[0:00] Anyone interested in future meetings can register online using the delegation registration form at

[0:09] www.kitchener.ca forward slash delegation or via email at delegation at kitchener.ca.

[0:19] So we'll now proceed to number two on our agenda, which is the disclosure pecuniary interest

[0:27] or general nature thereof. Is there anyone with a pecuniary interest?

[0:35] Seeing none, thank you.

[0:38] To our discussion items, the first one is the Heritage Permit Application HPA 2026 IV021 16-20

[0:49] Queen Street North removal of a portion of the side return and altering existing window opening

[0:57] into a door on the floor two of the front facade DSD-2026-316.

[1:06] Victoria Gruner, Heritage Planner, will provide a five-minute presentation.

[1:12] And then we have some delegations.

[1:17] Victoria.

[1:21] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[1:23] Before I begin, this item, I did want to just take a very brief moment to introduce our

[1:28] Our student planner, Luke Marlatte, who is sitting next to me here.

[1:32] Luke will be presenting one of the items later on on this agenda, but I just wanted to introduce him to the committee before we begin.

[1:40] Thank you.

[1:44] So the Development Services Department is in receipt of a heritage permit application, HPA 2026.

[1:53] IV021 for the property municipally addressed as 16 to 20 Queen Street North.

[1:57] This property is designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act through Designating

[2:03] By-law 2020-077.

[2:07] This property is subject to an active site plan application which contemplates retention

[2:12] of the front facade and portion of the side returns as part of the construction of a multi-story

[2:18] residential tower.

[2:19] A heritage permit application received conditional approval in 2022 for the partial demolition

[2:25] of the existing building and the construction of a tower.

[2:30] The proposal outlined in the Heritage Permit application before the committee this evening

[2:34] is to further reduce a portion of the return on the south side of the building and to alter

[2:40] an existing second story window opening on the front facade to accommodate a new door

[2:46] for balcony access.

[2:54] The Heritage Attributes as identified in the designation by law include exterior attributes

[3:01] that are primarily located on the front or east facade of the building.

[3:06] The brick with Flemish bonding is also found on the side south return.

[3:11] And so I've included an excerpt from the designating by-law on this slide here for

[3:18] the committee's review and information of the exterior heritage attributes that have been identified on this property.

[3:29] As noted, the property is subject to an active site plan application,

[3:32] which has received conditional approval, as well as a heritage permit application which

[3:37] has received conditional approval back in 2022.

[3:41] Since that time, an amendment application was received in 2025 to reduce the conditionally

[3:46] approved 34-story tower to 21 stories, and as part of that amendment, there were no changes

[3:53] to the heritage facade contemplated.

[3:55] In July of this year, an amendment application was received to further request further changes

[4:04] to the site plan application, including a reduction in building height from 34 to 19 stories,

[4:10] reducing the community benefit space on the ground floor, introducing two commercial units

[4:16] on the ground floor facing Gaudi's lane, altering existing window opening on the front facade

[4:21] to provide a second story balcony access and reducing the excavation required to preserve

[4:29] the portions of the existing building being retained.

[4:33] In order to facilitate the site plan changes, a portion of the south side return is proposed

[4:38] to be removed.

[4:39] And this slide shows what was conditionally approved and the portions of this facade to

[4:44] be retained as part of the original site plan submission as shown on the left.

[4:49] and then what is now proposed on the on the right.

[5:00] The images on this slide further demonstrate what is proposed with respect to the reduction in the south side return.

[5:09] The top elevation drawings show what was conditionally approved and the lower elevation drawings shows what is now proposed in terms of facade retention on the south side.

[5:19] And the image on the right shows what the existing south facade looks like.

[5:33] As noted, a window on the second story of the front facade is now proposed to be altered

[5:38] to accommodate a door opening for access to the balcony.

[5:42] And the image on the screen notes where this change is proposed.

[5:51] In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following.

[5:55] The majority of the identified heritage attributes are located on the front east facade, which

[6:01] is proposed to be conserved in its entirety.

[6:04] The proposed alteration of a second story window opening to a door will not adversely

[6:08] impact the cultural heritage value of the building.

[6:12] A portion of the side including the brickwork will remain to maintain the legibility of the

[6:18] historic structure and the proposal facilitates redevelopment while preserving the buildings

[6:23] is character defining elements as identified within the designating by-law.

[6:33] And as such, Heritage Planning Staff is recommending approval of the Heritage Permit application

[6:40] subject to the three conditions as shown on the screen.

[6:44] The first one being that the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum that was recently provided

[6:50] be approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance

[6:55] of Heritage Permit, that an updated conservation plan be submitted and approved, and that the

[7:03] final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided.

[7:07] I also want to note that the conditions as outlined in the previous Heritage Permit

[7:13] application from 2022, which facilitate the demolition of the building and construction

[7:20] of the new tower are still applicable to this as well.

[7:24] And that concludes my presentation on this item.

[7:28] Thank you.

[7:31] Thank you, Victoria.

[7:35] I assume that there might be questions for staff.

[7:39] However, I would like to proceed with the delegation.

[7:45] And then we'll come back and stuff the questions.

[7:51] So we

[7:55] have sorry,

[8:00] my

[8:06] note says Dan Curry and Brock Boehler,

[8:12] who I'm

[8:17] sorry, could you

[8:19] just speak right into the blank? Certainly. So it's myself, Christy Kerwin, with MHBC planning.

[8:26] Dan Curry is unfortunately away and was not able to make this meeting. So I'm here

[8:31] representing the Heritage Consultant and MHBC.

[8:34] And I'm also joined by Brian Prudham,

[8:36] who is the partner of with the momentum developments.

[8:43] Okay, thank you.

[8:44] Go ahead.

[8:48] Is there a, I'm prepared

[8:55] a short presentation today

[8:57] that just describes some of the changes

[8:58] in a little more detail.

[9:00] And I'm also available to answer questions.

[9:02] And if there's anything I can't answer,

[9:04] hopefully Brian will be able to answer as well.

[9:06] So this is,

[9:10] I think we're having difficulty hearing, definitely.

[9:17] Sorry, is this a little better?

[9:19] Yes, Maria, I'm assuming that you can up the volume.

[9:24] Apologies, I'm a soft spoken person, I'll try to project a little more.

[9:27] Right, thank you.

[9:29] Is that better for committee?

[9:31] You can hear better.

[9:33] OK, thank you.

[9:37] All right, so this is regarding the,

[9:39] The, as Victorian mentioned, the redevelopment of the property at 20 Queen Street.

[9:47] And through site plan, there have been changes to the property, which we will describe

[9:54] in a little more detail in this presentation.

[9:58] Since the approval of the previous heritage permit application, the apologies, the changes

[10:08] is that we're going to go over include a reduction in height of 34 to 19 stories, addition

[10:14] of two commercial units at the ground floor, as Victoria mentioned, a reduction in the

[10:19] retained existing south façade of the current building, a reduction in the excavation required

[10:28] to preserve the existing portions of the building, so this includes micro piles on the exterior,

[10:34] steel structure as well as excavation under the existing facade and also the window opening

[10:42] that is proposed to be altered into a door to allow for balcony access.

[10:50] So the reduction in height, as Victoria mentioned, does not alter the heritage attributes

[10:55] of the building and it is not as part of this, no changes are proposed to the heritage facade.

[11:01] The

[11:05] ground floor has undergone some changes through the site plan process.

[11:09] This includes the addition of two commercial units.

[11:13] It also includes the reduction in size of the community benefit space.

[11:17] This space is proposed for a commemoration and that has not changed.

[11:23] So there's still proposed to be a commemorative plaque which is located in that area.

[11:26] And as well, if possible, the condition is uncertain, but the intent is to salvage materials

[11:36] to display for commemoration there as well.

[11:43] So as mentioned, the reduction in south to south is currently proposed.

[11:48] This is for a couple of reasons.

[11:51] It's intended to permit the inclusion of the two commercial units.

[11:56] It's also intended to permit goadies lane to the south to remain open for the duration

[12:06] of construction activities.

[12:08] As I mentioned, the installation of the micro piles and the steel structure on the exterior

[12:14] would have required the closure of goadies lane during the retention and construction.

[12:22] And it also decreases the risk to the existing building as it no longer requires excavation

[12:29] to have an underneath that facade.

[12:36] So as I mentioned in the graphic, you can see the reduction in excavation requirements,

[12:43] the area that was required by the engineers to excavate beneath the facade, do the retention

[12:54] on the exterior. That has now been reduced to the portion which you can see on the right.

[13:04] The window opening on the second story balcony of the front facade is proposed to be altered

[13:10] into a doorway to permit access to that balcony. We are proposing to retain bricks from the

[13:17] existing opening so that it can be returned to its original state at a later date.

[13:23] Those will be

[13:27] minimal.

[13:30] And just to conclude, the overall impacts in addition to what we're previously

[13:37] identified are minor negative impacts resulting from the removal of a slightly larger portion

[13:43] of the south facade, negligible impacts related to the window opening, and a beneficial impact

[13:50] resulting from the change in the structural short requirements,

[13:56] and that the recommendations

[13:59] the previous HIA remain applicable, and those are what we are recommending here as well.

[14:10] All right. Questions for the delegation?

[14:19] Peter, please.

[14:24] Yes, some technical questions first about the window, in the front of the sought.

[14:33] I would like, what if you have any more information about a couple of aspects of it? One is that the

[14:41] the relationship between the residential unit on the inside and its floor level and the

[14:47] floor level of the balcony.

[14:51] What's being shown here is they look to be identical and that there is no change between

[14:57] the floor elevation of the unit and the floor.

[15:01] To be honest, I'm not sure if there's a change in floor elevation between the interior of the building as it's proposed and the balcony. Is that something? Is that something you're aware of, Brian? Do you know if the balcony is on the proposed to be on the same level as the second floor? Okay. So, yeah, we will have to. I'm sorry, I did not hear that. He was just saying he believes it's very close. We'll have to take a look at the drawings and bring that back to you. Okay.

[15:28] So in order to make a door out of the window, you're going to have to remove a portion of the facade, which is below the window.

[15:36] Yes, that's correct.

[15:37] That's correct.

[15:38] So there is no information on what that opening looks like after you're done in this package.

[15:51] I believe it's shown on the elevations of the current building.

[15:55] the East elevation?

[15:57] If you could point me to that in the application, that would be great.

[16:02] Okay.

[16:04] I will have to take a look at that and get back to you.

[16:09] I mean, I'm not sure that we currently have available beyond what is in the elevations for though.

[16:15] Okay.

[16:17] So this new balcony is a change of use from the existing.

[16:22] therefore it would have to meet current codes and would not be grandfathered in under the existing.

[16:30] So the height that we see on the railing there looks to be substantially below what the requirements are for the

[16:39] guard height now under the current building code. And if I look at the plans that you have submitted for that,

[16:45] that it shows change in the characteristic of the balcony in the plan, existing.

[16:51] It shows the concrete or the stone-crenelated top.

[16:57] And it shows something different on the new.

[17:00] There is no other information on what the change is that you are suggesting to that front

[17:06] a particle because of that requirement.

[17:08] Is that correct?

[17:10] That is correct.

[17:14] The current existing detailing is proposed

[17:18] to remain the crinolated balcony rail.

[17:24] But beyond that, I'm not aware of other changes

[17:27] that are proposed to the balcony as a result of that.

[17:30] So we don't know what that will look like now at this point.

[17:34] It's proposed to, sorry, perhaps you could clarify a little more.

[17:41] That railing is part of the historic designation of the front.

