
does not contain sufficient detail to allow the comparison of the five conservation options.
Ideally, Heritage Planning staff would request an addendum HIA to elaborate on the financial
viability. In particular, an addendum HIA would include the cost of new construction as well as
other related factors such as number of residential units or energy efficiency. However, Heritage
Planning staff understand the prospective purchaser has an Agreement of Purchase and Sale,
which expires at the end of September. The prospective purchaser is seeking approval of the
current Heritage Permit Application in order to move forward and close the sale of the property.
As a result, Heritage Planning staff understand the importance of time and are prepared to
make a recommendation for conditional approval of the application.
In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following:
^ The HIA concludes that the most significant section of the building is the original front
section;
^ The HIA concludes that the middle, back and annex sections were additions to the
original front section;
^ The primary interest in Heritage Conservation Districts is the conservation of those
heritage attributes that can be seen from the public realm;
^ The middle, back and annex sections of the building have limited visibility from the public
realm;
^ The HIA and Structural Assessment have identified that the middle, back and annex
sections of the building require extensive repair, reinforcement, and reconstruction;
^ The HIA and Structural Assessment conclude that it is not financially viable to restore
the middle, back and annex sections of the building;
^ The entire building has been vacant for over 2 years during which time its condition has
deteriorated significantly;
^ The proposals to conserve the building have been very limited;
^ The proposed partial demolition, front section restoration, and new addition represent
the most viable level of conservation presented within the last 2 years;
^ The lack of alternative proposals leaves us with the do nothing option whereby the
building continues to be vacant and subject to further deterioration; and,
5-8
^ The proposed partial demolition of the middle, back and annex sections of the building
will not detract from the character of the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District,
including the immediate neighbourhood and the Queen Street South streetscape.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
COMMUNICATIONS:
n/a
CONCLUSION:
The proposed partial demolition will not detract from the heritage character of the Victoria Park
Heritage Conservation District. Accordingly, Heritage Planning staff recommend approval of
H PA-2009-V-010.
REVIEWED BY:
Leon Bensason, Interim Manager of Long Range and Policy Planning (519-741-2306)
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager
Development and Technical Services Department
List of Attachments
Heritage Permit Application HPA-2009-V-010
5-9
Nature of Application
Exterior ^
Demolition ,~
Subject Property
CITY OF HITCHENER
HERITAGE PERNIIT APPLICATION
Interior ^
New Construction ^ Alteration ^
Application No.
HPA
Relocation ^
Municipal Address or Legal Description: ~c ~-E lo-t S cl~ ~ ~~j-j ~S ~ ^
Building/Structure Type: Residential ~ Commercial ^ Industrial ^
Institutional ^ Other
Heritage Designation: Part IV ~ Part V: ~,~ ~ c~c ~ p~~ k l-t~ ~~ir c ~ c-tc c~
Owner
Name: I~~o ~t~f x C~- ~~~ r~~
Address:
Telephone: (Home) (Work)
Fax : E-Mai]: _~
Agent (if applicable)
Name:
Address:
Fax
Builder(s)/Contractor(s)
I. Name:
Address:
Fax
Telephone:
2. Name:
Address
Fax
(2003-04/heritage permit application)
E-Mail
Telephone:
E-Mail:
Telephone:
E-Mail:
5-10
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 elevation(s) 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.
l e c.S e f'e ~ e ~ "~o ~['~R.- q ~ ~%.c.ln P c~ ~'~e r ~~' o, c. ~. T.-,-, n c. c~-L ~SS 2SS v)-~ < n-~
Expected Start Date:
(Day/Month/Year)
Have you made a Building Permit Application for this work?
Declaration
Expected Completion Date:
^ Yes
(Day/Month/Year)
^ No
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) ~ ~ ~ .declare that the statements contained in this application
are true.
Owner's Signature: Date: ~/~
Appeal Process
Part IV Properties
Where City Council refuses an application to alteftl'ie property or consents to such application upon certain terms and conditions, the owner may,
within thirty days after receipt of the notice of Council's decision, apply to Council for a hearing before the Conservation Review Board. Where
City Council refuses consent to demolish or remove a building or structure on the property the decision of the Council shall be final. The owner
shall not demolish or remove the building or structure or do any work or cause or permit any work to be done in the demolition or removal of the
building or structure or any part of it, unless, the owner has obtained a building permit to erect a new building on the site of the building or
structure sought to be demolished or removed AND 180 days have elapsed from the date of the council's decision to refuse the application.
Part V Properties
Where the City Council refuses a permit to erect or alter the external portions of a building or structure or grants such permit with terms and
conditions attached, the owner may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. The owner must give a notice of appeal to the Ontario Municipal
Board within 30 days after the owner receives notice that the council is refusing the application or receives the permit with the terms and
conditions attached. Where City Council refuses an application for a permit to demolish or remove a building or structure the decision shall be
final and binding. The owner shall not demolish or remove the building or structure or do any work or cause or permit any work to be done in
the demolition or removal of the building or structure or any part of it, unless the owner has applied to the council under section 42 of the Ontario
Heritage Act and been given a permit to erect a new building on the site of the building or structure sought to be demolished or removed, AND
180 days have elapsed from the date of the council's notice to the owner that the council is refusing the application for the permit.
Heritage Permit Application Number:
Date of Notice of Receipt of Completed Application Served on Applicant:
(2003-04/heritage permit application)
5-11
Heritage Impact Assessment
Barra Castle
399-411 Queen Street South, Kitchener
August 12, 2009
Prepared by:
Robert J Dyck Architect & Engineer Incorporated
79 Benton Street
Kitchener Ontario (519) 571-0224
Applicant:
1090448
C/O Mr. Stephen J. Kay
Kay Professional Corporation
177 Victoria Street North
Kitchener Ontario N2H 5C5 (519) 579-1220
5-12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Applicants Proposal .......................................................................................................2-3
1.3 Conservation Recommendations .................................................................................3
2.0 STUDY PURPOSE &METHOD ................................................................4-5
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & LANDSCAPE
3.1 Current Owner Contact Information ................................................. ...........................6
3.2 Property Description
3.2.1 Subject Property ............................................................................. ........................6-7
3.2.2 Site Detail ...................................................................................... ............................7
3.2.2 Architectural Style .......................................................................... ............................7
3.3 Site History ............................................................................................... ........................7-8
3.4 Photo Documentation
3.4.1 Current Condition of the Subject Property .................................... ...........................8
3.4.2 Surrounding Properties ............................................................ ...........................9
3.5 Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District ..................... ....................9-11
3.6 The City of Kitchener Official Plan ................................................... .........................11
3.7 The City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law ............................................... .............................11
3.8 Proposed Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor .................. .........................11
3.9 Description of Architectural/Historical Features
3.9.1 Front Section
3.9.1.1 Arches ....................................................... ........................12
3.9.1.2 Windows ..................................................... .................12-13
3.9.1.3 Keystones &Sills ......................................... ........................13
3.9.1.4 Heraldic Crests ............................................ .................13-14
3.9.1.5 Barra Castle Sign ........................................ ........................14
3.9.1.6 Parapet ..................................................... .................14-15
3.9.1.7 Stairs ........................................................ .....................15
3.9.1.8 Exterior Walls .............................................. .................16-17
3.9.1.9 South West & North West Balconies ................ .................17-18
3.9.2 Middle, Rear & Annex Sections ..................................................... .......................18
3.9.2.1 Windows .................................................... .................18-19
3.9.2.2 Exterior Walls .............................................. .......................19
3.9.2.3 Roof ............................................................ ........................20
3.9.2.3 Stairs .......................................................... ........................20
3.10 Qualification of the Author ................................................................... ........................21
5-13
4.0 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
4.1 Heritage Impact Assessment Conservation Options ............................ .............22
4.1.1 Option One: Do Nothing ............................................................................ ..............22
4.1.2 Option Two: Restore all of the Queen St. South Current
Building ....................................................................................................... .......22-23
4.1.3 Option Three: Demolish the Middle, Rear & Annex Sections
Of the Building, Restore the Front Section of the Castle
& Construct a new building ........................................................................ .......23-24
4.1.4 Option Four: Demolish All Buildings Located at 399 Queen
St. South, Replicate the Heritage Portion of the Castle (Front
Section) & Construct a New Building at the Rear ................................... .......24-25
4.1.5 Option Five: Option Five: Demolish All Buildings & Do not Rebuild,
Construct a New Building ........................................................................... .............25
5.0 EVALUATION .................................................................................................................26
5.1 Conservation Recommendations ....................................................................... .26-27
5.2 Significance ................................................................................................................ .27-28
5.3 Impact on Heritage Resource .............................................................................. 28-29
5.4 Recommended Measures .................................................................................... ........29
5.5 Summary Statement ............................................................................................... .......29
5.5.1 Development Options ..................................................................... ......29
5.5.2 Heritage Recommendations ............................................................. ......30
7.0 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Historic Building Inventory
APPENDIX B Colin A. Lee Engineering Ltd Structural Assessment, July
2009
APPENDIX C PEIL Report, July 10, 2006
APPENDIX D "Castles & Kings", Ron Brown, 2001, Polar Bear
Press
APPENDIX E Heritage Kitchener Committee Report
APPENDIX F Email from Michelle Wade, July 24, 2009
APPENDIX G Email from Leon Bensason, May 25, 2009
APPENDIX H Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference
APPENDIX I Altered Floor Plans, According to Proposed Demolition
APPENDIX J Site Plan for Barra Castle
APPENDIX K Robert J Dyck Resume
5-14
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Given the Heritage Kitchener's recognition of the 399-411 Queen St. South in the City of
Kitchener as a building with significant cultural heritage value, as well as its location
which subjects it to the rules of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District, it
is required that a Heritage Impact Assessment be submitted for any development of the
property. This Heritage Impact Assessment follows the City of Kitchener Heritage
Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (Appendix H).
1090448 Ontario Ltd., care of Stephen J. Kay of Kay Professional Corporation requires
a Heritage Impact Assessment of its Kitchener property as part of the Heritage Permit
Application submitted concurrently requesting demolition of the middle, rear and annex
sections of the subject building as apre-requisite for development approval.
The subject property is located at 399-411 Queen Street South in Kitchener, and
consists of two buildings, one in the front of approximately 3,100 sq ft. and one in the
behind, known as Barra Castle. The front section of the castle is approximately 3,600 sq
ft. with a basement and the middle, rear and annex section is approximately 15,000 sq
ft.
The style of Barra Castle has been said to be Tudor Castle/Scottish Baronial style. This
style is unique to the surrounding area, and is an outstanding example of this
architectural style. This apartment building was built in 1930 and lies within the Victoria
Park Area Heritage Conservation Area and has been deemed a heritage property of
cultural significance. As the property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage
Act, interest in the heritage attributes is limited to the exterior.
Barra Castle has minor gothic elements, such as the arches, keystones, sills, windows,
the Barra Castle emblem, the heraldic crests, the distinctive parapet and balconies,
which remain in fair condition, and is considered of particular architectural significance
due to its unique style. Barra Castle's size and distinctive style causes it to be
recognizable as a prominent visual landmark in the city of Kitchener. Since Barra Castle
has had many additions since its construction in 1930, only the front section of the
building is considered to be the original architecture.