[17:47] You were proposing a change to that railing, but we are not being shown what that changes.

[17:52] No changes are proposed to the railing.

[18:01] Okay.

[18:01] Okay,

[18:03] let's, some questions about the change to the building facade on Gaudiline.

[18:12] There are two arguments that you bring forth in the report of why this facade should

[18:21] be shortened.

[18:23] So the first one is, it is a reduction, this is a quote from a reduction of risk of accidental

[18:29] damage to the existing.

[18:32] There is no accompanying structural report with this application, and in the application

[18:43] itself there's an area that says to be determined after structural investigation.

[18:50] Without a structural report, how do you assess what that risk of accidental damage is and

[19:00] is a significant risk. And how, with how the structural report, how do we know that shortening

[19:07] this facade is actually necessary in order to remediate that risk?

[19:14] So we are the stabilization plan

[19:20] is currently being prepared by the project engineers. I don't think that the argument is specifically

[19:29] that it's necessary to prevent it. However, the reduction in excavation and

[19:38] shoring requirements will ultimately result in not being the case.

[19:46] We certainly are planning to share the stabilization plan when it's available.

[19:52] But the information in this report was also discussed in conversation with the

[19:58] projects, engineers, and so that's what they have stated.

[20:01] Okay. Sorry for taking much time. One last question.

[20:04] The second argument that you put forward for the reduction of the link of the sod

[20:11] is that it is required in order to accommodate the new commercial units

[20:17] which will face onto Gaudi's lane.

[20:20] Yes. Can you help me understand what it is about changing the use

[20:25] to commercial along Gaudi's lane, which prohibits the retention of that section of the building.

[20:35] Certainly. So I think it's probably not fair to say prohibits, but there are certain

[20:43] requirements that certainly make it desirable for commercial units to have their own entrances,

[20:49] to have a more activated streetscape, to have a high level of glazing, for example.

[20:54] and those requirements are part of what was being accommodated in order to allow for those commercial units.

[21:00] Could those items be met by retaining the existing facade and making alterations to it as opposed to demolishing the entire thing?

[21:13] I think it's certainly possible but it would be more of a challenge to accommodate the needs of those commercial units

[21:21] and it would still require the full closure of Godi's lane.

[21:26] All right, thank you.

[21:30] Thank you, Peter.

[21:32] Councillor Michele Lee of a question.

[21:35] Thank you.

[21:35] Yes, go ahead.

[21:36] Thanks for your presentation.

[21:38] I'm a little stuck a little on the community benefit space.

[21:42] This was quite an important piece as we initially went through this process of designating this building

[21:50] and then allowing it to grow into more space for departments or high-rise.

[21:57] So you're cutting the community space back to almost half of the space you have.

[22:02] And that was one of the, I thought that I recall that was one of the big important kind of stakeholders that we had to keep this as a performance community space.

[22:11] So I'm curious as to why that's changed.

[22:18] So that was kind of a commitment that was made, I recall.

[22:25] Hi,

[22:36] good afternoon, everyone. My name is Heather Price. I'm the planning consultant on this file.

[22:41] I thought I would just scoot down here and explain that the community benefit space is a direct correlation

[22:48] with the amount of flurry in the building that's being proposed. So under the zoning framework that applies to this land,

[22:55] And there was a community benefits bonusing exchange for the amount of square footage that

[23:02] was proposed at the original height and the amount of community benefits space that

[23:06] needed to be provided to offset the density that was being sought.

[23:12] And so with the reduction in height, the amount of community benefits space has been scaled

[23:17] down accordingly.

[23:19] And that's in part of financial decision, which is not my area of expertise, and perhaps

[23:23] there, but we might tap in the third person on the team here to speak to that, but it certainly

[23:28] is a financial consideration and providing the right amount of amenity and community benefit,

[23:37] including the retention of the heritage, to offset the amount of density that's being sought.

[23:45] Okay, thank you. Thank you.

[23:49] Councilman Shaw, you had your answer.

[23:54] Thank you.

[23:56] Councillor Chaplin.

[23:58] Yeah, thank you.

[24:00] So, it sounds like this is a third iteration of this proposal.

[24:06] In order to save that south side, what height would you need?

[24:11] Can we go back to an earlier iteration where we've got to bring in more housing

[24:15] and we keep the facade the way it was originally planned and, you know, we work with, I mean,

[24:23] I think some of us were quite disappointed that the original building was being demolished

[24:27] at all, right? So, and here we are, and now we're going to take more of it away. We're

[24:32] going to cut back in the community benefit space. So it's becoming harder and harder to,

[24:39] well, certainly from my perspective, to really want to justify this. To understand how

[24:45] I can justify it, right, from a heritage perspective.

[24:55] I'm not sure if that's something you can speak to my dear.

[24:57] Yeah.

[24:58] I'll jump out.

[24:59] Could you just speak into the book like a little bit better, please?

[25:03] Got a team of whispers here.

[25:04] Sorry about that.

[25:07] It's okay.

[25:09] So from a zoning perspective, what's proposed complies?

[25:13] To answer the question on how many floors would need to be added in order to justify the

[25:21] retention of the southerly façade or how many bonus floors could be added if they were

[25:28] to do that.

[25:28] It's another way of saying it.

[25:30] That I don't have readily at my disposal today.

[25:34] Unfortunately.

[25:34] It already complied, right?

[25:36] It complied today.

[25:37] It complied from the very beginning.

[25:39] Yes.

[25:39] It complied with the changes.

[25:41] And now we're here again.

[25:42] Winning further changes.

[25:44] And so I don't think it's a question of complying.

[25:47] It's more a question of, you know, where does heritage fit into?

[25:51] this and where did the previous commitments fall into what's being proposed here?

[26:07] Was that

[26:07] a question? Was that a question? Well, I just wanted to clarify what my question was, I guess.

[26:13] I think Councillor Chaplin, you've asked a legitimate question and it's clear and what's the

[26:21] delegation have to say about it? How, what's your answer? Through you, Madam Chair, from my perspective,

[26:29] And again, I'm the land use planner on this file.

[26:32] Our priority is looking to official plan conformity and zoning compliance.

[26:36] And the plan as before you today does comply.

[26:41] It does attempt to, while it is a scaling down of the community benefits,

[26:46] it nevertheless does still contain community benefits.

[26:49] It is up to the committee to determine whether the amount is

[26:56] is justified based on the merits that have been presented to you this evening.

[27:03] And I think, sorry, I would just add that on a balance of competing priorities, the attempt

[27:12] is sort of to provide a number of different benefits.

[27:19] For example, a more activated streetscape along Gaudi-Sling, which those commercial units will

[27:26] provide while still offering some community benefit space.

[27:32] The retention of as much of the existing facade as is feasible while still allowing both

[27:38] of those items to coexist.

[27:43] So it's an attempt to weigh all the priorities and come out with a positive outcome.

[27:54] Councillor Chaplin, do you any further?

[27:57] No, I might have something later, but I know there's some other questions.

[28:01] Thank you.

[28:03] Other questions?

[28:05] Yes, Preston.

[28:08] Thank you.

[28:10] I guess this, to my mind, this speaks to kind of two different planning requirements.

[28:17] On one hand, we have the argument that the community benefits basis in ratio to density per the zoning requirements.

[28:24] But we are looking at it from a heritage perspective where the heritage value is community wide and that designation speaks to community benefit across the entire city.

[28:35] So I guess that brings it back to the heritage impact assessment to my mind.

[28:41] Was there any consideration given to the contextual value and the impacts of these changes?

[28:46] We know that the streetscape is a public-facing one.

[28:50] We have open spaces at the market square across the way.

[28:54] We have the laneway itself acting as a public space

[28:57] with the lighting, the entrance signage,

[29:01] the street art, all of those things.

[29:04] But I don't recall any discussion of the contextual value

[29:08] and the community benefit of maintaining those spaces

[29:11] in the HIA.

[29:13] So I'm wondering if there was any consideration

[29:15] given while we're talking about community benefits to the benefits of more retention,

[29:21] as well as kind of tying that back into that argument about the community benefits base within

[29:27] the building itself. Just putting that into a wider contextual discussion,

[29:33] I don't know if you have anything you can add on that. Certainly, through you, Madam Chair.

[29:40] So within the HIA Dendom, we do express that from a purely a heritage perspective,

[29:49] retention of a greater portion of the South facade would be a more positive outcome for the cultural heritage resource.

[30:07] You know, this is ultimately a weighing and balancing of those priorities. From a heritage perspective, we think that it is a justified change, but it does constitute an additional change.

[30:31] a minor negative impact from what was previously proposed on a purely heritage level of consideration.

[30:46] Preston, you have your answer?

[30:49] I do, yeah.

[30:53] Are there any other questions for the delegation?

[30:57] Yes, Magda.

[31:00] Thank you.

[31:02] So it might sound like I'm repeating a little bit some of the previous questions,

[31:06] but I feel like maybe you're restating them in a different way.

[31:09] might help help us get more information. So regarding the balcony, as it is so it's proposed

[31:19] to become accessible from one of the second floor residential units, is the railing of the balcony

[31:26] compliant with current OBC requirements?

[31:33] That is something that I would have to

[31:36] liaison with the project architects with and get back to you, but I as far as the drawings

[31:46] of the front facade that we have received, that railing is not proposed to be altered.

[31:54] Okay, but we don't know that.

[31:55] We don't know whether there's anything going behind or on top of the railing potentially.

[32:04] I might just add and perhaps redirect to staff, but as yet in the site plan approval process,

[32:12] we haven't received comments to my knowledge that identify that the railing has to be increased to conform to current building code standards.

[32:23] So as far as I know, there's not a requirement for that, but happy to have that confirmed by staff who are in attendance.

[32:30] Yeah, I imagine that's not something that would be a discussion at site plan approval,

[32:35] but it's something that we're, well, many of us, I think, are interested in.

[32:40] Certainly.

[32:41] As our media, I mean, to be clear, we want to make sure it's safe as well, and building

[32:46] code compliance is really getting to the heart of safety with railing heights.

[32:50] So it's a great question that's been raised.

[32:54] Building department is circulated on our site plans, and building permit applications.

[32:59] So we would have expected it to be flagged if it were an issue, but perhaps that's something that can be taken back and staff could comment on.

[33:07] So also if this current presentation to the committee, would this be assuming there's no further changes to the project?

[33:18] Would this be the last time that the Heritage Committee has a chance to ask questions and discuss?

[33:28] three Madam Chair. It's certainly our clients' intention to develop as proposed here. It is

[33:36] regrettable for all parties that the market has not been what everyone had hoped to realize the

[33:42] full density of the original plan. So it is partly those conditions that have caused us to

[33:47] having to keep pausing and restarting and pausing and restarting. That said, very excited to get going

[33:54] with this version of the plan. If there is support here, of course, from Heritage Committee

[34:00] and staff through the site plan approval process.

[34:07] I'm not sure that answers my question.

[34:15] I was just curious if this is approved and from

[34:22] a Heritage perspective, if this is the last time we'll see this because I feel like there's

[34:27] lot that information that's missing. And so, yeah, I was just wondering if it would come

[34:32] around again, or if this is the final stop assuming everything goes forward from this point

[34:38] on.

[34:39] Three Madam Chair. Sorry if I misunderstood the question. Yes, I think this would be the

[34:43] final say with respect to the applications that are before here.

[34:48] Okay.

[34:48] Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, and I do want to go back to the, of course, the South facade.

[34:55] So the statement of cultural heritage value or interest that was included as part of the application materials for this agenda,

[35:05] describes the contextual value of the property as including its functional and historical links to its surroundings, including specifically Gaudi's lane.

[35:14] So considering that most of the existing elevation facing Gaudi's lane is now proposed to be demolished,

[35:19] which would this be considered a negative impact to the contextual value of the property?

[35:25] And if so, is that documented anywhere because I don't believe that was mentioned in anything

[35:30] I read?

[35:33] Through you, Madam Chair, yes, the reduction in the south facade is considered an additional

[35:39] minor negative impact from what was previously reposed, which was the retention of the larger

[35:45] portion of the south facade to the heritage attributes of the building, which includes

[35:50] the context. The portion of the facade that is proposed to be retained, the intention

[35:57] is that a sufficient portion of the building is being retained, which allows for the legibility

[36:03] of the structure to still be read along Gaudi's lane. And it's similar to what is being retained

[36:08] on the north side of the structure as well. But it is in the Heritage Impact Assessment

[36:14] an addendum that this is an additional minor negative impact from a from a heritage perspective.

[36:18] Yes.

[36:26] And so the what we've seen as the proposal, the south facing return, it appears to be partially

[36:33] reconstructed. Is that the case? And could you maybe explain a little bit more what how is that

[36:40] meshing with the new the new construction and what that connection is going to be like?

[36:46] So, as I mentioned, we're still waiting on the final stabilization plan from the project

[36:54] engineers, so that's something that we will be providing more detail when it's available.

[37:02] But currently, the existing portions of the facade are proposed to be retained in place

[37:10] with a steel support skeleton.

[37:13] that will be along the front facade of the building and the return that is

[37:21] being retained along the the south facade does not require that retention

[37:27] structure because there's not going to be the underground excavation in

[37:33] place.

[37:35] Thank you and the regarding the salvage plan so we heard about how the the

[37:44] bricks removed from the, from beneath the window opening that's proposed to be turned into

[37:50] a door will be kept on site. But obviously there's a whole lot more material being demolished

[37:58] and so what proportion of the like physical material will be salvaged and what proportion will

[38:07] will go to landfill and of the materials that are salvaged what will happen to them

[38:13] after deconstruction.

[38:17] So the intent is to salvage as many features which include decorative detail which is

[38:25] characteristic of the building as possible.

[38:28] However, that's something that is going to have to be determined at the time of demolition

[38:32] by the demolition contractor because the condition of a lot of those features is not known.

[38:37] and so sometimes in the over the course of demolition, it will turn out that

[38:44] features are in a lot worse condition than anticipated. So that's not something

[38:49] that it's really possible to provide a specific percentage in advance

[38:54] because that's something that is going to have to be determined based on the

[38:57] conditions on site at the time of demolition. Okay, thank you.

[39:04] Thank you Magda.

[39:05] your answers. Sorry, I did think of one question that I was, came to me during the previous

[39:14] discussion regarding the commercial space. You know, there are new build commercial

[39:22] spaces along King Street with high visibility, like, smack, like, you know, a block from here

[39:29] that have been empty for, I don't know, five years or more.

[39:35] So I guess if we're going to see the commercial space on a very small lane, you know, I'll

[39:43] be an active space, I would say, in the downtown because of kind of the specific programming

[39:50] that goes on there.

[39:52] I guess I'm just wondering if I know you can't predict the future, but what are the

[39:59] How do we know that we're going to lose that facade and we're going to have some commercial space that's it's empty, you know like

[40:06] It's not then that the scale for me tips even further to well, that doesn't seem like it's worth it

[40:12] So I guess I'm wondering what what have have there been any studies done on the viability of a of commercial spaces on that section of Goaties Lane

[40:24] and

[40:24] and in relation to downtown trends here in Kitchener.

[40:38] Three Madam Chair, our short answer collectively is no.

[40:42] Perhaps our client might be able to comment

[40:45] on their level of confidence for leasing a space

[40:47] in that environment, but that's side of our expertise

[40:52] or knowledge through this process.

[41:01] Yes, so it's slightly more than a wing in a prayer.

[41:04] A lot of the retail that you're referring to

[41:05] on King Street is not great sizes, right?

[41:10] You're seeing sort of 2,000 plus square foot retail spaces

[41:13] that are struggling to lease or sell within a condo.

[41:17] But these are designed just over 600 square feet,

[41:20] and I think it's just under 800 as the secondary one.

[41:23] So we like that size, and we like the probability

[41:28] of those leasing up to different users.

[41:40] I have more questions, I just have comments, so I can wait if you want to answer some questions.

[41:46] Grant.

[41:48] I was actually going to ask a small thank you Madam Chair, I was going to ask you some more

[41:51] question.

[41:52] What do you envision in terms of tenants for these spaces?

[41:56] I was also somewhat concerned although it's the developers prerogative that they think that

[42:00] But they contend at the space to provide commercial, but my understanding is that developers

[42:06] aren't too keen to be providing ground floor commercial where they absolutely have to.

[42:09] So what kind of tenants might occupy these spaces?

[42:15] That's on me too.

[42:16] So with the community benefit space in the middle, it does make things slightly more difficult.

[42:26] I understand the theory behind the community benefit space, but I've spoken to a number

[42:30] We're a different group so that we've considered putting in there almost all and not for profit.

[42:35] And there's challenges, right?

[42:36] It's not easy.

[42:38] So, I think the answer to the question is we're going to have to find that fit first,

[42:43] and then work the other two spaces around it.

[42:46] But again, 700 square feet at 20 bucks a square foot, there's users in that world.

[42:54] It's just when you start getting into the 1500 plus, you start limiting your options.

[42:59] questions.

[43:02] And one more quick question if I may.

[43:05] I'm just curious who's idea was it to reduce the south to south?

[43:08] Was this something that development team project team came up with as a preference to reduce

[43:14] shoring and excavation or was this the result of a comment coming from the site point process?

[43:24] Three Madam Chair, it's a complicated question and it's a risen out of a number of reasons.

[43:30] It wasn't at the recommendation of staff as that was one of the items that you listed there.

[43:36] It is largely driven by the reduction in floors and the market conditions that we're in right now.

[43:43] So the scaling back of the overall development affects the ability to deliver on some of

[43:51] these atypical and more costly measures to deliver community benefits so that you are

[43:58] seen the scaling down of the community space, but also the reduction of the return coming

[44:04] towards Queen Street.

[44:08] It's a little bit of chicken in the end, the egg that's happened

[44:11] to you through this iterative process, looking at what can be kept, what makes the most

[44:15] amount of sense when you think about reprogramming of the ground floor and making sure that it's

[44:21] as usable and has the highest potential to be an active animated space along that really

[44:26] important goodies lane that has informed the ultimate recommendation for you today.

[44:34] Yeah, thank you for that. That's helpful for that context. I am wondering, though,

[44:39] with the proposal that's before us, would retaining that portion, I certainly appreciate there's

[44:44] already been a bit of a haircut on this project as it is.

[44:49] Would it prohibit the development

[44:51] L-ray, or would there be any limitations going forward on seeing this come

[44:55] if that return.

[45:00] The full length, the so-for-side.

[45:04] At three, Madam Chair, I, Brian, I think is going to say that to make that viable requires the additional units and the additional floors. So the scaling back that's happening goes, goes hand in hand with the reduction of the heritage facade. Are you able to speak to the value on that? Like what the difference per unit, like per square foot would be or, you know, like any of the costs dealt to the,

[45:31] that would resolve from keeping that?

[45:39] Okay, look carefully.

[45:41] The project itself is financially struggles

[45:46] at 19 stories as opposed to where it was at 34 stories.

[45:49] So, you know, we're looking for any design,

[45:55] a break that we can come up with to just sort of help get it

[45:59] over the goal line.

[46:01] The one thing that we didn't really talk about here though,

[46:02] I think is the urban design component of it.

[46:06] So my office is actually at the backside of eight queen.

[46:09] And as you come down that lane,

[46:11] you have a 30, maybe 40 foot entry off of Queen Street

[46:15] where you have dead wall versus dead wall.

[46:18] And it, you know, my findings through the last three

[46:21] to four years in having work back there

[46:23] is that it's not a very appealing place to gravitate to.

[46:30] So I worry about the, you know, the existence of a community benefit space or retail space that's that set back off of queen. It's another, another issue that's out there.

[46:41] Wasn't your question.

[46:45] Yeah, I mean, that wasn't it. I was just wondering if maybe there's a dollar value to that aspect, keeping that aspect.

[46:53] I don't have a specific dollar value. That's fair.

[46:56] Thank you. That's everything.

[46:58] Thank you. Grant.

[47:01] And are there, yes, not only?

[47:05] Just wondering to the proposed stories originally went from 34 to 19.

[47:14] Other than financial reasons, was there any other reason for the significant reduction

[47:21] in that?

[47:23] Absolutely.

[47:24] Absolutely, none. It was designed as a plan of condominium and presales basically dried up in the city in 2022, okay, and then just a follow-up question with that as well. So I know it was mentioned the reduction in excavation prior with the presentation there and I honestly can appreciate with today's time in place. It can be very, very expensive, but other than the closure of Gaudi's lane temporarily while the construction is happening. Is there any other heritage impact specifically because I'm not really convinced.

[47:54] that there's any sort of, you know, impact to the actual building and the structure,

[47:58] anything like that other than the financial and then the closure.

[48:02] But heritage speaking, is there any other reason why we cannot save that portion?

[48:11] So from a purely heritage perspective, there's not a reason that is based in heritage

[48:19] that there wouldn't be possible to retain that portion.

[48:22] Thank

[48:27] you, Natalie. Are there any other questions for the delegation?

[48:33] Seeing none, thank you. We'll now have our questions for staff.

[48:40] Councillor Misho, do you want to make a comment now or wait till after the questions will stop?

[48:46] Wait. All right. Questions then for staff?

[48:59] Councillor, yes, Natalie.

[49:02] Sorry, I just wanted to ask to follow up on what Peter had mentioned in the beginning

[49:07] as well as Magda regarding that balcony.

[49:10] I know it mentioned in the report that it is a heritage attribute, so just want to confirm

[49:15] that there will be no changes with it becoming a balcony that is in use now.

[49:22] Through the chair, it has not been noted to date that there is a change to the balcony proposed.

[49:29] As a result of the change from going from a window to a door, however, if a change to the

[49:37] guard is identified as being a requirement to meet building code, then that is something

[49:44] that would have to be further addressed through a Heritage Permit application, which would

[49:49] come back to this committee, because it would be a change to that identified heritage attribute.

[49:56] Thank you, Natalie. Any other questions or comments to staff?

[50:04] Thank you, Councillor Chaplin.

[50:07] Yeah, I guess I'd like you to comment on the one other question I think it was from

[50:13] you, Peter, about the floor, whether it's the same height, the floor and the interior

[50:20] to the floor and the balcony. Is there any information on that?

[50:26] I don't at this time.

[50:29] Okay.

[50:31] Also, as far as the Heritage Attributes in the Interior,

[50:37] the building, how impacted do you,

[50:40] what specifically will the impact be of what was already approved?

[50:44] Like we knew there were going to be impacts,

[50:46] but this sounds to me like there would be further impacts.

[50:52] Through the chair, there were not interior features identified as

[50:58] as heritage attributes of the building specifically, but coming out of the commemorative plan and

[51:08] the, like, commemoration and interpretive plan, those resources were being identified through that process,

[51:16] and those reports have not yet been finalized, so the impact of what can be retained and

[51:24] incorporated into this development is still not fully known at this time.