This study evaluates the impact that the proposed restoration and redevelopment has
on the heritage attributes of the front, middle, rear and annex sections of the Barra
Castle and the associated streetscape. This Heritage Impact Assessment uses the
principles of the Parks Canada Standard & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic
Places in Canada.
1
5-15
1.2 APPLICANTS PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing the following three-phase process. The first phase is
outlined in detail, while the second and third phases' heritage/construction principles will
be outlined.
PHASE I
The first phase is the demolition of the middle, rear and annex portions of the building
(as indicated in Appendix J). The windows and doors in the front building have been
secured to prevent further damage to the heritage features. The South West balcony
will be demolished and the original building will be secured at the balcony location to
prevent further water damage, as it is no longer structurally capable of supporting a live
load (as indicated in the Structural Assessment, Appendix D). The rear wall of the
original castle will be boarded up after the demolition of the middle, rear and annex
sections of the castle have been completed (as indicated in Appendix J). The openings
in the front portion of the castle will be secured through boarding and the site will be
monitored.
PHASE 11
The second phase will undertake the restoration of the original 1930 structure. Some of
the works to be completed on the original structure include:
• The repair and re-stuccoing of the exterior walls
• The removal of damaged and undamaged windows, sills, keystones, doorways,
arches, heraldic crests, and parapet, to be reconstructed/replicated.
• The refastening of the North West balcony to the original building structure.
• The replication of the South West balcony that was demolished in PHASE I.
Although not part of the HIA, works to be completed on 411 Queen St. (separate
building close to Queen Street) include:
• Refinishing of exterior facade to accommodate a more modern look.
• Renovation of the interior units to accommodate residential and/or commercial
units.
PHASE 111
The third phase will undertake the construction of afive-storey condominium building
plus an additional storey below for covered parking. The complex will be served by
covered parking mostly and some at-grade parking. The condominium building addition
will contain a number of apartment units. The restored front building will contain three
apartment units.
2
5-16
In order to maintain the Queen St. Streetscape, the new condominium building would be
of a more modern architectural style, and would be stepped back to maintain the rhythm
of the middle & rear buildings. The architecture will be subordinate to the maintained
front building.
Phase I will be part of the current Heritage Permit Application to be reviewed by the City
of Kitchener staff.
Phase II will require a Heritage Permit Application to undertake restoration and
renovation of the front building and front part of the Castle and to adhere to the
recommendations in this report.
Phase III will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment & Heritage
Permit Application and to adhere to the recommendations in this report.
1.3 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
This Heritage Impact Assessment makes the following major recommendation:
That Option 3 relating to the demolition of the middle, rear and annex section,
restoration of the front section of the original castle, and construction of a new building
at the rear is supported. The middle, rear, annex and southwest balcony of 399 Queen
Street South are recommended to be demolished due to structural issues & the high
cost of restoration. The front part of the building, which has been identified in the
Heritage Impact Assessment as being of primary heritage significance, is in better
condition structurally and will be retained. It has been protected through boarding and is
being monitored as per the Heritage Permit Application & Heritage Impact Assessment.
3
5-17
2.0 STUDY PURPOSE
1090448 Ontario Ltd., care of Stephen J. Kay of Kay Professional Corporation requires
a Heritage Impact Assessment of the subject property as apre-requisite for demolition
approval for the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application. The PEIL report
(Appendix C) had concluded that no official plan amendment or zone change is required
by the City of Kitchener granted the existing buildings and use remain on the subject
site and no new dwellings are created within the floodway designation defined by the
Grand River Conservation Authority. A zone change for the 411 Queen St., which is
zoned E1, will be required and applies to Phase 2 of the construction.
The subject property consists of a rectangular plot of land that lies at 399-411 Queen
Street South, containing a heritage apartment building, well known as Barra Castle.
The requirements of a heritage impact assessment are defined by the City of Kitchener
and requires, as a minimum:
• Identification and evaluation of significant heritage resources
• Documentation of the heritage resources through photography, mapping, and/or
measured drawings
• An outline of the development proposal with reference to how it will impact the
identified heritage resources;
• Identification of conservation options that are recognized as appropriate to the
significance of the resources.
On July 10, 2006, Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd. (PEIL) and Robert J Dyck
Architect & Engineer undertook a preliminary heritage assessment for Impulse
Development Group. Site visits were conducted in 2006. The study referred to the City
of Kitchener Official Plan Designation, Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District
Document, The City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law & The K-W Record's article "Kitchener
castle is part of book's royal tour, Jun 12, 2001" referencing the book where Barra
Castle is noted (See Appendix D).
Documentation used in this study includes:
• Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd., Kitchener; files and maps
• Nicholas Hill, Architect & Planner. "City of Kitchener Official Plan Designation", p.
29-32, 60-64 & 69.
• City of Kitchener. "Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District", p 3-71 to 3-
80 & 2-51 to 2-52.
• "City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law 85-1". Section 45 (June 2000) & 48 (May 30,
2005).
• Weidner, Johanna. Tuesday June 12, 2001. "Kitchener Castle is Part of Book's
Royal Tour." The Record, D2.
4
5-18
Phase I involves the submission of the heritage permit application, requesting
permission to demolish the middle, rear, annex and southwest balcony portions of the
building. A copy of the heritage permit application is attached and this application is
supported by the foregoing heritage impact assessment.
5
5-19
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & LANDSCAPE
3.1 CURRENT OWNER CONTACT INFORMATION
1090448 ONTARIO LTD.
C/O Mr. Stephen J. Kay
Kay Professional Corporation
177 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
N2H 5C5
(519) 579-1220
3.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
3.2.1 Subject Property
The subject property is legally described as Plan 397 Part
Lot 5 and has a municipal address of 399-411 Queen Street
South, Kitchener. The subject property is 0.61 acres in size
and contains two buildings. The first building is located at
the northwest corner of the subject property, adjacent to
Queen Street South. This building contains two office units
and two residential units. The second building on the
subject property is known as Barra Castle and contains
fourteen residential units. A development agreement was
entered into on August 11, 1988 by the previous owner, the
City of Kitchener, and Investors Group Trust Co. Ltd. For
Site plan approval. However, a release of the subject
property from the agreement was never granted, as the site
was not fully developed in compliance with the Site Plan.
(See Appendix C & J)
~I
r;~
~',F3
Barra Castle, located at 399 Queen Street South in
Kitchener is athree-storey building with a building footprint
of approximately 5,500 square feet; the building was
constructed around 1930. The building was previously in
use as rental apartments but was ordered closed in August
2007 by the City of Kitchener Fire Department due to fire
and electrical safety violations and since that time has remained
hydro or natural gas. (See Appendix 8)
1930 Bazra Apartments
boarded up without any
6
5 - 20
The Barra Castle is a three to four-storey building with an irregular shape in plain view,
which we have divided into four areas. The Front section has three storeys plus a
partially finished basement. The size of the front portion is approximately 3,600 sq ft.
The middle has three storeys plus an unfinished basement. Between the front and
middle sections of the building there is a change in elevation of the floor and roof levels.
The back section of the building has four storeys with no basement. Connected to the
main building at the southeast corner is atwo-storey annex. The size of the middle, rear
and annex portions of 399 Queen St. are approximately 15,000 sq ft. (See Appendix K)
Due to its irregular shape in plan, locations of interior and exterior stairs, variation in
floor levels, and in particular, the varying types of construction materials used in each of
the four parts of the building, the middle, rear and annex sections of the building are
found to be later additions to the original Front section (See Appendix 8).
3.2.2 Site Detail
Barra Castle's position on the rear of the lot and the position of the existing trees around
it partially obscure the building from the street. The Barra Castle's size and style cause
it to be instantly recognizable, and the architectural style is unique in the surrounding
buildings in the streetscape, and to Kitchener.
3.2.3 Architectural Style
The Architectural style of Barra Castle is (Tudor Castle) Scottish Baronial. (See
Appendix A)
3.3 SITE HISTORY
Barra Castle was built by Molly Marquette in 1930 and was built to replicate a Russian
Castle where she lived as a child. The building is one of unique distinction within the city
of Kitchener and has architectural integrity. Despite numerous ownership changes most
of the original style and exterior characteristics, as well as architectural details, have
remained fairly intact. (See Appendix D)
Molly Marquette acquired the building from the MacKay family in 1930 and remodeled
the house to replicate the look of her childhood home in Russia and named it Barra
Castle. (Appendix C)
Anecdotes about the Marquette's and the building of Barra Castle are common and
often conflicting. Date of construction has been identified as turn of the century, 1906,
1928, and the most probable 1930. The contractor is unknown but some allege that
Mrs. Marquette dug the foundation herself, despite the absence of one leg. Stories of
how the castle got its name (Barra was either Mrs. Marquette's maiden name or where
her grandfather came from in Bavaria) and of how Mr. Marquette, her son, constructed
airplanes in the basement are still circulating. Some local authorities still recall the
ceremonious burial of a Model T Ford in the hold Howard Marquette made trying to
7
5-21
remove his airplanes from the basement. Barra Castle has an eccentric history to match
its bizarre architecture. (Appendix 8)
The original use of the Barra Castle is said to be rented apartments and some of the
significant owners include Stanley E. Leavine B.A., M.D., M.L.A. Mr. Leavine was
elected a member of City council in 1930 and became mayor in 1950. The "walking
mayor" was also active in the Lion's Club and the North Waterloo Medical Society. In
1953, he was elected a member of the Ontario Legislature for the Conservative party.
He died on July 27, 1958. (Appendix 8)
Barra Castle is said to be one of the most commonly recognized Landmarks in
Kitchener. (Appendix 8)
3.4 PHOTO DOCUMENTATION
3.4.1 Current Condition of the Subject Property
~~
w''
~'! ii
Figure 4: Heraldic Crest
Figure 6 (right):
North Eastern Entrance (side)
~s
.~
~~- ~~~
~- I
-~.~ -,
~~
Figure 5: South Side of the Castle
L R
Figure 9: North Eastern Wall
(Back section)
Figure 2: Main Entrance Arch
Figure 3: North West Balcony
Figure 7: Side of Annex Section
Figure 8 (right): Alcove
3.4.2 Surrounding Properties
3.5 VICTORIA PARK AREA HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
As Barra Castle is within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and not
individually designated by Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, the City of Kitchener
would like the character of the neighbourhood and the existing streetscape along Queen
Street South maintained. Any new additions should respect the existing character, and
not necessarily replicate the existing character of the building.
The subject site is within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District,
approved by Kitchener City Council on June 17, 1996 and approved by the Ontario
Municipal Board on May 16, 1997. The goals of the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation
District are to conserve and maintain the visible history of the Victoria Park Area,
including its historic buildings, landscapes and streetscapes; to recognize and build on
the social diversity within the area in order to accommodate and support the community;
and to respond economically to both the stable unchanging residential areas and the
changing and dynamic Queen Street South corridor. Section 2.2 of the Victoria Park
Area Heritage Conservation District Plan shows a sketch of Barra Castle as an example
of Building Style Guidelines for Apartments. The Plan indicates the importance of
9
5 - 23
Figure 11:
Family Counseling & Law Practice
(Across the street)
Figure 12:
Law Practice & Family Residence
(Across the street)
Figure 10:
Family Counseling
(Across the Street)
Figure 13:
379 Queen St.
(I81 Group)
419 Queen St.
(Single Family Residence)
;~'~° ',
Figure 14:
389 Queen St.
(Teamworks Hair Design)
conserving the architectural integrity and details of apartment buildings such as Barra
Castle.