[51:28] We would be working through that, through this site plan process to, to confirm what can

[51:32] be salvaged and where those features would be identified within the building.

[51:38] Okay, thank you.

[51:42] Thank you, Councillor Chapman.

[51:44] Any other comments here?

[51:50] I suppose this brings us to a motion.

[51:54] One of the observations I had from the report, to conclude 7-0, minor negative impact,

[52:06] what the proposal will be, and I find it very difficult to accept that in the report.

[52:16] I'm hearing concerns and also I would say that each of you have received from how

[52:29] Yeager a report, not necessarily a report, but a concern expressing that the community

[52:43] benefit space is being reduced. And if I recall, how much interaction there was on community

[52:55] benefit, there must have been 20 delegations when we had this first go round on saving

[53:03] this building and delegating and designating about the community benefit. And to think that

[53:10] But now we're going to have to have or even consider reducing the community benefit.

[53:18] It's really difficult to deal with.

[53:22] I think there's a good point, commercial space, and why and whether in fact it will attract

[53:31] and Magda raises a very good point, if you go up and down King Street, you see all kinds

[53:37] of commercial space available, sitting empty.

[53:44] I think there are many concerns with this, another one that comes to my mind, and I think

[53:52] of this person who was over on Park Street who recently wanted to open his door, the upper

[54:02] door, onto the balcony, and they had a nice balcony.

[54:06] And so, they had to modify that balcony.

[54:11] And I look at this portico, and I think this is what's left on the building, probably

[54:19] the main feature.

[54:21] And to me, I'm wondering, is this all that's going to be left of 1620 Queen Street North

[54:30] after we get through all of the building and so on?

[54:34] How will we keep it safe?

[54:35] and so we have the portico, so we have this balcony, the ballastrad, the railing, and

[54:43] to not know if we open up a door these days, and according to that person over on Park

[54:52] Street, they had to put in an extra railing to make it safe, and so I find it lacking

[55:01] and really disappointing that many of these details aren't here.

[55:07] Peter has raised many good points about how things are to should be in front of us

[55:14] and knowing engineering reports. And anyway, I find it very interesting to see

[55:22] have this report in front of us and the motion.

[55:24] but I suppose Mariah, we need to read the motion and I'm sorry, yes?

[55:36] Sorry, I can't.

[55:40] Oh, I'm sorry.

[55:43] Chair, if I may, I just wanted to offer a point of clarification before the committee

[55:47] does make their decision with regard to the community benefits.

[55:51] There has been some discussion.

[55:53] I just want to clarify that the community benefits is not currently before this committee

[55:59] for consideration.

[56:00] I just want everyone to be aware that the proposal to reduce the overall height and density

[56:05] of the site leads to an automatic reduction in the community benefits as per the registered

[56:11] community benefits agreement that is registered on title.

[56:15] So they received additional height and density for providing residential units downtown within

[56:21] in the former downtown geography that was identified

[56:23] in our official plan, as well as the retention

[56:26] of the heritage facade, which we have now since designated

[56:32] and it is a designated facade,

[56:35] as well as the provision for an amenity area.

[56:38] As the number of units has decreased

[56:41] and the requested increase in density has decreased,

[56:44] the size of the amenity area is then proportional.

[56:47] So committee can certainly make the decision on the return of the facade, that's what is in front of the committee

[56:55] but I think it is important to note that regardless of the outcome of a decision today and ultimately by council,

[57:01] they have under legislation and changes the legislation, the ability to reduce community benefits

[57:06] that is not altered at all with respect to the facade to the south.

[57:14] Thank you, Garrett.

[57:15] All right, so we have the motion before us, but Peter, before I go to the motion question.

[57:25] Yeah, I would just like to make one comment for, which is kind of summarized what I see before us.

[57:34] So the committee is being asked to decide on the validity of two things.

[57:41] one is the addition of the door, and the other is the reduction in the facade.

[57:48] So we look at the information that is so regarding the door, I look at the information that we are

[57:53] presented with, and I do not believe that it is adequate. There is not enough information

[58:00] there for the committee to make an informed decision on that aspect. Regarding the reduction of the

[58:09] The sod, there are two arguments that are put forward

[58:12] of why this facade has to be reduced.

[58:15] The first of all is that there is a risk of accidental damage

[58:19] to the existing building if it is not.

[58:22] There is no evidence accompanying this report

[58:26] to substantiate that claim.

[58:29] So I do not think that there is adequate information

[58:32] in order to accept that assertion.

[58:37] The second is that the SOD has to be reduced in order to accommodate the commercial use along the lane.

[58:49] Again, I don't think that has been adequately demonstrated within the information that is before us,

[58:55] and that the proponent has also said that it may be possible that it is retained if there are some modifications to it.

[59:05] and I think if the proponent came back with modifications suggested to that facade that the committee would be amenable to looking at them.

[59:14] But overall, I think there is inadequate information in this.

[59:19] And so I ask sort of who's beneficial, who benefits from this change, right, from the changes in front of us.

[59:28] And the only beneficiary that I can really see is the developer who benefits

[59:34] It's by a, what must be a fairly significant reduction in the construction cost by eliminating the requirement to have that building sawed during the corner and have two pieces of the sawed that are retained as opposed to one.

[59:50] who does not benefit from this, everyone else, right?

[1:00:00] I do not believe that this is a minor change to what is left here, that it is a fairly substantial change. And that the loss of that portion of the facade will really affect how this building is red when it is enveloped in this tower.

[1:00:19] From the street, being able to identify what the original mass of that building is, as it turns to the corner, as it sits in Gaudi's lane, is important for the future understanding of what that building shape is and how it sits and how it interacts with the street.

[1:00:35] And to remove that, I think further diminishes the heritage value of reducing the part of the building that is retained is to simply a front facade, which is applied to the front of a new modern condo tower.

[1:00:55] So given that, I can support nothing that is being asked in this proposal.

[1:01:02] Thank

[1:01:06] you, Peter. Good summary.

[1:01:11] Any other further comments? Well, we do have a motion

[1:01:17] before us and I will read it, pursuant to section 33 of Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage

[1:01:27] Permit Application HVA 2026, 4-021 be approved to permit the removal of a portion of

[1:01:37] of the site, so-return, and the alteration of an existing window opening into a door

[1:01:43] on the second floor of the front facade on the Property Municipally Addressed 16-20

[1:01:50] Queen Street, North, subject to the following conditions.

[1:01:54] That the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum dated July 23, 2026 and prepared by MHBC,

[1:02:03] see the approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of

[1:02:09] a heritage permit.

[1:02:10] That an updated conservation plan be submitted and approved by the Director of Development

[1:02:16] and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of a heritage permit.

[1:02:21] And that the final building permit drawings be reviewed in Heritage Clarence provided by

[1:02:28] Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

[1:02:32] But do I have anyone that will move it?

[1:02:36] Madam Chair, can I ask a quick question before we vote on this?

[1:02:39] I know we're in the middle.

[1:02:41] I'm just wondering maybe to staff, and there's an advantage or

[1:02:43] a possibility to deferring what's before us here, as opposed to,

[1:02:49] I think I'm seeing where this might be going, and I'm wondering if there's an advantage to

[1:02:52] the proponent to defer it or refer it to staff.

[1:02:55] Maybe avoiding additional fees down the road, could speak to that.

[1:02:59] Through the chair, with a deferral, there are some timing implications that would come into play

[1:03:07] under statutory requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act. Based on when the application was deemed complete,

[1:03:15] a decision on the application is required within 90 days of that notice.

[1:03:21] and because there is no Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting in October or a council meeting in October,

[1:03:30] the deferral would move past that 90-day time frame.

[1:03:38] Would you still have an opportunity in that time frame?

[1:03:40] Even if it's past the statutory timeline there to work with the proponent, even when this committee is not sitting,

[1:03:47] I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity to work on this rather than just reject and send it back to the drawing board.

[1:03:53] because I think we've made clear what the issues are.

[1:03:55] I'm just wondering if there's a way to keep it alive.

[1:04:00] Through the chair, I don't have exact wording under the Ontario Heritage Act,

[1:04:05] but I believe that there is a mechanism to extend the timing of when an application can be considered

[1:04:13] if there's agreement between the proponent and the municipality.

[1:04:18] If this application is rejected by this committee, would they have to submit a new application?

[1:04:25] Application Heritage Permit Application and pay the fee and ride the ride again.

[1:04:30] Through the chair, if this application is rejected here and through Council, then yes,

[1:04:37] a new Heritage Permit Application would be required.

[1:04:46] Any comments on that grant?

[1:04:50] Councilor Chapman.

[1:04:51] I just, like sort of adding to what you're saying, I guess I'd ask the proponent.

[1:04:56] Would you be willing to come back if we did vote on a deferral and respond to the

[1:05:02] some of the questions that are being left unanswered here.

[1:05:12] And I appreciate that it's a terrible time

[1:05:13] given that there's a municipal election in a month

[1:05:18] to defer something that is.

[1:05:24] They're not alone.

[1:05:33] I mean, yes, yeah, yeah.

[1:05:35] Yeah, certainly we'd look at,

[1:05:36] we'd prefer it deferral than a rejection, yes.

[1:05:42] So you'd be willing to work with staff

[1:05:43] to address some of these concerns

[1:05:45] that have been brought up here.

[1:05:48] Yeah, absolutely.

[1:05:48] And then it would come back to,

[1:05:50] I guess it would come back in November.

[1:05:51] If I'm correct.

[1:05:55] Through the chair, yes, the next scheduled Heritage Kitchener committee meeting is November.

[1:06:02] I just want to confirm what the Ontario Heritage Act says with respect to, like, working

[1:06:09] with applicants if there is a deferral in it and extends beyond that 90-day time frame.

[1:06:17] because I do know that the act says that if a decision is not rendered within those 90 days

[1:06:25] and it becomes an automatic approval of an application, so I just want to confirm what the

[1:06:32] act says with respect to working with the applicant to extend that timeline if we're able to do that.

[1:06:41] So you're saying if can I still speak? You're saying if it was deferred, it would be an automatic

[1:06:49] So no opportunity to examine this further.

[1:06:56] Based on my understanding of the Ontario Heritage Act, that's correct.

[1:07:00] Okay.

[1:07:00] Thank you.

[1:07:07] Peter, you're looking this way.

[1:07:10] You have no comments.

[1:07:13] All right.

[1:07:15] Thank you very much.

[1:07:18] Staff, what is your recommendation here?

[1:07:23] Madam Chair, I would just confirm for you that any decision would have to be ratified

[1:07:27] by Council and that's anticipated to be on September 28th.

[1:07:31] A decision on December 28th by Kitchener Council is within the 90-day consideration window.

[1:07:37] I know we only have two Councillors on our committee, but I might suggest that if we are worried

[1:07:43] about the 90-day window and there's additional information that's needed prior to Council

[1:07:47] making decision that we endeavor to regroup with the two counselors that are on Heritage

[1:07:53] Kitchener, and see if we can provide the information self-standing, and then Council will at least

[1:07:58] have an opportunity to review that additional information before our final decision is rendered

[1:08:02] on September 28th.

[1:08:06] So what we're suggesting here is to defer this application based on Council's decision.

[1:08:19] Perhaps staff, you can come up with what it is that we can vote on.

[1:08:26] Madam Chair, I'd like to clarify this agenda, the entire agenda package from this evening

[1:08:32] will be proceeding to September 28th Council and ultimately Council will make a decision.

[1:08:38] Council will have regard for the decision that's made by Heritage Kitchener, but the final

[1:08:42] decision is made by Kitchener Council on these matters.

[1:08:45] What I'm suggesting to you today is whatever the committee decides, I think we've heard

[1:08:50] that there's some additional information that's needed and we've heard a commitment from

[1:08:53] the developer to provide that.

[1:08:55] I'm suggesting that there could be further dialogue with the two ward Councillors that are

[1:08:59] on Heritage Kitchener between now and September 28th and then we can potentially continue the

[1:09:04] discussion on September 28th and Council will have that additional information before a final

[1:09:09] decision is made.

[1:09:11] Thank you.

[1:09:13] Thank you.

[1:09:15] Yes, yes.

[1:09:17] I mean, I hear what you're saying, Garrett.

[1:09:21] Regardless, if we vote against this today, if the Heritage Committee were to reject this,

[1:09:26] it would still, there's that opportunity still exists, right?

[1:09:30] So just to clarify.

[1:09:36] So are we suggesting to go ahead with this?

[1:09:39] Well, I'm just saying that even if we were to reject it as a committee, it would still

[1:09:44] have to go back to Council, the end of September, but then the vote would be recorded as

[1:09:53] if that were the case.

[1:09:54] As a rejection, it doesn't mean that Council couldn't then approve it, and we could still

[1:09:59] do the work with the developer as was suggested by Garrett between now and then.

[1:10:05] So I guess what I'm saying is we could still reject this without anything really changing.

[1:10:15] All right.

[1:10:16] Is there someone who can move the motion?

[1:10:23] All right.

[1:10:24] What does that mean?

[1:10:26] I do not see anyone.

[1:10:27] Yes, Peter.

[1:10:30] Oh, Peter, thank you.

[1:10:33] All right.

[1:10:34] All right.

[1:10:35] Peter will move this motion.

[1:10:39] And so, all those in favor of, remember, I will take in favor and non-in favor.

[1:10:50] Okay.

[1:10:50] All those in favor of the motion,

[1:10:58] against the motion,

[1:11:04] seamlessly.

[1:11:05] So that will go to Council September 28th, right?

[1:11:31] Our next item is Heritage Permit Application HPA 2026V-0161292

[1:11:40] village road demolition and construction of a single detached dwelling DSD 2026286.

[1:11:49] Victoria Grun, Heritage Planner will present and do we have some

[1:11:56] Delegations here on this,

[1:12:00] okay, all right, Victoria.

[1:12:07] Thank you Madam Chair.

[1:12:09] The development services department is in receipt of a heritage permit application for

[1:12:13] the property municipally addressed as 1290 Dune Village Road.

[1:12:17] This property is located within the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District and

[1:12:21] designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act.

[1:12:24] The subject property contains a single detached dwelling constructed in 1965.

[1:12:31] I also wanted to note that the properties of 1290 and 1296

[1:12:37] Dune Village Road have merged on title, which is why there are two buildings shown on this property.

[1:12:44] But the one in question is the one that is circled up on the screen.

[1:12:50] The application proposal contemplates the demolition of the existing single detached dwelling

[1:12:55] and the construction of a new single detached dwelling in its place.

[1:12:59] The

[1:13:04] existing single detached dwelling is identified as a non-heritage building within the upper

[1:13:09] dune Heritage Conservation District Plan. Through Heritage Planning Staff's review of the property,

[1:13:14] there are no heritage attributes that have been identified to be retained as part of the

[1:13:21] redevelopment on the property.

[1:13:26] So the proposal contemplates the construction of a new two-story

[1:13:29] single detached dwelling with an attached one and a half story garage with a loft on the property.

[1:13:36] The image above shows the location of the existing dwelling in red and an overlay of the location

[1:13:44] of the proposed new dwelling in green.

[1:13:47] The subject property has a lot size of 1.75 hectare or 4.33 acres.

[1:13:54] The location of the proposed new dwelling is generally in the same location as the existing.

[1:14:00] However, the orientation of the footprint of the building is slightly rotated.

[1:14:04] The new dwelling is proposed to be set back approximately 6.27 meters or 20.57 feet further

[1:14:13] than the existing dwelling, maintaining limited to no impact on the Dune Village road streetscape.

[1:14:26] Based on the size of the existing lot, and noting that tree removals would be required to facilitate

[1:14:33] this development. Heritage planning made the requirement of the submission and approval

[1:14:38] of a tree management plan and arborist report, a condition of a heritage permit application

[1:14:44] approval. Since the preparation of the staff report that was included in the agenda package

[1:14:50] for this evening, heritage planning staff have since received the tree management plan and

[1:14:55] our RIS report and we're

[1:15:00] So, for the committee's information, staff have provided the following image, depicting the location of both the existing and proposed dwellings. So, the existing shown in yellow and the blue is the proposed location of the new dwelling, as well as the trees that are proposed to be removed. And those are marked with X's on that drawing. So, there are 12 trees.

[1:15:29] proposed to be removed, eight of which are within the boundary to facilitate the

[1:15:36] construction. The trees outside of the construction boundary that are proposed

[1:15:41] to be removed are dead or dying and are proposed for removal for general

[1:15:47] maintenance on the property. In general the removals recommended are not

[1:15:52] anticipated to have a significant impact on views to the property from from

[1:15:58] Dune Village Road.

[1:16:02] The size of the existing dwelling on the property is approximately 5,100

[1:16:06] square feet, and the size of the proposed dwelling is 4,303 square feet with an additional

[1:16:14] 673 square feet of loft space above the attached garage. Due to existing grades on site and

[1:16:23] and working within these existing grades,

[1:16:25] the height of the proposed dwelling varies,

[1:16:28] ranging from 8.65 meters to 10.6 meters.

[1:16:34] But the significant setback of this dwelling

[1:16:37] will assist to visually reduce the perception

[1:16:40] of the building height.

[1:16:42] And the new dwelling is proposed to be clad

[1:16:44] in brick and stone in color tones

[1:16:48] that are shown on this slide.

[1:16:54] In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following.

[1:17:00] The existing dwelling is identified as a non-historic building and does not contain significant

[1:17:05] architectural or historical features.

[1:17:08] And the proposal is generally in keeping with the policies contained within the Upper

[1:17:12] Dune Heritage Conservation Plan as it relates to the form height, roof, windows, materials

[1:17:18] and setbacks.

[1:17:20] Heritage planning staff do note that historically the size of proposed new dwellings within this district has been a concern.

[1:17:28] However, the policies in the district plan do not specifically refer to size and given current zoning requirements.

[1:17:36] The context of this particular site as it relates to the location of the proposed dwelling on the subject lot and the general size of the subject lot.

[1:17:46] It is the opinion of heritage planning staff that the demolition of the existing dwelling in the construction of the proposed new dwelling will not adversely impact the heritage conservation district or the the dune village road streetscape.

[1:18:02] So based on on the above heritage planning staff are recommending approval of the heritage permit application subject to the following conditions.

[1:18:13] The first one being that the Tree Management Plan and Arborist Report be approved prior to the issuance of a heritage permit.

[1:18:21] And further that the building permit drawings be reviewed in heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

[1:18:32] And that concludes my presentation on this item.

[1:18:35] Thank you.

[1:18:35] So thank you, Victoria.

[1:18:38] Are there questions for, oh, I'm sorry, perhaps delegation, do we have anyone here?

[1:18:51] Through the chair, no.

[1:18:52] There's no one for this particular application.

[1:18:55] Thank you.

[1:18:56] Questions for staff on this?

[1:18:59] Yes, Natalie.

[1:19:01] Just a question regarding the trees.

[1:19:04] So in the staff report, I know you mentioned there was just a bit of information still missing

[1:19:07] from the tree removal. In the staff report, it says two trees were being removed.

[1:19:12] Now it's eight on the property for off the property, correct?

[1:19:18] Through the chair,

[1:19:19] for this application there are 12 removals proposed in total on this property.

[1:19:26] Eight of the removals are within direct relation to the development that's proposed. So where they're

[1:19:32] located is going to be impacted by the new dwelling, as well as the extension of the driveway

[1:19:40] that's proposed. The remaining four trees that are proposed to be removed are either dead

[1:19:46] or dying, so it's been recommended that they be removed just for general maintenance on

[1:19:51] the property.

[1:19:53] Fair enough with the four there, so just about those eight because in the staff report

[1:19:56] it's that the trees slated for removal or proposed to be replaced is the applicant now willing to

[1:20:02] replace all eight trees on the property.

[1:20:10] Through the chair, one of the recommendations coming out

[1:20:15] of the arborist report that's been prepared is that there may be a requirement for

[1:20:22] replacements on trees on the property. That's something that staff are still reviewing and would work

[1:20:28] through with the applicant directly okay yeah I think I would be a little bit more comfortable

[1:20:32] just knowing a little bit more information regarding that as even though trees may be not

[1:20:37] in our scope it is still a heritage value that deeply contributes to the area of doom so thank you so

[1:20:43] much.

[1:20:45] Thank you Natalie. Councillor Chaplin do you have any. Yeah I had a similar question about

[1:20:52] the trees but my other question has to do with the the color tones that are being proposed I mean I

[1:20:58] notice the the current structures like I don't know if it's hard to tell whether

[1:21:02] it's like a red brick or a brownie red brick I'm not sure what color it is but

[1:21:06] and now we're talking about a more sandstone color and I don't know if that's

[1:21:11] that you call it but you know what I mean so I'm just wondering is is that more

[1:21:17] is that in keeping with the heritage district itself or is it a bit of a

[1:21:22] departure?

[1:21:30] Through the chair, sorry, I'm just pulling up the staff report here.

[1:21:39] So through the policies that are identified within the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation

[1:21:46] District Plan with respect to colors, it speaks to materials and colors being historically

[1:21:53] the sympathetic colors that are quiet, subtle, and natural, or neutral shades.

[1:21:59] So the materials that are proposed here, the colors of them, I would say are in keeping

[1:22:04] with that policy with respect to being quiet, subtle, and neutral.

[1:22:08] Okay, thank you.

[1:22:11] Thank you.

[1:22:12] Councillor Chaplin?

[1:22:13] Other questions?

[1:22:15] Yes, Magda.

[1:22:18] So there hasn't been any demolition or new construction in the district since 2014.

[1:22:26] As far as I'm aware, yes, that's true.

[1:22:30] And when was this existing building that's proposed to me demolish, when was it built?

[1:22:38] Based on records, I believe it was around circa 1965.

[1:22:46] Okay, yeah, I was going to also ask about the trees, but we got a response to that.

[1:22:51] And I have a few other comments that maybe I'll wait till everyone has had a chance to ask

[1:22:56] questions.

[1:22:56] Thank you. Any other question? I wonder if you Victoria could bring up that picture of the tree

[1:23:08] from the road.

[1:23:17] That one. Okay. So this is a rather large proposal of a house. The orientation will

[1:23:28] will not be with a facade or the front facing the creek as it is now, and so it's going

[1:23:37] to stand up and out, up on the hill. However, if this role of trees is maintained,

[1:23:49] it will, shall we say, diminish the impact of this particular house.

[1:23:55] The house being proposed is similar in size to that which exists and over the years the

[1:24:06] former owner did add on and add on because he loved to look out at the birds and the

[1:24:13] wildlife down on the creek.

[1:24:16] But anyway, the trees have been mentioned several times here, and I have concerns about

[1:24:27] the Arborist Report, and I would like to see on the finished project that these trees

[1:24:37] These are planted so that we diminish the impact of this house from the road.

[1:24:50] As you can see by having this quarter of trees up the lane, which is about maybe 75 feet,

[1:25:00] you can hardly see that large house that was shown, the one that exists there.