"There are eight apartment buildings in the Victoria Park Area, and they
represent, to a degree, the history of this early 20r" century high rise building
type. Shown above right is the 1930 Scottish Baronial style Barra Apartments at
399 Queen Street South. It is important to conserve the architectural integrity and
details of apartment buildings such as this. "(See Appendix C)
"As the property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, interest in the
heritage attributes is limited to the exterior of the building. Our preliminary evaluation
would suggest that these heritage attributes include the following exterior features:
• Roof and roofline with parapet wall, and lower flat roof created by the building
projections and irregular plan.
• The stucco fagade, including arched and squared entranceways and recessed
doorways with raised surrounds and decorative moldings, the identifying plaques
and crests.
• The exterior balconies.
• Concrete steps including decorative carvings and caps.
• All window and door openings, including raised decorative surrounds, moldings,
and concrete sills
• Original windows and doors, including wooden, leaded and stained glass
windows, wooden storms, projecting bay windows, and wooden paneled doors."
(See Appendix G)
The following points are from the Heritage Kitchener Committee report:
Exhibiting unique qualities or details that make it a landmark:
Barra Castle's size and distinctive style cause it to be recognizable as a
landmark within the city.
Of an age that contributes to its heritage plan.
Conservative estimates suggest the Barra Castle was built almost 80 years ago
in 1930, although other sources suggest the date maybe as early as the turn of
the century or 1906. The building has a significant history and folklore associated
with its original owner, Molly Marquette. It was also owned by Dr. Stanley
Leavine, a former member of City Council, former Mayor of Kitchener, and an
elected member of the Ontario Legislature. According to a book on Ontario
Castles entitled "Castles & Kings" by Ron Brown, the guest list of those who
stayed in the Barra Castle includes former Prime ministers Wilfrid Laurier and
William Lyon Mackenzie King.
Contributing to the streetscape because it is part of an unusual sequence,
grouping or situated in a unique location.
10
5 - 24
Barra Castle's unique architecture and distinctiveness contributes to an unusual
sequence of building styles along Queen Street South, which adds to the
character of the streetscape and neighbourhood (See Appendix G)
3.6 THE CITY OF KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN
The city of Kitchener Official Plan designates the subject site within the Mill-Courtland-
Woodside Park Secondary Plan as Medium Density Commercial Residential and Open
Space. The intent of the Medium Density Commercial Residential is to provide for a
range of residential and non-retail commercial buildings with a maximum residential
density of 200 units per hectare and a maximum floor space ration of 2.0. The open
space designation represents the land area within a floodway in the Mill Courtland
Woodside Park Neighbourhood Secondary plan. The Floodway is described as the
hazardous portion of the flood plain where a significant threat may exist to life and/or
property. In all circumstances, the floodway will be delineated by the Grand River
Conservation Authority. Development within the floodway is restricted to minor
expansions and minor alterations to existing buildings, provided no new dwelling units
are created. (See Appendix D)
3.7 THE CITY OF KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW
The City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law zones the subject site as Commercial Residential
Two Zone (CR-2) with special regulation provision 1 R, as well as Existing Use Zone (E-
1). Both an office and multiple dwelling are permitted uses within the CR-2 Zone. The
permitted uses within the E-1 Zone apply only to the use lawfully existing on and
continually used for since the date the E-1 Zone was applied to the lands. (See
Appendix D)
3.8 PROPOSED QUEEN STREET SOUTH MIXED USE CORRIDOR
The City of Kitchener is currently creating draft zoning for the Queen Street South Mixed
Use Corridor. The goal of the mixed used corridor is to provide transit supportive
development of high densities with high quality designs. The zoning comprises of Low
Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-1 ), Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone
(MU-2), and High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-3). The draft zoning currently
places the subject site within the MU-1 zone; however, as the subject site is a unique
heritage property site specific zoning should recognize and allow the existing buildings
and dwellings on the subject site. (See Appendix D)
3.9 DESCRIPTION OF ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL
ELEMENTS
The following section will provide a detailed assessment of the architectural and
historical elements. This description will reference only elements in the front portion of
the building, as the middle, rear and annex sections are not part of the original building.
11
5 - 25
In this regard, we undertook site visits and referred to the Colin Lee Structural
Assessment Report. Many of the exterior architectural features of Barra Castle have
been damaged by vandalism or by degradation due to weather, and in our opinion are
now beyond repair.
3.9.1 Front Section
3.9.1.1 Arches
~~
~~-
~'-
Description: The arches are pre-cast concrete. The heritage
significance of the main entrance arch (Figure 16) is that it
forms the central focus for the Queen Street elevation of the
original Barra Castle. The northwest balcony arch is an addition
to the original Barra Castle but although not original, it creates a
delightful articulation to the northwest side of the original Barra
Castle. ~: :~. ~,-~,
~ - p ~ ~ { ~ - Current Condition: The gothic arches
'` found over some of the entrance doors
.~~' ,~ ~ -- ~' ~`~- and balcony windows (Figure 17) are
- _, ~, generally in good condition. We found
:~ ..
Figure 1s: the stucco had cracked and separated
Front Entrance Arch from the brick on one of these arches
at the second floor Northwest balcony. Repair would involve
removing the existing stucco, examining the brick and mortar
joints below to ensure that they are sound and replacing with
new stucco.
3.9.1.2 Windows
,~~ _ ~'~
d~ i ~+,~-
~'
.z x... -
t ~I ~-~ lli~
Description: The original windows are wood. Some
of the windows have been covered by aluminum
storms. The window openings are of heritage
significance as they T.
are original to the
building, and have
_~ ,,. ,~ 1 T, pre-cast concrete
~'= r ~~"` heads and sills. ~
~~~
~ i _ ~;~ ,
Figure 18: -- - -
SouthWestBalconyWindows Current Condition:
Many of the windows at the North and South sides of the
_.~.
building that have the distinctive keystone above the window Figure 1s:
also have badly cracked stucco and corroded steel angle lintels. Front Facade window
12
5 - 26
Figure 17:
Gothic Arch
The damaged stucco, lintels, brick and mortar above the windows would have to be
replaced, together with the decorative concrete keystone and header.
- ~ _~ !` ;~
Figure 20:
Window above Front Entrance
3.9.1.3 Keystones & Sills
,^,`'
rl ~
~1
Figure 22:
Front Facade Window
~; • '"_ ~-"~°'; Description: The keystones and sills are made from
' '~ ~- pre-cast concrete. They have heritage significance to
r'¶
~``~ the Barra Castle due to their placement in the front
~~,: elevation, and visibility from Queen Street.
r --~ ~` ,
`- Current Condition:
- - - Many of the exterior
~~ architectural elements
~ ' '~ such as the keystones
Figure 23: Over the windows,
Keystone Details concrete arch over the
exterior walk, concrete headers and sills around the
windows are damaged and in our opinion are beyond
repair and would need to be replicated.
3.9.1.4 Heraldic Crests
Description: These crests are pre-cast concrete. The heritage significance of the
heraldic crests is that they are part of the original main entranceway facing Queen
Street.
Current Condition: The heraldic crests are repairable/replicable.
13
5 - 27
Figure 24:
Window Sill Details
~ _
,V ; % -
r~ _ '~
ti' 'y/
_ '
~~~= ~,
Figure 26:
Left Heraldic Crest
3.9.1.5 Barra Castle Sign
,! 7p
t !I'
~~
~~ ~~
y f.'
M
~w
;~
+ '.
'~~' _
~ .
16 :. ~_ ~+
_ r ~`~° :Y.r- ~
1
d ,
~,:.'l~
Figure 27:
Right Heraldic Crest
Description: The Barra Castle sign is made of pre-cast concrete. Its heritage
significance is due to the fact that it is representative of the original building; it names
the castle and is visible from Queen Street. - ~ r-=_--
Current Condition: The Barra Castle sign is ,,.,.: - - -::
repairable. ~ ~~ _ _ _ -_ _ - -
s.,
kn ~---- - '~~
f - `~,~;
Figure 28:
Barra Castle Sign
3.9.1.6 Parapet
i~ ..e a ~ F~ °~
P ~ r ~, ao.t.br ~i
- r
~.~ _
Figure 29:
Barra Castle Sign
Description: The roof is sloped from front to back and constructed of 2 x 4 wood purlins on 2 x
8 roof joists. The parapet is significant in that it is gothic, Scottish Baronial architecture. With
regards to the crenulated parapet, the following applies. It provides the distinctive castle like
feature to this building. These notches are covered with
,/~ painted galvanized metal flashing. The parapet, below the
// notches, is constructed of stucco with metal lath on wood
framing.
Current Condition: Parts of the galvanized crenels are
~r, rusted and damaged and therefore need repairing. The
~,r ~ ~.
- ''' ~,~ stucco on the inside of the parapets is cracked in several
places and is allowing water to enter the wall assembly.
'- ~ At the base of the parapet to roof join; the flashing is in
Figure 30: very poor condition. Much of the water damage within
Exterior of Parapet the building is likely due to poor waterproofing at the
14
5 - 28
Figure 25:
Heraldic Crest
roof to parapet joints. Proper flashing of the roof membrane to parapet join is required. The
stucco plaster on the inside of the parapet would first need to be repaired, and then the entire
inside face of the parapet covered with a suitable flashing membrane and metal counter flashing.
Recommendations: Proper flashing and
waterproofing is required on the interior of the roof
parapet. Replace rusted and damaged galvanized
flashing that form the top of the crenelated parapet.
The plaster on the inside of the parapet needs to be
repaired and the entire inside face of the parapet
then covered with a suitable flexible flashing and
aluminum counter flashing. The roof was repaired
by the previous developer and is sufficient for
protecting the heritage resource for approximately
two years. The restoration work should be
scheduled for medium term maintenance or
restoration.
3.9.1.7 Stairs
-°~.~I
.ST ~
~. ---
Figure 31:
Parapet view from roof
Description: There are 2 sets of stairs in the front
section of the building. The main entrance stair
(stair #1) and stair #2 (on the southwest side) are
made of poured concrete on grade. There is no
heritage significance to the stairs due to the fact that
they were later additions. Even the steps
themselves are not original to the front building.
There is a requirement for handrails at the side of
the stairs to meet the Ontario building code.
Current Condition: The walls of the stair are
cracked and separated from the treads. The stair
needs to be rebuilt, as we do not believe that it can
be repaired. The concrete forming the treads and
walls are cracked and deteriorated. This stair needs
to be rebuilt. (See Appendix J). Both exterior
concrete stairs #1 & #2 are damaged and need to
be rebuilt.
~~
15
5 - 29
Figure 32:
Front Entrance Stairs (#1)
Figure 33:
Side Entrance Stairs (#2)
3.9.1.8 Exterior Walls
Description: The front of Barra Castle is cast in place concrete up to the second floor.