[1:25:11] Do you have something to say about this?

[1:25:18] Yes.

[1:25:18] Thank you.

[1:25:19] So, um, I just, I, I, yeah, I had concerns about this and my comments apply to this application

[1:25:27] and the next one, they're both in the same heritage district, they're kind of a similar

[1:25:33] age and they're proposed to be demolished and replaced.

[1:25:36] So I just wanted to bring up a couple ideas and perhaps the question at the end of this

[1:25:48] will be whether the city is working on anything related to what I'm about to say.

[1:25:57] So of course the buildings in question are not considered historic buildings within the

[1:26:02] parameters of the HCD. But as I mentioned, I have concerns about the fact that it would

[1:26:08] appear to be too fairly large functional dwellings are proposed to be demolished and presumably

[1:26:13] thrown in the landfill. So this application for $12.90 doing village road in fact specifically

[1:26:19] mentions that the existing house needs to be demolished because the owners wish to build

[1:26:24] a quote, durable energy efficient long-term residence.

[1:26:29] And so aside from the by now conventional

[1:26:31] wisdom, you know, the greenest building is the one that already exists. There are also numerous

[1:26:38] studies that show the environmental, economic, and social benefits of retrofit and reuse over

[1:26:44] demolition, demolition and new construction. So I'll just cite two, for instance, 2016 report

[1:26:52] by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the US found that, quote, it takes between 10 and

[1:26:58] 80 years for a new building that is 30 percent more efficient than an average performing

[1:27:03] existing building to overcome through efficient operations, the negative climate change

[1:27:08] impacts related to the construction process.

[1:27:12] And number two, more recently this past February, the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals

[1:27:17] or CAP published a report called Unlocking the Value of Existing Buildings, a new approach

[1:27:22] to codes for carbon culture and cost.

[1:27:24] and among the findings of that report are that, quote,

[1:27:28] reusing existing buildings through retrofits emerges

[1:27:30] as one of the most effective strategies

[1:27:32] for reducing carbon emissions, development costs,

[1:27:35] and construction timelines.

[1:27:37] This approach minimizes embodied carbon

[1:27:39] and avoids the environmental and financial burdens

[1:27:41] of demolition, excavation, and new material production.

[1:27:45] Retrofit and addition scenarios consistently demonstrate

[1:27:48] the best balance of cost, performance,

[1:27:51] and emissions reduction across all case studies.

[1:27:53] So, these and other studies point to something that is sort of increasingly coming up in discussions

[1:28:00] about heritage conservation, which is that heritage buildings in addition to their cultural

[1:28:05] heritage value have inherent environmental benefits, and conversely, this culture of conservation

[1:28:11] can be expanded to non-designated buildings, non-designated existing buildings by recognizing

[1:28:18] their material and environmental value and figuring out how to creatively repair retrofit

[1:28:23] and adapt them for evolving needs. So the rationale for demolition provided in this application

[1:28:30] and the one that follows on the agenda include the statements that the existing buildings are

[1:28:35] quote and outdated or quote just old which struck me as funny reading that considering they are

[1:28:43] are located within Heritage Conservation Districts.

[1:28:46] And I think that these applications represent lost opportunities to adopt buildings from

[1:28:51] newer areas of construction in ways that are more sensitive to their surroundings and

[1:28:56] more environmentally conscious.

[1:28:58] And I realize that these are not part of the buildings that are recognized within those

[1:29:04] parameters of the HCD.

[1:29:05] but I feel strongly that there should be more impetus to, you know, not taking an entire

[1:29:14] existing building because it's 50 or 60 years old throwing it in the garbage and starting

[1:29:21] from scratch.

[1:29:21] I think that is still disruptive to the, you know, the continuity of the area.

[1:29:27] So I just wanted to bring that up just, yeah, I just wanted to share that because I feel

[1:29:34] very passionately about that. And I realized I might be yelling into the void.

[1:29:40] There's nobody here to delegate for this, but it wasn't necessarily named,

[1:29:45] you know, aimed specifically at the applicants for this application. It was just

[1:29:50] kind of a general comment, general encouragement for us to think more about the...

[1:30:00] Intersects with climate change and environmental issues. So yeah, so I guess I, I don't know if you can answer this, but is there a, is there any kind of policy perhaps within, you know, the new official plan that is at all looking at those issues of existing buildings, not just when they're like designated under the OHA, but encouraging the kind of retro

[1:30:29] of fit addition, kind of, you know, not just taking a whole building and throwing it in landfill.

[1:30:35] Thank you. Thank you, Magda.

[1:30:39] Stuff?

[1:30:42] Through the chair. I believe that there was some discussion of having

[1:30:48] these types of policies incorporated into the new official plan. I don't

[1:30:56] know where that landed or what the policies are. I don't have them in front of me,

[1:31:01] but I certainly appreciate that the comments that you've made and definitely something for us to consider as we

[1:31:08] continue

[1:31:10] working on any sort of a policy development projects that come up.

[1:31:18] Thank you very much.

[1:31:22] Any other questions comments? Yes Laura.

[1:31:28] Thank you. I had read some discussion and concern about the large-scale

[1:31:34] replacement homes and I just wondered if this, does this application suggest that the city

[1:31:42] needs clearer policies on dwelling size and massing in upper dune or does staff feel

[1:31:50] that the policies are sufficient?

[1:31:57] Through the chair, as I mentioned, the upper dune

[1:32:00] heritage conservation district plan does not mention size of dwelling specifically.

[1:32:06] So when we are reviewing applications for new construction within the district, we look

[1:32:15] at other existing dwellings that are located within the area, but also consider context

[1:32:23] of those properties as well.

[1:32:28] with respect to potentially reviewing the policies of the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District Plan.

[1:32:39] That's not something that's been identified on heritage planning staff's work plan in the future.

[1:32:47] But each application is reviewed based on its own merit.

[1:32:53] All right, so,

[1:32:56] thank you.

[1:33:00] Thank you, Laura.

[1:33:05] I think in the report, if you look in the report

[1:33:08] of which Victoria presented,

[1:33:12] there is quite a bit of discussion

[1:33:14] as to what happened following 2014.

[1:33:20] And the discussion, and it is of concern

[1:33:27] because of the heritage buildings and houses that are of much smaller and most of them that

[1:33:38] exist are 3,000 square feet and less.

[1:33:43] Thank you. All right. I will go to the motion then that

[1:33:50] We have pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Permit Application.

[1:33:59] HPA 2026V-016B approved to permit the demolition of an existing single detached dwelling and

[1:34:07] the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the property and unisably addressed

[1:34:12] as 1290 Dune Village Road in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with

[1:34:19] this application and subject to the following conditions, one that a tree management plan

[1:34:25] and arborist report be submitted and approved prior to the issues of a heritage permit

[1:34:32] and further, two, that the final building permit drawings be reviewed, heritage clearance

[1:34:38] provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

[1:34:43] that. So who would move this one?

[1:34:50] Accounts from a show. Any questions? All those in favor?

[1:34:58] Opposed?

[1:35:01] No. So one abstin. All right. Moving on then. 4.3 Heritage Permit Application

[1:35:12] HPA 2026, the dash 01951 Dunebrook place, demolition and construction of single detached dwellings.

[1:35:23] The SD 2026305, Victoria Groen, will present.

[1:35:33] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[1:35:35] The Development Services Department is in receipt of a heritage permit application for the property

[1:35:40] immediately addressed as 51 Dunebrook place.

[1:35:43] The property is located within the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District and designated

[1:35:47] under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act.

[1:35:50] Dunebrook place is located in the western limits of the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District.

[1:35:56] The subject, Heritage Permit Application, contemplates the demolition of the existing single detached

[1:36:01] dwelling and the construction of a new single detached dwelling in its place.

[1:36:05] The existing dwelling is identified in the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District Plan

[1:36:11] as a non-historic building.

[1:36:13] The dwelling was constructed circa 1968 and the attached garage was added in 2006.

[1:36:20] The existing dwelling is approximately 3,600 square feet and set back approximately 10 meters

[1:36:26] from the street at the closest point.

[1:36:29] No heritage attributes have been identified to be retained.

[1:36:32] The

[1:36:36] new dwelling is proposed to be located in the general location of the existing as shown on the slide.

[1:36:42] So the yellow is where the existing building footprint is located and the blue outline is the proposed new building footprint.

[1:36:53] The new dwelling is proposed to be two stories in height with an attached one-story garage.

[1:36:58] The proposed dwelling is 3,760 square feet and is cited to be 2.5 meters closer to the

[1:37:06] street than the existing dwelling to account for updated zoning regulations and setback requirements.

[1:37:13] Grading challenges have been identified which also contribute to the reciting of the proposed

[1:37:18] dwelling on the property.

[1:37:21] The height of the proposed dwelling is 29 feet 6 inches at the front elevation.

[1:37:25] There is a significant grade change towards the rear of the dwelling with the most noticeable

[1:37:31] impact on the west facade where the building appears to be three stories in height.

[1:37:36] The proposed cladding is primarily red brick with stucco and wood accents on the front

[1:37:40] facade and the ground story at the rear of the dwelling is proposed to be clad in stone.

[1:37:46] Two trees are proposed to be removed on site and the applicant has indicated that there will

[1:37:54] be replacement of those trees.

[1:38:01] In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following.

[1:38:06] The existing dwelling is identified as a non-historic building and does not contain significant

[1:38:11] historic architectural features.

[1:38:13] The proposal is generally compliant with the upper-dune heritage conservation district policies

[1:38:18] regarding the form, the roof, windows, materials, and sighting.

[1:38:22] And the size of the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the size of the dwelling that exists.

[1:38:29] It is the opinion of heritage planning staff that the proposed demolition and

[1:38:33] new construction is not anticipated to adversely impact the Dune Book Street or

[1:38:40] the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District.

[1:38:44] And so heritage planning staff recommend approval of the application subject to the following

[1:38:50] in condition that the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance

[1:38:55] provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. And that

[1:38:59] concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you.

[1:39:03] Thank you. Thank you, Victoria.

[1:39:10] Do we have anyone here for the application?

[1:39:15] question. All right. Just for questions to answer. All right. Then are there questions

[1:39:24] of staff or the delegation? Yes. Councilor Chapman.

[1:39:30] Yeah. I just wanted to thank Magda for bringing this to our attention. I am looking at the official

[1:39:40] plan 2051, and I can't get through it all in the time that we have here, but one of the

[1:39:45] clauses that I just came across was referring to the circular economy, right, which would require

[1:39:51] it says the city can establish standards to ensure at least 75% of buildings of a buildings demolition

[1:40:00] material is diverted from landfills. So I guess I'd like staff to speak to that and I know we've

[1:40:07] already passed the one application, but maybe you could speak to it in regard to this

[1:40:13] application.

[1:40:17] Through you, Madam Chair. So, Kitchen 2051 has been approved by Council

[1:40:21] and was still in front of the province for final consideration. However, there is a new

[1:40:26] section that Councillor Chapman is referring to the waste of resources. And what that chapter

[1:40:32] calls out is that there's a driving need to divert material from landfills and to reduce

[1:40:38] the need for new raw materials and energy, and it talks about a circular economy where

[1:40:43] we repair, reuse, recover, and recycle things.

[1:40:47] This is different than the current approach where most things are made used and disposed

[1:40:50] of, changes in natural system energy systems and trade and partners all lead us to a more

[1:40:55] circular economy.