The stone in the concrete is of widely varying sizes and up to 6 inch diameter was
observed in the walls. There is a smooth stucco finish on the
outside, which varies in thickness up to 3/4 inch in some ~~ ---_-- --
areas. The walls in the front section are constructed of cast in i
place concrete with load bearing 2 x 4 wood stud for the - -
~.,
exterior walls. Stucco plaster appears to have been added at _
a later date to all of the exterior walls. The foundation walls ~ ',
are of cast in place concrete. The heritage significance of the
~~
exterior walls is that they are the fagade for Barra Castle and
are viewable from Queen Street. 4 ;
Current Condition: We found extensive cracking of the ~ -
exterior stucco plaster, which vary from hairline to wide open ~'
and are visible around the building perimeter. On the lower _~
ground level tapping on the plaster indicated that it was Figure 34:
hollow and delaminated in numerous places indicating that it South WestFa~ade Walls
had debonded from the substrate. We would expect that this would be more prevalent
on the upper floors of the building. Our visual examination of the foundation walls show
that they are in generally good condition with N: ~
no obvious signs of cracking or settlement. 'I~ ~ ..4„
~. ~;
The basement appears dry and there does not s {~~"
appear to be any outside surface or ,~~ ~.:'~
groundwater entering the building through the `
foundation walls.
- e c ~
Recommendations: In our opinion, it is not ,.~
acceptable to simply patch over the cracks in '' ~""~
the stucco plaster where the stucco has ~; ~' w
already debonded from its substrate. Any ~ ~ ~- ~.
repair would require removal of loose, cracked Figure 35:
or bulging stucco. The brick or concrete Cracked Stucco
substrate would then need to be inspected to ensure that it is not loose or soft. Any
loose or soft substrate would need to be repaired before re-applying new stucco. There
is extensive cracking, spalling and damage to the stucco plaster finish on the exterior
walls. At the lower levels, the stucco around many of these cracks was found to be
hollow and delaminated from the concrete, brick and wood substrates. A similar pattern
for the cracks visible at the higher levels of the walls would be expected. We would
recommend further examination and condition survey of all of the exterior wall areas to
determine the full extent of damage. The stucco can then be repaired by removing all
loose or cracked plaster, inspection and repair of the concrete, block or brick substrate
below if it is loose or soft, then re-applying new stucco.
16
5-30
Future Recommendations: The load bearing walls of the Barra Castle will not carry a
future floor above, as they are not structurally adequate. If a future floor is to be added,
then all of the bearing walls on the floors below will have to be reinforced by adding
additional studs at closer spacing or doubling up the existing studs within the walls. The
size of the existing footings will also have to be investigated to ensure that they can
carry the additional floor loads.
3.9.1.9 South West & North West Balconies
-, Description: There is a small three-storey balcony
between the Kitchen and Living room at the front
- - -~~=`,~ w portion of the building. The two-storey North West
.a~ balcony appears to be an addition to the original
~. .
'~ `~ ; building. The Northwest and Southwest balconies are
- ~ constructed of cast in place concrete with load
F ~,
~, „~` ~ i bearing 2 x 4 wood stud, stucco plaster was added at
~- ~ a later date to the exterior walls. The heritage
~.- f~(~ ~~• ! "` ~ significance of the southwest balcony is that it is
Figure 3s: original to the Barra Castle. The northwest balcony
South West Balcony was a later addition to the castle and is not significant
except it creates a delightful articulation to the northwest side.
Current Condition: The exterior walls of this balcony
are severely damaged. The stucco is completely
cracked, delaminated and spalling. There is erosion
and structural degradation of the cast in place
concrete behind. The floor joists supporting this
balcony on the third floor are water damaged and
rotting. While not in immediate danger of collapse,
we do not believe that this balcony is structurally
capable of supporting the required design residential Figure 37:
floor live load and needs to be demolished and South West Balcony Damage
reconstructed. It should be noted that the adjacent Kitchen is partly supported by the
balcony and therefore would require to be temporarily supported while the balcony is
being repaired. If the balcony is demolished and is not going to be rebuilt, then a new
support structure for the corner of the Kitchen would be required in the form of a load
bearing wall or column below.
Recommendations: There is a continuous vertical crack where the brick wall of the
addition meets the concrete wall of the original building. We would recommend that the
small wood roof over the balcony be replaced and the new roof framing could then be
properly anchored to the walls of the balcony as well as the walls of the original building.
Proper flashing of the open balcony is required to prevent water and moisture entering
the joint between the balcony and the main building. The roof structure over the North
West balcony needs to be replaced. The wall and new roof at the top of this balcony
17
5-31
~~~
L ;
should then be attached structurally to the main
north wall of the building to avoid further
separation of the two areas.
.~, ` ~' '_°~ There is extensive deterioration of the South
,. _ _...
`~~, West balcony at the Front section. In our
~` ~ - ~ opinion it is currently not structurally capable of
~s I '~ t- ~ supporting the required design live floor loads.
~`x, ~ ~ '~~ This balcony should be removed down to the
~~~ , ~~~
ground floor level and then reconstructed. The
Figure 3a: kitchen, which is attached to the balcony, will
North West Balcony need to be temporarily supported until the
reconstruction work is completed. If the balcony is not going to be reconstructed, then
the kitchen would either have to be also demolished, or a new load bearing column/wall
added below to support the kitchen.
3.9.2 MIDDLE, REAR & ANNEX SECTIONS
Due to its irregular shape in plan, locations of interior and exterior stairs, variation in
floor levels, and in particular, the varying types of construction materials used in each of
the four parts of the building, it appears that the middle, rear and annex sections of the
building were likely later additions to the original Front section. Due to the extensive
repairs required to the exterior cladding and the load bearing elements of the structure
on the middle, rear and annex portions of the building, it is our opinion that it would
likely be more economical to demolish and then rebuild these areas. (Appendix 8)
There was an attempt to match the architecture of the original Barra Castle, however it
was poorly executed. The windows are not in proportion to the style of the original
windows in the Barra Castle. The architecture of the middle, rear and annex sections of
the building detract from the front section of the building. The architecture of these
sections is inconsistent and does not match the front section, and is therefore of little
heritage significance.
3.9.2.1
Description
no heritage
Castle.
Windows
Most of the windows have been replaced using aluminum storms. There is
significance due to the fact that they are not part of the original Barra
Current Condition: The windows in the rear, middle and
annex sections would have to be replaced.
18
- 32
~~
3.9.2.2 Exterior Walls
Description: On the middle, rear and annex sections of the building the stucco is
applied on brick or wood. The inside of the walls are generally plaster with metal or
wood lath with no vapour barrier on wood stud. The exterior walls on this section of the
building are stucco plaster on metal lath applied to 2 x 4 walls. The 2 x 4 walls are
covered on the inside with wood lath or metal lath and plaster. The exterior walls at the
Back of the building is stucco plaster on brick with back up 2 x 4 walls or double wythe
brick and cinder block. At the ground floor level, the walls are a mixture of 2 x 4 wood
framing, cinder block, and brick speed tile. There is afour-storey sunroom that was
added to the exterior wall at the back of the
building. This sunroom is framed in wood and covered with aluminum siding with
exposed brick pilasters at the two outer corners. The Annex is atwo-storey building
constructed of stucco plaster on cinder block. These walls are not part of the original
structure, and therefore are of no heritage significance.
Current Condition: We found extensive cracking of the exterior stucco plaster, which
vary from hairline to wide open and are visible around the building perimeter. On the
lower ground level tapping on the plaster indicated that it was hollow and delaminated in
numerous places indicating that it had debonded from the substrate. We would expect
that this would be more prevalent on the upper floors of the building. The exterior wall at
the Back or East end of the Barra Castle is badly damaged due to water. The stucco
finish is severely cracked and damaged. Around the windows the stucco has spalled off,
exposing the brick wall. The exposed brick face has delaminated and the mortar has
deteriorated. The lintels over the windows have severe rusting. The stucco, brick and
steel lintels need to be removed and rebuilt from the roof to the ground floor level. We
would expect there would be rotting, mould and mildew of the backup wood studs, and
the affected studs would need to be replaced.
Recommendations: Any repair would require removal of loose, cracked or bulging
stucco. The brick or concrete substrate would then need to be inspected to ensure that
it is not loose or soft. Any loose or soft substrate would need to be repaired before re-
applying new stucco.
19
5-33
Figure 39:
Annex Wall Window
Figure 40:
North East Wall Window
3.9.2.3 Roof
Description: In the middle section, the roof, which is flat, is constructed of 2 x 8 roof
joists. At the back section, the roof, which is flat, is also constructed of 2 x 8 joists. In the
annex, the roof is of wood construction. The roof in the middle, rear and annex sections
are not of heritage significance and are not visible from the street.
Current Condition: 2 x 8 at 16" centres spanning 17' 2". Structurally, these joists are
over spanned for the design roof snow loads and would need to be reinforced or
replaced with larger joists. The 2 x 8 roof joists adjacent to the back wall on the back
section of the building in the Dining Room and Bedroom 2 are water damaged with rot
and mould, and would need to be replaced. There is only one roof drain serving this
entire roof. Since the roof is flat, we would recommend the installation of a second roof
drain, and possibly even installing tapered insulation below the roof membrane which
would provide a minimal roof slope and permit proper flow of water to the roof drains.
3.9.2.4 Stairs
,I
Description: Stair # 3 is a suspended,
reinforced concrete slab. Stairs # 4 and # 5
are poured concrete on grade. The stairs
are not of heritage significance as they are
not original to the building and not visible
from the streetscape.
~--
Current Condition: There is extensive --
spalling of the concrete below the stair and +"~'~
severe corrosion of the reinforced steel. 4;=
This suspended stair is not structurally Figure 44:
sound. Exterior concrete stair #3 is Stair#5
damaged. Structurally, stairs 3-5 would all
need to be replaced, as they are not structurally sound enough to
simply restore.
Figure 42 (above left):
Stair #3
Figure 43 (left):
Stair #4
20
5-34
Y T
~~
>> , 'lam
3.10 QUALIFICATION OF AUTHOR COMPLETING THE
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Robert Dyck completed his bachelor in Science at the University of Waterloo for civil
engineering and obtained the certificate of practice by the Ontario Association of
Architects. For the last 22 years, he has acted as president at Robert J Dyck Architect &
Engineer Inc. During that time he was won numerous heritage awards, including the
2004 Mike Wagner Heritage Award for Outstanding Achievement for PEIL offices, 2008
Mike Wagner Heritage Award for the Betzner Farmhouse & for Riverview Retirement
Home, the Heritage Design Award.
Robert's experience in heritage consists of the following:
• Committee member on Heritage Kitchener
• Received 3 heritage awards (See Above)
• Lived in Victoria Park Conservation Area for over 30 years
• Designed over 60 buildings with heritage architecture. For example, Lancaster
Frederick office complex had heritage architecture to be sympathetic with
heritage housing in the neighbourhood.
Please refer to Appendix K for resume.
21
5-35
4.0 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
4.1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT CONSERVATION
nPTInNS
The City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment process requires that the
proponent provide conservation options for the proposed redevelopment of the site.
Please note that 411 Queen Street, the building in front of the castle, is not part of this
application. In the following sections, we have reviewed five options.
4.1.1 Option One: Do Nothing
Under this option, the subject property will remain in bad repair, remain vacant and
eventually deteriorate. According to the standards put out by Parks Canada, you must
conserve heritage value of heritage resources and find a use for such site, and this
option would negate conservation and the site would be left unused.
4.1.2 Option Two: Restore all of the 399 Queen St. South Current
Building
Under this option, the current exterior 15,000 sq ft. building would be totally renovated
and restored to the original design. This restoration would include removal of loose
stucco on exterior walls, inspection of brick or concrete substrate and repair of
substrate, if necessary, and re-application of stucco. Exterior Stairs 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 (front,
middle, rear and annex sections) would be rebuilt. The joists on the roof would be
reinforced or replaced. A second roof drain would need to be installed on the roof in the
back section. The floor joists at the back of the castle would need to be reinforced. The
2 x 8 floor joist on the ground, second and third floor would need to be replaced. The
stucco, brick and steel lintels would have to be removed and replaced. As for the
parapet, proper flashing and waterproofing is required. The damaged galvanized
flashing would need to be replaced. The plaster on the inside of the parapet needs to be
repaired and the entire inside face of the parapet then covered with a suitable flexible
flashing and aluminum counter flashing.
According to the Standards & Guidelines put out by Parks Canada, standard number
one, it requires "Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact or repairable
character-defining elements" (Parks Canada, 2009). Therefore the front section of the
building, which in my professional opinion is the only section that is the original Barra
Castle, should be conserved as it has many character-defining elements, such as the
heraldic crests, arches, window openings, sills, keystones and parapet. The middle, rear
and annex sections have few character-defining elements and should not be saved
because of the following four reasons:
1. The middle, rear and annex sections were not the original building construction
and were additions to the original Barra Castle.
22
5-36
2. It is not economically feasible to reconstruct and renovate the middle, rear and
annex sections.
3. The floor heights and configuration of the walls do not lend themselves to
redevelopment. The redevelopment of the middle, rear and annex sections would
not provide a return a reasonable return of investment for a developer, because
of the low yield and high cost of apartments that result from the redevelopment.
4. The heritage value lies in the front section of the building.
Based upon the Colin Lee report, this option would require further structural
investigations of the delamination of the stucco, the rotting and molding of the wood
studs in the front and rear section at a cost of approximately $5,000 - $8,000. Further
architectural/structural investigations at a cost of approximately $20,000 would also be
required to rehabilitate and restore the front and back sections of the building. It is my
professional opinion that in order to restore the front section, the cost would be
approximately $150 per square foot, and for the middle, rear and annex sections; the
cost would range from $200 - $225 per square foot given the many unknowns of the
condition of the structures. Given that the floor space of the front is approximately 3,600
sq. ft and approximately 12,000 Sq ft. in the rear; the cost to renovate would be
approximately $540,000 for the front section and $2,400,000 for the rear section. This
would equate to approximately $3,000,000 for the restoration of the existing buildings to
a level, which can be sellable or rentable. This, coupled with the cost to purchase the
property does not make this option economically feasible.
4.1.3 Option Three: Demolish the Middle, Rear & Annex Sections of
the Building, Restore the Front Section of the Original Castle &
Construct a New Building
The third option would involve:
• The demolition of the middle, rear and annex portions of the building
• The securing of the outside wall for winter & removal of the SW Balcony.
• Restoration of the heritage attributes.
• Restoration of the front building
• Landscaping to maintain the rhythm and streetscape on Queen Street
• Building a 5-6 storey building in the rear of the original castle with at-grade
covered parking. In the event that the 5-6-storey building is demolished in the
future, the tie-in between the addition and the original Barra Castle will be
designed so that the original Barra Castle will not be negatively affected by the
possible demolition. Any "new additions or related new construction will be
designed so that the essential form and integrity of a historic place will not be
impaired if the new work is removed in the future" (Parks Canada, 2009).
This option will conserve the heritage value of a historic place, one of the standards in
the Parks Canada Guidelines. Under this option, there will be no removal of any
character-defining elements. The intent in the Victoria Park Area Conservation District is
23
5-37
to maintain character-defining elements that are visible from the street. The few
character defining elements in the middle, rear and annex sections are not visible from
Queen Street. The addition will not have historical elements to it, and therefore will not
create a false sense of historical development, as per standard number four. The
applicant plans to use the historic building for an apartment building, as per standard
number five. The applicant will be protecting the historic place until subsequent
intervention is undertaken, securing the windows & the outside wall for winter. As we
demolish the middle, rear and annex sections, and will protect the character-defining
elements with plywood & weather barriers such as Tyvek as required by standard
number six. The next phase will require the evaluation of the existing condition of the
character-defining elements and determine the appropriate intervention, as per standard
seven. The applicant will "replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of character-defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes" (Parks Canada,
2009) such as keystones, standard number eight. The applicant will "repair rather than
replace character-defining elements, where possible. Where character-defining
elements are too severely deteriorated to repair, and where sufficient physical evidence
exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of
sound versions of the same elements. Where there is insufficient physical evidence,
make the form, material, and detailing of the new elements compatible with the
character of the historic place." (Parks Canada, 2009).
This option would require further structural investigations to determine the extent of the
stucco delamination. As there is less water damage on the front side due to a sloped
roof and a poured concrete foundation, I suspect the scope of investigation work to be
less than the middle, rear and annex sections. Based upon the quote provided for the
entire building as outlined in option 2, further investigation of the exterior walls would be
$3,000 - $5,000. Further architectural/structural investigations of approximately $5,000
would also be required to rehabilitate and restore the front of the building. It is my
professional opinion that the front section as outlined previously would be $150 per
square foot to restore. Given that the floor space of the front is approximately 3,600 sq.
ft, the cost to renovate the front section would be approximately $540,000. The
demolition of the rear section has been quoted at $135,000. The construction of a new
building of approximately 5-6 storeys effectively doubles the floor space and doubles
the number of available units versus what is currently onsite. From both a heritage and
economic perspective, this option is the preferred option as it maintains the original
heritage building while distinguishing it from the new building in the rear.
4.1.4 Option Four: Demolish All Buildings Located at 399 Queen St.
South, Replicate the Heritage Portion of the Castle (Front
Section) & Construct a New Building at the Rear
The following would be undertaken in option four:
• The demolition of the entire building.
• The replication of the original building and heritage attributes.
• Landscaping to maintain the rhythm and streetscape on Queen St.
24
5-38
• The building of a 5-6 storey building in the rear of the original castle with at-grade
cantilevered parking.
This option would be removing, replacing and substantially altering intact or repairable
character defining elements, which will not conserve the heritage value of this building,
as per standard one of the Parks Canada document (Parks Canada, 2009). This option
would be maximum intervention and thereby negating standard three requesting
minimal intervention. The additional standard asks that you repair rather than replace
character-defining elements, which this option would be negating as it would be
replacing the entire heritage resource.
Option four would effectively require the demolition of the entire building, at a cost of
$200,000 and reconstruction of the original building. Estimates at approximately $125
per square foot have been given to replicate all of the features of the front building.
Given that the floor space of the front is approximately 3,600 sq. ft, the cost to renovate
the front section would be approximately $450,000. Architectural/Structural work on
replication would be approximately $20,000. The construction of a new building of
approximately 5-6 storeys effectively doubles the floor space and doubles the number of
available versus what is currently onsite. From an economic perspective the option is
the preferred. From a heritage perspective, it does not adhere to as many heritage
standards as option 3, specifically standard 3 of the Parks Canada Standard &
Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. It is for this reason that
this is the 2nd preferred option.
4.1.5 Option Five: Demolish All Buildings & Do not Rebuild,
Construct a New Building
Option five would include demolition of the entire building and no new construction or
replication of the heritage resource. Therefore the heritage resource would be lost and
the fagade of 399 Queen Street would be drastically changed. The demolition would
cost $200,000.
This option would be negating standards one through nine, the heritage resource would
be lost and therefore the heritage value of a historic place would not be conserved.
From an economic perspective, this approach makes the most sense, as it would
maximize the development potential for the land. However, this option would be
negating standards one through nine, as we would be losing the heritage resource and
would not conserve the heritage value of a historic place. It is for this reason that this is
not a feasible option.
25
5-39
5.0 EVALUATION
The evaluations of the various options were undertaken utilizing the following
methodology:
• Numerous site visits from 2006 -2009.
• Reliance on the historical & building history of Barra Castle.
• Review of current planning documents & historical documents from the City of
Kitchener.
• The structural assessment report by Colin Lee Engineering Ltd.
• Further peer review by Robert Dyck of the structural component.
• Review by Robert Dyck of the construction feasibility of certain sections of Barra
Castle.
5.1 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the numerous site investigations, development options 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, Colin
A. Lee Structural Assessment and Robert's Dyck's review of the structural, heritage,
and construction costs, the following recommendations are being made as it relates
to this Heritage Impact Assessment & Heritage Permit Application which are being
submitted concurrent-y:
1. It is our professional opinion that option 3 relating to the demolition of the
middle, rear and annex section, restoration of the front section of the
original castle, and construction of a new building at the rear is supported. Based
on the structural report, it is clear that the rear part of the building has major
structural issues and due to the extensive repair and maintenance required, it is
more economically feasible to demolish. (Please reference Appendix C)
2. It is recommended that the Alcove on the NW wall should be secured (As noted
in Appendix C, Conclusion 5.7). The exterior walls around the Alcove and back
wall at the East End of the building are badly damaged and need to be rebuilt.
The North Western Wall will be secured in the Phase II portion of development.
The SW alcove should be demolished and supported before a live load can be
supported.
3. Further review of the front building has revealed that many of the exterior
architecture elements are beyond repair, and would need to be replaced. Some
of the needed repairs/reconstruction includes:
• The reconstruction of the balcony on the SW wall.
• The maintenance of the balcony on the NW wall.
• The windows, sills, and keystones would need to be reconstructed.
• The windows and their design should be maintained and reconstructed with
modern building materials.
26
5-40
• The front door arc would need to be reconstructed.
• The heraldic crest would need to be replicated.
• The battlement in the front part of the main building would need to be
replaced.
• The repairing and re-stuccoing of the exterior walls
These features would need to be undertaken as part of Phase II being the
restoration of the front building.
4. The new proposed building would have to adhere to the following principles in
order to maintain the Queen St. streetscape;
• The design of the new building would be different materials than those of the
front building and would reflect a more modern architectural style to
distinguish it from the original building.
• The creation of a new entrance feature of modern style will be constructed at
the location of the current NW side stairwell.
• The new building should be stepped back in order to maintain the rhythm of
the original building with the new building.
• The new building will not have any battlements or turrets in order to
distinguish it from the original building.
• The architecture will be subordinate to the original Barra Castle.
These features would need to be undertaken as part of Phase III being the
construction of the rear building.
5.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HERITAGE PROPERTY (The
Original Barra Castle)
The preferred option would support the significance of the heritage property because:
• This retained section of the building proposed in option three was the original
structure and was originally built by Molly Marquette in 1930, and is the section
originally known as Barra Castle.
• The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act,
• Interest in the heritage attributes is limited to the exterior of the building.
• The following heritage attributes include the following exterior features are being
conserved.
o Roof and roofline with parapet wall (crenulated parapet), and lower flat
roof created by the building projections and irregular plan.
o The stucco fapade, including arched and squared entranceways and
recessed doorways with raised surrounds and decorative moldings, the
identifying plaques and crests.
o The exterior balconies.
o All window and door openings, including raised decorative surrounds,
moldings, and concrete sills.