[1:40:56] So that is the overall objective between now and 2021, and there are policies, there's three

[1:41:01] policies in this section which talk about creating the circular economy strategy for development

[1:41:07] for waste management and that buildings demolished for development should divert usable materials from landfill for reuse or cycling and then the city may establish standards to ensure at least 75% of a building demolition material is divert it from landfill.

[1:41:22] So these are the objectives between now and 2051 that we set for ourselves in order to ensure that in this particular case building materials from construction waste are either retained or not become waste

[1:41:36] where they do become waste, ensure that 75% of the materials are diverted from landfill.

[1:41:41] So this is something we'll have to partner with the region of Waterloo as our waste provider and landfill operator in the coming years to ensure that where possible the city would support regional initiatives to encourage and enhance existing recycling material programs.

[1:41:55] There are some in place now, I know that building materials, some of them are sorted, some of them are reused.

[1:42:01] some building materials actually reused at the landfill,

[1:42:05] but that is a growing body of work.

[1:42:08] And it's something that this policy supports

[1:42:09] over the fullness of time of our kitchen in 2021 plan.

[1:42:14] But if we were to be more restrictive on demolition

[1:42:19] and look at retrofitting and working within the existing structures

[1:42:25] we wouldn't have the landfill problem.

[1:42:28] I mean, bringing it back to us as a city,

[1:42:30] What tools do we have to ensure that we're being environmentally proper?

[1:42:39] And like I said, I just pulled that out quickly out of the official plan.

[1:42:43] I'm sure you could direct us to other aspects of the official plan that might speak more

[1:42:49] specifically to demolition.

[1:42:54] Yes, and through the chair.

[1:42:55] So certainly, that's within the energy conservation section.

[1:43:00] there are also cultural heritage sections including the retention and

[1:43:04] designating and retaining of buildings. So it's something that I think this

[1:43:09] committee rightfully points out that an existing building is the

[1:43:12] greenest building and we've been working hard through our

[1:43:15] municipal heritage review to designate properties to ensure that

[1:43:19] they will be retained over time. So it's not something that's lost on us but it's

[1:43:24] something that's part of our objectives between now and 2021.

[1:43:27] And

[1:43:31] if another application of the start were to come forward, would staff be in a position

[1:43:36] to reject it before it comes to heritage?

[1:43:41] Through the chairs, so in terms of, I won't hypothesize about future applications, but

[1:43:48] I will say there are residential demolition considerations within the Planning Act, and

[1:43:55] then there's retention in building material recycling programs.

[1:43:59] I think there wouldn't be the legislative ability necessarily to prevent something just for the retention and nonreuse of buildings, but where I think we can probably have the biggest movement is on the recycling of materials over time in partnership with the region.

[1:44:19] Thank you, Councillor Chaplin. Any other questions? Yes, Peter.

[1:44:29] I have a question. I remember when I first joined the committee many years ago that there

[1:44:38] was more development that was going on, redevelopment that was going on in the

[1:44:43] area. And there was a lot of frankly anger and a lot of negative feedback from the residents

[1:44:55] of Doom 4.

[1:45:00] Committee as approving large buildings that were inappropriate in scale and inappropriate in

[1:45:08] style for the, for the due neighborhood. Since there hasn't been any development substantially

[1:45:16] since 2014, we haven't had to experience that. So my question is, even though this building

[1:45:27] building is, for it goes from 3,600 square feet to 3,760 square feet, as a building footprint.

[1:45:36] It appears that the gross floor area of the building is substantially larger than the building that is there.

[1:45:41] So this building is three stories from the back, two stories from the front.

[1:45:46] So in terms of the total mass of the building, it looks much larger than the building is there.

[1:45:54] So my question is, have the neighbors been consulted over this proposal?

[1:46:04] Through the Chair, through the Heritage Permitting Process for Applications, residents in this area have not been explicitly notified or consulted with respect to this application, I can't speak to whether the property owner has done their own consultation or not.

[1:46:24] but through city process that has not happened.

[1:46:30] Thank you.

[1:46:32] Thank you, Peter.

[1:46:35] In the audience, do we have a delegation who would like to speak?

[1:46:45] Good evening. I'm the owner of 51 Dune Brook.

[1:46:49] So I have...

[1:46:50] Sorry.

[1:46:51] Okay. I'm the owner of 51 Dune Brook.

[1:46:55] So regarding the size of the building,

[1:46:57] currently it's one and a half story building.

[1:46:58] So there is a second floor, but it's not complete, it's attic, so it's smaller width, but if you can see from the pictures, there are windows in the second floor, so we are just taking the floor and expanding the walls to be a complete floor, not just an attic.

[1:47:14] Otherwise, the footprint of the building stays the same as because of that expansion of the second floor, the total livable square footage is increasing, and also partially by taking some space from the garage and converting to the foyer.

[1:47:25] That's why there is an appearance of increased scour footage, but actually the footprint of the building remains the same and the second story.

[1:47:33] The total height does not increase substantially because of expanding the second floor.

[1:47:38] Regarding the neighbors, there are five housed in the Dundbrooke Village and the Dundbrooke place.

[1:47:43] We've been living there for the five years. We are all friends there with pretty much all the neighbors.

[1:47:48] We get together regularly, so we've been informing them about the plans and showed them designs of the buildings that color renderings.

[1:47:54] As far as like two years ago, we've been discussing that with them.

[1:47:59] So that's what I have to say on that.

[1:48:05] Yes, Peter.

[1:48:09] The member of the Heritage Committee who is the representative for Dune,

[1:48:13] I wonder if I could solicit their opinion on the necessity of whether there's a necessity

[1:48:21] for neighborhood consultation above which has already been done.

[1:48:26] Yes,

[1:48:33] I'm in the initial meeting that was a question, and I understand that the owners

[1:48:46] have asked the other neighbors about their proposal and presented it.

[1:48:55] But I think it is very important, I have concerns about the back end and how it is

[1:49:09] going to fare with all the buildings, the bungalows that are immediate to the right and

[1:49:17] left of this property.

[1:49:21] Actually.

[1:49:22] Any other questions of the delegation?

[1:49:26] Peter, do you have any more?

[1:49:28] Thank you.

[1:49:28] Thank

[1:49:32] you.

[1:49:35] Oh,

[1:49:38] Magda. I just wondered what is the actual exterior cladding proposed because

[1:49:45] we in the report we see it says brick in the rendering it looks like staco or something and in

[1:49:53] the drawing it looks like a stone. So would you be able to clarify what the exterior cladding will be?

[1:50:01] Yes, the upper two levels are going to be red brick, closely resembling the existing

[1:50:08] brick, so we've selected the brick with a very similar texture and a very similar color.

[1:50:14] And the lower level, which is only visible from the left side and from the back, is going

[1:50:20] to be a gray stone.

[1:50:22] And stock accents are going to be only where the cables are.

[1:50:26] So we try to go for the farmhouse style, so add in a front porch with a roof over the porch that makes the building appear smaller in height.

[1:50:40] Then it would have been either just a flat two-story tall building with a flat facade.

[1:50:50] Thank you, Magda. Any other scene none? Thank you very much.

[1:50:58] All right. We have a motion before us pursuant to section 42 of the Ontario Heritage

[1:51:10] Permit Application HPA 2026 V-019 be approved to permit a demolition of an existing single

[1:51:19] detached dwelling and the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the property.

[1:51:24] Municipally addressed is 51 Dunebrook Place in accordance with the supplementary information

[1:51:30] submitted with this application and subject to the following condition that the final building

[1:51:36] permit drawings be reviewed in heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to

[1:51:42] the issues of a building permit.

[1:51:45] Who will move this?

[1:51:48] Grant will move it.

[1:51:50] Any further questions? All those in favor?

[1:51:56] A, one abstention.

[1:51:59] Thank you.

[1:52:06] And I neglected to say that item 4.2 and 4.3 will go to

[1:52:14] Council September 28th, 2026.

[1:52:18] Now we have Heritage Permit Application HPA 2026 V-024,

[1:52:25] 421 St. Ledger Street Construction of Side Yard Edition DSD 2026318, Victoria Grun.

[1:52:34] IRT's planner will present, thank you.

[1:52:40] Through you, Madam Chair, I will be presenting this report.

[1:52:43] So bear with me, we're

[1:52:51] out of order, here's this bear with me.

[1:52:54] There we go.

[1:52:57] So the application before us is 21 St. Ledger Street.

[1:53:00] It's located between the south side of St. Ledger Street and

[1:53:04] and between Victoria Street North.

[1:53:06] It is designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act

[1:53:11] through its location within the Civic Center

[1:53:13] Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District.

[1:53:15] It contains a two-story Berlin vernacular brick dwelling

[1:53:18] constructed around 1920.

[1:53:21] The proposal is to replace an existing porch

[1:53:23] with a new side yard addition,

[1:53:26] retain the original brickwork and openings,

[1:53:29] relocate entrance steps within the new addition

[1:53:31] and use contemporary materials complementary to the historic dwelling.

[1:53:38] This is a slide showing in plan view to the left, the proposed addition, and then an elevation,

[1:53:46] a hand sketched elevation of the proposed addition to the right.

[1:53:56] This is the existing condition, so you can see there's already an existing addition off the

[1:54:03] side of the house with a porch and situated in front of the entry and then us the window

[1:54:10] located directly adjacent to the porch so that this is the existing condition current.

[1:54:18] So the merits of this application that proposed addition is subordinate to the original 1910

[1:54:23] Berlin vernacular dwelling, allowing the historical building to remain the prominent feature on

[1:54:28] the property.

[1:54:29] The addition is complementary in form, massing and roof design while remaining distinguishable

[1:54:34] from the original construction through the use of contemporary materials.

[1:54:38] The proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the Civic Center Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District Plan.

[1:54:44] It is compatible with the guidelines for subordinate distinguishable and complementary additions.

[1:54:57] So, Sandra, that's the report.

[1:55:03] Fine. Are there any questions about this proposal?

[1:55:09] Yes, Magda.

[1:55:11] I just wondered the owner's application indicates that this is the second request for this

[1:55:16] project.

[1:55:17] And I was just wondering what happened with the first did it just peter out or was there

[1:55:23] an issue?

[1:55:28] Can you hear me?

[1:55:30] I am the homeowner of 21 St. Leider Street.

[1:55:34] We drew a proposal for this edition along with our front porch proposal last year and it

[1:55:41] was deemed at the time that that was just too much to work through, so in order to proceed

[1:55:48] on our front porch we had to put a big X through our drawing for the side porch. So I have had it

[1:55:55] drawn up by a building designer already and then that was determined to be to not subordinate to our

[1:56:05] proposed our house so we've drawn it up again.

[1:56:11] Thank you.

[1:56:15] Are there any other questions for the delegation?

[1:56:20] Councilor Chapman?

[1:56:21] Yeah.

[1:56:21] What is the setback from the adjacent property of this addition?

[1:56:27] There should be at least four feet.

[1:56:29] Like it's within...

[1:56:30] I figured it would be, but I was just curious to know with it.

[1:56:32] So it's about four feet.

[1:56:34] Yep.

[1:56:35] Okay.

[1:56:35] Thank you.

[1:56:35] Thank

[1:56:38] you, Councillor Chapman. Any other, yes, Peter?

[1:56:43] Yeah, the, in, we see a lot of additions that come up on heritage buildings in the heritage

[1:56:51] district. And for the most part, it's, if it is not visible from the street, from the

[1:57:02] public realm, right? Then, personally, I say, like, have at it, right? You know, it's like,

[1:57:10] it's it's it's really no concern to the public about what happens in in the parts of the

[1:57:15] building that that are not visible. But in this one, there's there's one thing that is visible

[1:57:20] from the street that is that I find inconsistent. And that is the shape of that window on the on

[1:57:28] on the front of it.