27
5-41
o Original windows and doors, including wooden and leaded windows,
wooden storms, projecting bay windows, and wooden paneled doors. (See
Appendix G)
5.3 IMPACT ON HERITAGE RESOURCE
The preferred option would minimize the impact on the heritage resources because of
the following reasons:
1. Maintain Queen St. Streetscape
In order to maintain the Queen St. Streetscape, the new condominium building
would be of a more modern architectural style, and would be stepped back to
maintain the rhythm of the original, middle & rear building. The addition will not
have a historical element to it, and therefore will not create a false sense of
historical development, (subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic
place). The applicant plans to use the historic building for an apartment
building, as per standard number five.
2. Conserve Heritage Value
This option would conserve the heritage value of a historic place, one of the
standards in the Parks Canada Guidelines.
3. Maintain Character-Defining Elements
None of the character-defining elements are being removed. Any such elements
are being replicated or repaired accordingly.
4. Victoria Park Area Conservation District
The intent in the Victoria Park Area Conservation District is to maintain character-
defining elements that are visible from the street. The visible character defining
elements are all in the front section of the building, which will be renovated as per
the preferred option. The few character defining elements in the middle, rear and
annex sections are not visible from Queen street.
5. Protect the Heritage Resource
The protection of the heritage resource known as Barra Castle will be protected
from further deterioration through boarding of windows, and securing of outside
wall until subsequent intervention is undertaken. As the demolition of the middle,
rear and annex sections, I recommend protecting the exposed walls with plywood
& weather barriers such as Tyvek as required standard number six. Any "new
additions or related new construction [will be created] so that the essential form
28
5-42
and integrity of a historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in
the future" (Parks Canada, 2009).
6. Evaluation of Existing Character-Defining Elements
Further evaluation will be required on the existing condition of the character-
defining elements to determine the appropriate intervention, as per standard
seven. The applicant will "replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing
parts of character-defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes"
(Parks Canada, 2009) such as keystones, as stated in standard number eight.
The applicant will "repair rather than replace character-defining elements, where
possible. Where character-defining elements are too severely deteriorated to
repair, and where sufficient physical evidence exists, we will replace them with
new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of
the same elements. Where there is insufficient physical evidence, we will make
the form, material, and detailing of the new elements compatible with the
character of the historic place." (Parks Canada, 2009).
5.4 RECOMMENDED MEASURES
In summary, in my professional opinion, given the heritage of the property, the state the
heritage buildings, the condition of the heritage features, & the economics of renovation,
I recommend the following measures:
• Demolish the middle, rear and annex portions of the building.
• Secure the outside walls for winter to mitigate the deterioration of the heritage
attributes of the front part of the Castle
• Complete further investigations on the South West Balcony for reconstruction.
• Secure the North West Balcony before a live load is placed on it.
• Restore the heritage attributes.
• Landscape to maintain the rhythm and streetscape on Queen Street.
• Construct a building in the rear of the original castle with at-grade covered
parking in keeping and maintaining the Queen St. Street streetscape
5.5 SUMMARY STATEMENT
5.5.1 Development Options
We recommend option three of the development options for the following reasons:
• It maintains Queen St. streetscape.
• It conserves heritage value.
• It maintains character-defining elements.
• It meets the intent of the Victoria Park Area Conservation District.
• It protects the Heritage Resource.
29
5-43
5.5.2 Heritage Recommendations
The front section of the building should be maintained:
1. This section of the building was the original Barra Castle structure and was originally
built by Molly Marquette in 1930.
2. This section is in a structural condition where it can be saved (See Appendix B).
3. The front section is the most visible from Queen Street.
The middle, rear, annex and SW balcony should be demolished:
1. The middle, rear and annex sections were not the original Barra Castle building
construction.
2. The architecture of the middle, rear and annex sections detract from the architecture
of the front building.
3. It is not economically feasible to reconstruct and renovate the middle, rear and annex
sections.
4. The floor heights and configuration of the walls do not lend themselves to
redevelopment.
5. The heritage value lies in the front section of the building and if the middle, rear and
annex sections were to be redeveloped, there would no funding for the restoration of the
front, heritage section of the building.
6. The southwest balcony cannot be restored because of structural difficulties. The
balcony will be reconstructed using measured drawings to replicate the original
structure.
This heritage impact assessment is respectfully submitted by Robert J Dyck Architect &
Engineer
Robert Dyck August 12, 2009
Robert J. Dyck Architect & Engineer Incorporated
30
5-44
Appendix A
Historic Building Inventory
5-45
HISTORIC BUILDINGS :LNVEI>ITORY
1. Municipal Address: Barra Castle
399 Queen Street South
2. .Lot and Plan: Plan 397, Lot 5
3. Present Owner: 766$40 Ontario Ltd.
4. Present Use: rented apartments
Historical Information
1. Date Constructed: 19301
2. Original Owner: Ma11y Marquette
Anecdotes about. the Marquettes and the building of Barra
Castle are common and often conflicting. Date of construction
has been identified as turn of the century, 1906, 1928 and,
the most probable, 1930. The contractor is unknown but same
allege that Mrs. Marque~te dug the foundation herself, despite
the absence of one. leg. Stories of haw the castle got its
name ("Barra" was either Mrs. Marquette's maiden name or where
her grandfather came from in Bavaria) and of haw Mr. Marquette.
constructed airplanes. in the basement are still circulating.
Some local authorities still recall the ceremonious burial of
a Model T Ford in the hole Howard Marquette made trying to
remove his airplanes from the basement.. Barra Castle has an
eccentric history to match its bizarre. architecture.
3. Original Use: rented apartments
4. Significant later owners/uses: Stanley E. Leavine, B.A.,
M.D., M.L.A.
Dr. Leavine was born in 1.896 in Elgin,. Ontario and came to
Kitchener in 1924. He was elected a member of City Council in
1938 and became mayor in 1950. The "walking mayor" was also
active in the Lion's Club and the North Waterloo Medical
Satiety. Tn 1953, he was elected a member of the Ontario
Leg.i~lature for the Conservative party. He died on July 27,
1958 .
5. Other significance: Barra Castle is one of the most. commonly
recognized landmarks. in Kitchener. .
Architectural Description
1. Site Detail: Barra Castle's location at the rear of the lot
and the position of the trees around it almost obscures its
view from 399 Queen Street South. Its size and style reuse
it to be instantly recognizable and it does not conform to
anything else in the streetscape, or in Kitchener.
5-465
_ 2 _
2. Architectural Style: Tudor Castle
3. Alterations: A double storey enclosed sunporch has been added
onto the rear elevation of the castle. It is constructed of
woad aver concrete blacks. Many of the windows have been
replaced with aluminum exteriors.
4. Plan, Storeys, Bays: This three storey apartment complex is
three bays wide and has an irregular plan.
5. Exterior Building Material: This home is constructed of
concrete with some woad detailing.
6. Roof: Style and Materials: The roof is flat and the material
undetermined. The parapet raofline is castillated with
flot-edged, delineated coping.
7. .Fronting Elevation. (west):
a} Entrances: The front entrance consists of a painted
arched recessed portal with raised archevolt moldings. A
raised plaque above the door identifies the building as Barra
Castle and two small heraldic crests. are positioned to either
side of the crown of the arch. A shouldered label mold runs
above the entire entranceway. The door is aluminum and
without trim. Two flights of law concrete steps lead up to
the doorway; the first set has lion's head carvings on the
newel face, while the second flight has a heavy concrete sill
supported by Corinthian order capitals.
b) Windows: A three storey bay projection on the facade.
contains three 9/1 double hung sash windows. with semi
elliptical openings on each storey. Above the door is a
two-part outward opening casement window with an inflected
arched opening on the second and third storeys. Also an this.
facade is a set of three.-mullion windows with closed,
six-paned transoms., also an each storey. All of the windows
an the front elevation have a raised surround and dripmolds
that conform to the window openings. Only the windows over
the door and on the first storey bay projection are in wood,
all others have been converted to aluminum. The sills,
surrounds and dripmolds are all of concrete.
8. Side Elevation (south):
a) Entrances: There are several door openings on this
elevation. The majority are wooden panelled screen doors
located in alcoves or opening out onto small balconies. One
painted arch opening accesses an enclosed porch with two
panelled wooden doors.
5-4.~0
- 3
The mast notable entranceway is a wide wooden door set in a
squared portal. The enriched extrados have an exfoliated
pinwheel design and the archevolt moldings emphasize the
proportion of this opening. Diamond-shaped panes of glass
with bevelled edges. are found in the sidelights. The. heavy
wooden door has eight., square, recessed panels below the large
pane of glass and four square recessed panels directly above
the light. The door sill is concrete..
Another interesting entrance consists of a square recessed
doorway containing a wooden door with a black aluminum casing.
The casing is slit and star-folded over the six square lights.
in the doorway. A raised fan. mold is located above the
projecting cornice with dentils that edges this. doorway.
b) Windows: A variety of window styles. and arrangements can
be found on this elevation: paired casement windows, 911
double hung bay windows, narrow 1J1 double hung windows, a
large window with diamond quarrels and narrow slit windows..
Most of these have. aluminum external. windows,. and concrete
sills. The dripmolds are less exuberant on this elevation and
some windows lack the raised surround.
9. Rear Elevation (east}:
a) Entrances: The small courtyard is surrounded on two sides
by the Castle and on one side by a neglected. stepped rack
garden. Several balconies and a recessed porch contain.
aluminum and wooden panelled doors.. Of note are an aluminum
suicide door and a wooden door with six panes of vermiculated
glass.
b) Windows: On this elevation, three-mullioned 1/1 windows
with transoms are found on each. storey, as well as a number of
9/1 double hung windows. None of the windows have dripmolds
or trim and all have aluminum exteriors.
10. Side Elevation (north.):
a) Entrances: Several entrances are found on this elevation.
They are for the most part wooden., panelled doers with
bas-relief dripmolds and concrete sills.
b) Windows: There are fewer windows on this side elevation
than on the southern facade, but the styles. are much the same.
The dripmolds are not as prominent and are missing on same.
openings. A second storey balcony has lancet openings.
11. Other: A gothic archway bridges the walkway between the
sunken backyard and front area. It is of cement and has a
foliated festoon carving.
5-~
- 4 -
12. Condition: Barra Castle is in poor structural condition. It
is neglected and in need of major repairs; in particular, to
the roof and exterior walls.
References.: 1. City of Kitchener Assessment Rolls, 1928-31.
Title Search, June 9180, July 1988.
Vernon's Directories 1925-1935.
2. VF Historic Buildings in Kitchener, Kitchener
Public Library (various newspaper articles).
3. A History of Central Ontario, Mabel Burkholder,
Montreal, 1951-52.
Sources: 1. Historic Buildings in Kitchener, Kitchener Public
Library Vertical File.
?_. Oral History Tape 211.
3, Historic Buildings Inventory, L.A.C.A.C., Cameron
Shantz, 1980, p. 88-9.
Researcher: P. Shea
August, 1988
5-4~
~a
~ ~
A
W
wn ~
w a
H ~
H
0
rn
'~
0
a
r
rn
c~
r-i
Pa
~ ~
+~ ~~ U
a ~
b . ~
0 o b ~ +~ a~
~ b a v ~ .~
a ~
~ ~ a ~ ~ a
o ~s ~ ~+ ~ w ~ ~+
~ ~ ~ ~
° a~ Q Q a
i
~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~
~ .u U ~ tr ~
~ U W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4-I
N O --~
~ N
•~-i -W ~
~ ~ ~
U1 cd ~ U
~ ~
~ ~ a +
.~ o ~ ~
b ~ ~~
b ~
o ~
x ~ ~ ~ o~
a ro ~ •.~ ~ ~
'~ ~ U a
~ ~ ~ a v c
n
~zs v o .~ ~ is
~
U1 ~ d r-C U tT ~ O
U W x ~ W ~ O~ W
.~ oo ~n
ro ~ ~
~I ~ \ \ 00 N ri l9 O 00
U1 {d O O d~ 61 6~ Ql rn 61
•r{ Q \ \ r-! s--I ri r-I ~-i r-3
~ ~ ~
Q3
P4 c-1 O
f tC
t11 ~ ~ tti rti ctS ai rti rt
H ~ ~ ~
.W C7 7
t 7
L C7 ~ ~ U
- - - -
N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ ~
~ ~
N v
N
~ 6, o ~n t~ a t~ .-{
Oi S-a l0 O ~O GO ~r d' d' N
.U d' to <!' O ~O CO Cl Cl
61
~, U~
~ 61
M N
O O
~ h
~ '~'
N ~
d' N
O ~'
~ 5- 5 0
M H dl 00 ~ M N ~--I r-I ~D
Appendix B
Colin A Lee Engineering Report
July 2009
5-51
~,
-;
Structural Assessment
Barra Castle
399 Queen Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
for
Polocorp Inc.
JUiy 2009
C~Iin A Lie
En~i neeri ng Ltd.
5 - 52
~vlin A Lee
Engineering Ltd.
131 Winding Way, Kitchener, Qntaric N2N ~ ra3
Tel: 519 • 57Q • 4120 Fax: 519 • 570. 9288
Ref: 0945
July 24, 2009
Mr. Paul Puopolo
Polocorp Inc.
379 Queen Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 1W6
Dear Sir,
RE: BARRA CASTLE
399 QUEEN STREET SOUTH - HITCHENER
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
We are pleased to submit this report that pertains to a stn~ctural assessment of the Barra
Castle at 399 Queen Street, South in Kitchener.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Colin A Lee Engineering Ltd. was retained by Polocorp Inc. to investigate and prepare a
visual structural assessment of the Barra Castle building. Authorization to proceed was
provided by Mr. Paul Puopolo.
2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Barra Castle building located at 399 Queent Street, South in Kitchener, is a three
storey building with a Building Area of approximately 5,500 square feet which we
understand was constructed around 1930. The building was previously in use as rental
apartments but was ordered closed in August 2007 by the City of Kitchener Fire
Department due to fire and electrical safety violations and since that time has remained
boarded up without any Hydro or natural gas.
3.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING
For purposes of this report, the front of the Barra Castle which faces Queen Street is
considered the West side of the building.
5~~~~~~~A~ ~~~~~F~~~ - 5 3
Barra Castle Page 2
399 Queen Street South, Kitchener
The Barra Castle is a three storey building with an irregular shape in Plan view which we
have divided into four areas. The Front section is a three storey building with a partially
finished basement. The Middle is a three storey with an unfinished basement. Between the
Front and Middle sections of the building there is a change in elevation of the floor aild roof
levels. The Back section of the Barra Castle is a four story with no basement. Connected to
the main building at the South East corner is a two story Annex. Figures 1 to 4 show the
floor plans at each level.
Due to its irregular shape in plan, locations of interior and exterior stairs, variation in floor
levels, and in particular, the varying types of conststi~ction materials used in each of the four
parts of the building, it appears that the Middle, Back and Amlex sections of the building
were likely later additions to the original Front section.
3.1 Front Section
The Front of the building facing Queen Street is constructed of cast in place concrete
with load bearing 2 x 4 wood stud for the exterior walls (Photo 1). Stucco plaster
appears to have been added at a later date to all of the exterior walls. The load
bearing interior walls are 2 x 4 with wood or metal lath and plaster finish. The floor
constn~ction is typically a one inch thick tongue and groove sub floor on 2 x 8 or 2 x
10 wood joists. The roof is sloped from front to back and constn~cted of 2 x 4 wood
purlins on 2 x 8 roof joists (Photos 3 & 4). The basement walls are of cast in place
concrete.
On the North West corner is a small two storey open balcony in which the exterior
wall is brick and covered with stucco (Photo 5).
3.2 Middle Section
The exterior walls on this section of the building are stucco plaster on metal lath
applied to 2 x 4 walls (Photo 2). The floors are generally 2 x 8 construction and the
interior load bearing walls are 2 x 4. The 2 x 4 walls are covered on the inside with
wood lath or metal lath and plaster. The roof, which is flat, is constructed of 2 x 8
roof j oists.
3.3 Back Section
The exterior walls at the Back of the building is stucco plaster on brick with backup
2 x 4 walls or double wythe brick and cinder block. The floors are generally 2 x 8
construction and the interior load bearing walls are 2 x 4. At the ground floor level,
the walls are a mixhire of 2 x 4 wood framing, cinder block, and brick speed tile.
The roof, which is flat, is also constructed of 2 x 8.
5 - 54
Barra Castle
399 Queen Street South, Kitchener
Page 3
There is a four storey sunroom that was added to the exterior wall at the back of the
building. This sunroom is framed in wood and covered with aluminium siding with
exposed brick pilasters at the two outer corners.
3.4 Annex
The Annex is a two storey building constn~cted of stucco plaster on cinder block
(Photo 6). The floors and roof are wood construction. Part of the main floor is
poured concrete on steel I beams. The basement walls are of cast in place concrete.
4.0 STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT & DISCUSSION
The following are the results of our visual survey of the areas of the building that were
accessible at the time of our visits, and discussion of the condition of the structural elements.
4.1 ROOF
The roof stn~cture appears to be stn~cturally sound and in generally good condition
for the front section of the building.
The roof joists at the back portion over the Living Room and Dining Room areas are
2 x 8 at 16" centres spanning 1T 2" (Photos 10 & 11). Stn~cturally, these joists are
over spanned for the design roof snow loads a17d would need to be reinforced or
replaced with larger joists.
The 2 x 8 roofjoists adjacent to the back wall on the back section of the building in
the Dining Room and Bedroom 2 are water damaged with rot and mould, and would
need to be replaced.
There is only one roof drain serving this entire roof (Photo 7). Since the roof is flat,
we would recommend the installation of a second roof drain, and possibly even
installing tapered insulation below the roof membrane which would provide a
minimal roof slope and permit proper flow of water to the roof drains.
4.2 PARAPET
The crenelated parapet, or square, notched battlements at the roof, provides the
distinctive castle like feature to this building. These notches are covered with
painted galvanized metal flashing. The parapet, below the notches, is constn~cted of
st<~cco with metal lath on wood franung.
Parts of the galvanized crenels are rusted and damaged and therefore need repairing.
The st<icco on the inside of the parapets is cracked in several places and is allowing
water to enter the wall assembly (Photos 7, 8 & 9).
5 - 55
Barra Castle
399 Queen Street South, Kitchener
Page 4
At the base of the parapet to roof joint, the flashing is in very poor condition. Much
of the water damage within the building is likely due to poor waterproofing at the
roof to parapet joints. Proper flashing of the roof membrane to parapet joint is
required.
The stucco plaster on the inside of the parapet would first need to be repaired, and
then the entire inside face of the parapet covered with a suitable flashing membrane
and aluminium counter flashing.
4.3 FLOOR STRUCTURE
The floor structure of this building is generally in good condition. However the 2 x 8
floor j oists spanning 1 T 2" in the Living room and Dining Room at the back of the
Barra Castle are over spamled aild would need to be reinforced. Struct<iral steel
chaiu7els 7" deep were added between the existing floor joists supporting the third
floor for this purpose (Photo 12).
The 2 x 8 floor joists at the Ground, Second and Third floors adjacent to the back
wall of the Dining room are water damaged with rot and mould and need to be
replaced (Photo 12).
It is our opinion that much of the water damage to the floor stn~ctLire can be
attributed to the windows and doors that are broken on the upper floors and therefore
allowing rain and snow to enter the building.
4.4 INTERIOR LOAD BEARING WALLS
The studs in the 2 x 4 bearing walls are generally in good condition where they have
been exposed. We found one area between the Bathroom and Bedroom 1 on the
second floor has been notched for the water pipes, thereby weakening them (Photo
13). These studs and 4 x 4 posts within the walls need to be replaced. When the lath
and plaster fiiush on other walls are removed especially in the Bathroom and
Kitchen areas, then the exposed load bearing studs should be exanuned and will
need to be replaced or reinforced wherever they have been found to be notched and
cut.
4.5 EXTERIOR WALLS
The front of the Barra Castle is cast in place concrete up to the second floor. The
stone in the concrete is of widely varying sizes and up to 6 inch diameter was
observed in the walls. There is a smooth stucco fiiush on the outside which varies in
tlucla7ess up to 3/4 inch in some areas. On the Middle and Back sections of the
building it is stucco applied on brick or wood. The inside of the walls are generally
plaster with metal or wood lath with no vapour barrier on wood stud.
5 - 56
Barra Castle
399 Queen Street South, Kitchener
Page 5
In addition to specific areas identified below, we found extensive craclang of the
exterior stucco plaster which vary from hairline to wide open and are visible around
the building perimeter (Photos 14 & 15). On the lower ground level tapping on the
plaster indicated that it was hollow and delaminated in numerous places indicating
that it had debonded from the substrate. We would expect that this would be more
prevalent on the upper floors of the building.
In our opinion, it is not acceptable to simply patch over the cracks in the stucco
plaster where the st<icco has already debonded from its substrate. Any repair would
require removal of loose, cracked or bulging stucco. The brick or concrete substrate
would then need to be inspected to ensure that it is not loose or soft. Any loose or
soft substrate would need to be repaired before re-applying new st<icco.
4.6 FOUNDATIONS
The foundation walls are of cast in place concrete. Our visual examination of the
foundation walls show that they are in generally good condition with no obvious
signs of cracking or settlement. The basement appears dry and there does not appear
to be any outside surface or groundwater entering the building through the
foundation walls.
4.7 EXTERIOR STAIRS
There are five sets of stairs (Figure 2) leading from the main building to the exterior
as follows:
• Stair # 1, or the main entrance stair, is poured concrete on grade. The walls
of the stair are cracked and separated from the treads. This stair needs to be
rebuilt as we do not believe that it can be repaired (Photo 16).
• Stair # 2 is poured concrete on grade. The concrete forming the treads and
walls are cracked and deteriorated (Photo 17). Tlus stair needs to be rebuilt.
• Stair # 3 is a suspended, reinforced concrete slab. There is extensive spalling
of the concrete below the stair and severe corrosion of the reinforcing steel.
This suspended stair is not stnicturally sound and needs to be rebuilt (Photo
18).
• Stairs # 4 and # 5 are poured concrete on grade and stn~cturally are in
satisfactory condition. Airy repairs that may be required are non-structural
and cosmetic in nature.