[1:57:29] And it has that angled, it has a top that angles up

[1:57:35] to match the line of the roof.

[1:57:39] Well, we need to, I want to leave the two windows

[1:57:42] that are on that side aspect of the house as they are.

[1:57:45] So it has to be high.

[1:57:46] Sorry, could you speak closer to the mic?

[1:57:47] Sure.

[1:57:48] So we need to take in the window as well as the door

[1:57:53] in order, so it's high there to cover the window,

[1:57:56] which is actually high.

[1:57:58] the the windows that are currently on that wall are going to remain intact one of

[1:58:03] them will be inside the mudroom and the other one will be outside the mudroom.

[1:58:07] Right so it's just the one elevation at the front facing the very front right

[1:58:12] that has like to it can we look at it so I know which one you mean I don't know so

[1:58:19] it's the one where I'm taking in the one window because it has to cover has to

[1:58:24] cover the window and the door. Do you mean it?

[1:58:28] Through you, Madam Chair, watch me struggle with this for a minute, but I'm going to get to where we need to.

[1:58:33] That one? That's the one.

[1:58:35] The window to the right of the door. Why is the top of the window sloped?

[1:58:39] Oh, that was just to make best use of this space. It could easily be a rectangular window.

[1:58:47] That's what I'm asking you to consider because I find that.

[1:58:51] Absolutely.

[1:58:51] The shape of that window is inconsistent with the language of the rest of the building

[1:58:55] that faces the street.

[1:58:57] Sure.

[1:58:57] I'm happy to change that.

[1:58:59] That's my old name.

[1:59:01] Good notes.

[1:59:01] Thank you.

[1:59:07] Thank you, Peter.

[1:59:08] Any other questions for the delegation?

[1:59:12] Thank you.

[1:59:13] Okay.

[1:59:14] Thanks.

[1:59:17] So I'm assuming then that your comment will be included.

[1:59:23] Victoria you're taking note of what Peter has said okay all right we'll move

[1:59:30] them to the motion pursuant to section 42 of the Interior Heritage Act

[1:59:38] Heritage Permit Application HPA 2026 V-024 be approved to permit a

[1:59:45] construction of a side yard addition to the property municipality addressed as

[1:59:50] was 21 ledger street in accordance with the supplementary information sub

[2:00:00] To the following condition, that the following building permit drawings be reviewed in heritage clearance provided by planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Who will move it?

[2:00:31] Victoria.

[2:00:33] Through the chair, actually, our student planner, Luke, is going to present this one.

[2:00:37] Thank you.

[2:00:37] Very good.

[2:00:57] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:00:59] The Development Services Department is in receipt of the Heritage application for the

[2:01:03] Property Municipally Addressed as 17 Norfolk Crescent.

[2:01:08] The property is located on the north side of Norfolk Crescent west of St. Clair Avenue.

[2:01:14] It is designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act through its location within the

[2:01:19] St. Mary's Heritage Conservation District, and it contains a one-and-a-half-story residential

[2:01:24] dwelling representative of the traditional residential character found throughout the district.

[2:01:31] What is being proposed in this application is the construction of a one-story

[2:01:35] rear-edition to the existing dwelling, as illustrated in this drawing from the side of the dwelling.

[2:01:42] The addition will contain wood-siding that complements the existing dwelling,

[2:01:45] as is labeled on the drawing. It is also labeled above that the rear roof line will be extended

[2:01:52] to make the addition possible.

[2:01:57] The purpose of this application is to expand the existing

[2:01:59] bathroom at the back of the dwelling, which is circled in red on the second drawing showing

[2:02:04] the layout of the dwelling. Since the addition is completely in the rear

[2:02:09] of the dwelling, this proposal will maintain limited visibility from the public streetscape.

[2:02:15] In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff have determined that the application remains consistent with the policies in the St. Mary Heritage Conservation District Plan, which do encourage rear additions that are subordinate to the original building.

[2:02:31] With respect to policies which support a small scale and mass, the addition is small, which will ensure that the existing dwelling remains the dominant architectural feature.

[2:02:40] The small scale means that the design of the addition follows heritage conservation district policies which specified that additions are sympathetic and distinguishable from the original house.

[2:02:53] Further guidelines for residential additions which recommend against expanding the buildings width are met since the addition only extends towards the rear.

[2:03:02] As a result the addition will not be visible from the public right of way and is not anticipated to negatively impact the heritage character of the district.

[2:03:10] And so Heritage Planning Staff recommend approval of the application, subject to the condition that final building permit drawings be reviewed, and that heritage clearance be provided by Heritage Planning Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

[2:03:27] And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you.

[2:03:31] Thank you, Luke. Any questions to Luke? Yes, Magda.

[2:03:38] Thank you. I just noticed that the staff report says that according to the HCD plan, additions

[2:03:46] at the rear should always be slightly lower than the existing roof ridge line, which is

[2:03:50] the case, and stepped in at the sides. So this is a small detail, but this addition to

[2:03:58] me does not look like it's stepped in. It goes right to the edge of the building. So I'm

[2:04:05] I'm just pointing that out as, I don't think that's a big deal, but it's not consistent with what is stated in the plan.

[2:04:20] Through the chair, noted, thank you.

[2:04:25] Yeah, based on what's being proposed here and the location of the renovation while this isn't in direct compliance with what's provided within the Heritage Conservation District Plan.

[2:04:41] with respect to that particular policy, it was determined that this edition meets the

[2:04:50] overall intent with respect to editions being located at the rear end and being subordinate

[2:04:55] to the primary dwelling on the property.

[2:05:03] Thank you, Magda, your questions answered, right?

[2:05:08] Any other questions or comments?

[2:05:12] So we'll have the motion that pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage

[2:05:19] Permit Application HBA, 2026V-023 to permit the construction of one-story rear addition

[2:05:28] on the property municipally addressed as 17 Norfolk Crescent be approved in accordance

[2:05:34] with the supplementary information submitted with this application and subject to the following

[2:05:40] condition that final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided

[2:05:46] by heritage planning staff prior to the issues of a building permit. Who will move this?

[2:05:55] Councillor Chapman, any comments? All those in favor?

[2:06:01] Carried unanimously? I just want to say great job, move.

[2:06:04] And

[2:06:15] this will be delegated, it will be carried under delegated approval authority, okay.

[2:06:23] All right, now we have notice of intention to designate 1051117 onward avenue under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act, Victoria.

[2:06:37] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:06:39] Heritage planning stuff is bringing forward a notice of intention to designate the property

[2:06:43] already municipally addressed as 105 to 117 onward avenue, this property was previously

[2:06:49] considered by the Heritage Kitchener Committee in May and based on an evaluation of the

[2:06:53] property, it would be six of nine criteria for designation.

[2:06:59] The building on the subject property is representative of the structuralist architectural style characterized

[2:07:04] by its cubic built form rectilinear massing of modest proportions, clear expression of interior

[2:07:10] functions on the exterior of the building and the flat roof.

[2:07:14] The building features two H-plan modules connected by a rectangular module.

[2:07:24] The historical associative value of the property relates to the role of apartment buildings in

[2:07:28] Kitchener's post-war housing boom in the original owner and builder, Michael Kraus.

[2:07:33] The building illustrates the role of apartment buildings in addressing post-war housing needs

[2:07:38] in Kitchener and this architectural style offered a utilitarian and economical solution for

[2:07:44] for government buildings, public schools, and apartment complexes for the growing post-war population in Canada.

[2:07:50] The building at 105 to 117 onward avenue is part of a series of several apartment buildings constructed by different owners on a modified plan around 1948.

[2:08:00] And Michael Crouse founded Crouse Carpent Mills and Struidex Fibers in the late 1950s and early 1970s respectively.

[2:08:07] Currently, these businesses are still in operation.

[2:08:11] Crouse was also founder of Stam Investments, a company owned by the new Apostolic Church of Canada,

[2:08:16] which was involved in apartment construction and land development.

[2:08:20] He was either owner or builder of several other similar apartment complexes across the city.

[2:08:27] The contextual value resides in the property's contribution to maintaining and

[2:08:31] supporting the character of the onward avenue and we were 3D streetscapes.

[2:08:35] The building is in its original location, maintains its original use,

[2:08:39] and is located in an area which was represented of the limits of Kitchener's urban development.

[2:08:46] There is a link between this building and the neighboring H-Plan apartment buildings at 265

[2:08:51] Ubers Street East and 149, or 141 to 149 Board and Avenue North.

[2:08:59] Based on the outlined information, heritage planning staff is recommending the following.

[2:09:05] that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

[2:09:09] The clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property,

[2:09:13] municipally addressed as 105 to 117 onward avenue, as being of cultural heritage value or interest.

[2:09:19] And that concludes my presentation on this item.

[2:09:21] Thank you.

[2:09:23] Thank you, Victoria.

[2:09:25] Any questions on this one?

[2:09:29] Seeing none, we'll move to the motion.

[2:09:31] And if the motion, if the report receives approval from the Committee, I will go to council for approval September 28th.

[2:09:41] So, motion, pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property,

[2:09:52] The municipal address as 105-117 onward avenue is being of cultural heritage value or interest.

[2:10:02] Who will move it?

[2:10:04] Councillor Mouschaud would.

[2:10:05] All those in favor?

[2:10:08] Carried.

[2:10:09] Thank you.

[2:10:10] So we've had several of these buildings built by the same person and it's interesting if

[2:10:19] we had a file on I find. So information items, tracking, sheet, all right. I just wanted

[2:10:33] to make a comment or two about those properties on Dune Village Road or sorry, the Heritage

[2:10:39] Conservation of Dune and especially the 51 Dune Brook Place. And we're finding and there's

[2:10:47] a whole section of it. We say they're non-historic buildings. However, it's a type of building and I don't know how we bring it in like in the 1960s, late 1960s, early 70s of the bungalow style and as I've pointed out to staff, you know, sometimes these aren't the most preferable buildings to keep or to even live in.

[2:11:15] and we like the more modern ones and what is up in the subdivision.

[2:11:22] And so, you know, I'm wondering how we deal with this and we should be thinking of this

[2:11:28] because these houses will be having a turnover in probably the next 10, 15 years

[2:11:36] and then how to maintain them.

[2:11:39] I think Magda, you have brought some very good information about reuse

[2:11:45] and how to reuse them and make them fit according to the needs of today's society.

[2:11:54] And we need to be thinking about that.

[2:11:57] And perhaps staff can put that on its agenda of work, how we deal with it.

[2:12:05] Two items of information, doors open, Waterloo Region is Saturday, September 19th.

[2:12:11] If you go to the site, you'll see all the buildings listed that are open, the Waterloo County

[2:12:16] jailing governor's house, if I can put in a plug for whoever would like to help, monitor

[2:12:25] the doors and hand out pamphlets would be welcome.

[2:12:29] And then lastly, the National Trust for Canada Conference, October 22nd to the 25th, 2026 Water

[2:12:38] to region first time ever here and it will be at the crown plaza and also the

[2:12:46] Walper Hotel. Good speakers. If you go on site on the site you will see the

[2:12:53] speakers and also the many tours and Magda you're doing one tour of the

[2:12:59] Victoria Park District. So very good. It's in the making. All right who would

[2:13:06] I'd like to adjourn the meeting,

[2:13:09] Councillor Michele.

[2:13:12] Thank you very much.

[2:13:14] We'll see you in November.

Heritage Kitchener Committee

Transcript