5 - 57
Barra Castle
399 Queen Street South, Kitchener
Page 6
4.8 SOUTH WEST BALCONY
There is a small, three storey balcony (Figures 2, 3 & 4) between the Kitchen and
Living room at the Front portion of the building. The exterior walls of this balcony
are severely damaged (Photos 19 & 20). The stucco is completely cracked,
delaminated and spalling. There is erosion and stn~ctLiral degradation of the cast in
place concrete behind. The floor joists supporting this balcony on the third floor are
water damaged and rotting.
While not in immediate danger of collapse, we do not believe that this balcony is
stn~cturally capable of supporting the required design residential floor live load and
needs to be demolished and reconstructed.
It should be noted that the adjacent Kitchen is partly supported by the balcony and
therefore would require to be temporarily supported while the balcony is being
repaired. If the balcony is demolished and is not going to be rebuilt, then a new
support structure for the corner of the Kitchen would be required in the form of a
load bearing wall or column below.
4.9 NORTH WEST BALCONY
The two storey North West balcony appears to be an addition to the original
building. There is a continuous vertical crack where the brick wall of the addition
meets the concrete wall of the original building.
We would recommend that the small wood roof over the balcony be replaced and
the new roof framing could then be properly anchored to the walls of the balcony as
well as the walls of the original building. Proper flashing of the open balcony is
required to prevent water and moist<~re entering the joint between the balcony and
the main building.
4.10 ALCOVE
At the west end of the diiung room in the Back portion of this building is a three
sided alcove (Figl~res 2, 3 & 4). The exterior walls of this alcove as well as sections
of the exterior walls on either side of the alcove are badly damaged (Photos 21, 22 &
23). The stucco is severely cracked, delaminated and in some areas has completely
spalled off. The brick and mortar joints behind the stucco plaster are damaged due
to water penetration and freez-thaw degradation. The exposed brick face is severely
eroded and the mortar deteriorated. The steel angle lintels over the windows are
severely corroded with nest jacl~ing evident which has created gaps between the
brick and the lintel.
It is our opiiuon that the stucco and brick on this exterior alcove wall, while not
struct<irally unstable at the current time, will continue to deteriorate rapidly if left
untreated, and event<ially will become stn~cturally unsafe. The stucco, lintels and
brick wall in the areas described above would need to be removed and rebuilt.
5 - 58
Barra Castle
399 Queen Street South, Kitchener
Page 7
4.11 BACK WALL OF BUILDING
The exterior wall at the Back or East end of the Barra Castle is badly damaged due
to water (Photos 24, 25 & 26). The st<icco finish is severely cracked and damaged.
Around the windows the stucco has spalled off, exposing the brick wall. The
exposed brick face has delaminated and the mortar has deteriorated. The lintels over
the windows have severe rusting.
The shicco, brick and steel lintels need to be removed and rebuilt from the roof to
the ground floor level. We would expect there would be rotting, mould and mildew
of the backup wood studs (Photos 10 & 26), and the affected studs would need to be
replaced.
4.12 FUTURE FLOOR
The load bearing walls of the Barra Castle will not carry a future floor above, as they
are not struchirally adequate. If a future floor is to be added, then all of the bearing
walls on the floors below will have to be reinforced by adding additional st<ids at
closer spacing or doubling up the existing studs within the walls. The size of the
existing footings will also have to be investigated to ensure that they can carry the
additional floor loads.
4.13 ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS
Many of the exterior architectural feat<~res of the Barra Castle have been damaged
by vandalism or by degradation due to weather, and in our opinion are now beyond
repair.
The concrete arch over the exterior walkway on the north side of the building is
badly cracked. The decorative concrete cap can be saved and reinstalled (Photo 27).
The gothic arches found over some of the entrance doors and balcony windows are
generally in good condition. We found the stucco had cracked and separated from
the brick on one of these arches at the second floor North-West balcony (Photo 29).
Repair would involve removing the existing st<icco, exanuiung the brick and mortar
joints below to ensure that they are sound and replacing with new stucco.
Many of the windows at the North and South sides of the building that have the
distinctive keystone above the window also have badly cracked stucco and corroded
steel angle lintels. The damaged stucco, lintels, brick and mortar above the windows
would have to be replaced, together with the decorative concrete keystone and
header (Photo 28 & 30).
5 - 59
Barra Castle
399 Queen Street South, Kitchener
Page 8
5.0 CONCLUSION
The following points summarize our reconmmendations and conclusion based on our visual
examination and stnict<iral assessment of the Barra Castle:
5.1 There is extensive cracking, spalling and damage to the stucco plaster finish
on the exterior walls. At the lower levels, the stucco around many of these
cracks was found to be hollow and delaminated from the concrete, brick and
wood substrates. A similar patter? for the cracks visible at the higher levels
of the walls would be expected. We would recommend further examination
and condition survey of all of the exterior wall areas to determine the full
extent of damage. The stucco can then be repaired by removing all loose or
cracked plaster, inspection and repair of the concrete, block or brick
substrate below if it is loose or soft, then re-applying new stucco.
5.2 At least one additional roof drain is needed to supplement the existing single
roof drain and tapered roof insulation over the flat roof portions added to
ensure adequate drainage of rain water from the roof.
5.3 Proper flashing and waterproofing is required on the interior of the roof
parapet. Replace rusted and damaged galvanized flashing that form the top
of the crenelated parapet. The plaster on the inside of the parapet needs to be
repaired and the entire inside face of the parapet then covered with a suitable
flexible flashing and alumiiuum counter flashing.
5.4 Our analysis indicates that the 2 x 8 roof joists and floor joists at the Back
section of the building (Living room and Dining room) are over spanned for
the design floor live loads, acid need to be reinforced or replaced with larger
joists.
5.5 Exterior concrete stairs 1, 2 and 3 are damaged and need to be rebuilt.
5.6 There is extensive deterioration of the South West balcony at the Front
section. In our opinion is currently not stn~cturally capable of supporting the
required design live floor loads. Tlus balcony should be removed down to
the ground floor level and then reconstructed. The latches which is attached
to the balcony will need to be temporarily supported until the reconstruction
work is completed. If the balcony is not going to be reconstructed, then the
kitchen would either have to be also demolished, or a new load bearing
columi~/wall added below to support the latches.
5.7 The exterior walls around the Alcove and back wall at the East end of the
building, are badly damaged and need to be rebuilt.
5-60
Barra Castle
399 Queen Street South, Kitchener
Page 9
5.8 Many of the exterior arclutect<iral elements such as the keystones over the
windows, concrete arch over the exterior wall, concrete headers and sills
around the windows are damaged and in our opinion are beyond repair and
would need to be replaced.
5.9 The roof structure over the North West balcony needs to be replaced. The
wall and new roof at the top of this balcony should then be attached
stn~cturally to the main north wall of the building to avoid further separation
of the two areas.
5.10 Due to the extensive repairs required to the exterior cladding and the load
bearing elements of the struchire on the Middle and Back portions of the
building, it is our opinion that it would likely be more economical to
demolish and then rebuild these areas.
5.11 To mitigate further structural damage to this unoccupied building, we
recommend that the damaged windows and doors on the upper floors should
be covered over to prevent rain and snow from entering.
We trust that the information contained in this report is adequate for your present needs. If
there are any questions or you require further infoi7nation, please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned.
All of which is respectfully submitted;
Yours very tn~ly,
COLIN A LEE ENGINEERING LTD.
~~° ~ F~
S
G. A. LEE
9~`'~'~~ a~ o~'4P~,
Colin Lee, MA. Sc., P.Eng.
5-61
Appendix A
Figures
5-62
'EST ~
IY I V
z
0
w
0
0
Y
U
Q
07
X
W
z
z
Q
BARRA CASTLE
FIGURE 1
~N
z
0
w
J
ALCOVE
x
w
z
z
Q
BARRA CASTLE
FIGURE 2
N
z SOL
O g,
w
J
U
Q
m
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
ALCOVE
BARRA CASTLE
FIGURE 3
N
z SOUTH-
~ BALCO
w
J
v
Q
m
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
)OF
ALCOVE
BARRA CASTLE
FIGURE 4
Nature of Application
Exterior ^
Demolition ,~
Subject Property
CITY OF HITCHENER
HERITAGE PERNIIT APPLICATION
Interior ^
New Construction ^ Alteration ^
Application No.
HPA
Relocation ^
Municipal Address or Legal Description: ~c ~-E lo-t S cl~ ~ ~~j-j ~S ~ ^
Building/Structure Type: Residential ~ Commercial ^ Industrial ^
Institutional ^ Other
Heritage Designation: Part IV ~ Part V: ~,~ ~ c~c ~ p~~ k l-t~ ~~ir c ~ c-tc c~
Owner
Name: I~~o ~t~f x C~- ~~~ r~~
Address:
Telephone: (Home) (Work)
Fax : E-Mai]: _~
Agent (if applicable)
Name:
Address:
Fax
Builder(s)/Contractor(s)
I. Name:
Address:
Fax
Telephone:
2. Name:
Address
Fax
E-Mail
Telephone:
E-Mail:
Telephone:
E-Mail:
(2003-04/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 elevation(s) 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.
l e c.S e f'e ~ e ~ "~o ~['~R.- q ~ ~%.c.ln P c~ ~'~e r ~~' o, c. ~. T.-,-, n c. c~-L ~SS 2SS v)-~ < n-~
Expected Start Date:
(Day/Month/Year)
Have you made a Building Permit Application for this work?
Declaration
Expected Completion Date:
^ Yes
(Day/Month/Year)
^ No
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) ~ ~ ~ .declare that the statements contained in this application
are true.
Owner's Signature: Date: ~/~
Appeal Process
Part IV Properties
Where City Council refuses an application to alteftl'ie property or consents to such application upon certain terms and conditions, the owner may,
within thirty days after receipt of the notice of Council's decision, apply to Council for a hearing before the Conservation Review Board. Where
City Council refuses consent to demolish or remove a building or structure on the property the decision of the Council shall be final. The owner
shall not demolish or remove the building or structure or do any work or cause or permit any work to be done in the demolition or removal of the
building or structure or any part of it, unless, the owner has obtained a building permit to erect a new building on the site of the building or
structure sought to be demolished or removed AND 180 days have elapsed from the date of the council's decision to refuse the application.
Part V Properties
Where the City Council refuses a permit to erect or alter the external portions of a building or structure or grants such permit with terms and
conditions attached, the owner may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. The owner must give a notice of appeal to the Ontario Municipal
Board within 30 days after the owner receives notice that the council is refusing the application or receives the permit with the terms and
conditions attached. Where City Council refuses an application for a permit to demolish or remove a building or structure the decision shall be
final and binding. The owner shall not demolish or remove the building or structure or do any work or cause or permit any work to be done in
the demolition or removal of the building or structure or any part of it, unless the owner has applied to the council under section 42 of the Ontario
Heritage Act and been given a permit to erect a new building on the site of the building or structure sought to be demolished or removed, AND
180 days have elapsed from the date of the council's notice to the owner that the council is refusing the application for the permit.
Heritage Permit Application Number:
Date of Notice of Receipt of Completed Application Served on Applicant:
(2003-04/heritage permit application)