1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,020
Anyone interested in future meetings can register online using the delegation registration form at

2
00:00:09,760 --> 00:00:18,680
www.kitchener.ca forward slash delegation or via email at delegation at kitchener.ca.

3
00:00:19,620 --> 00:00:27,380
So we'll now proceed to number two on our agenda, which is the disclosure pecuniary interest

4
00:00:27,380 --> 00:00:32,860
or general nature thereof. Is there anyone with a pecuniary interest?

5
00:00:35,060 --> 00:00:36,820
Seeing none, thank you.

6
00:00:38,220 --> 00:00:49,580
To our discussion items, the first one is the Heritage Permit Application HPA 2026 IV021 16-20

7
00:00:49,580 --> 00:00:57,060
Queen Street North removal of a portion of the side return and altering existing window opening

8
00:00:57,060 --> 00:01:05,260
into a door on the floor two of the front facade DSD-2026-316.

9
00:01:06,240 --> 00:01:11,800
Victoria Gruner, Heritage Planner, will provide a five-minute presentation.

10
00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:15,100
And then we have some delegations.

11
00:01:17,170 --> 00:01:17,670
Victoria.

12
00:01:21,340 --> 00:01:22,300
Thank you, Madam Chair.

13
00:01:23,180 --> 00:01:28,940
Before I begin, this item, I did want to just take a very brief moment to introduce our

14
00:01:28,940 --> 00:01:32,240
Our student planner, Luke Marlatte, who is sitting next to me here.

15
00:01:32,760 --> 00:01:39,580
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.

16
00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:40,460
Thank you.

17
00:01:44,490 --> 00:01:51,490
So the Development Services Department is in receipt of a heritage permit application, HPA 2026.

18
00:01:53,310 --> 00:01:57,790
IV021 for the property municipally addressed as 16 to 20 Queen Street North.

19
00:01:57,790 --> 00:02:03,050
This property is designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act through Designating

20
00:02:03,050 --> 00:02:06,530
By-law 2020-077.

21
00:02:07,910 --> 00:02:12,430
This property is subject to an active site plan application which contemplates retention

22
00:02:12,430 --> 00:02:18,150
of the front facade and portion of the side returns as part of the construction of a multi-story

23
00:02:18,150 --> 00:02:19,070
residential tower.

24
00:02:19,970 --> 00:02:25,870
A heritage permit application received conditional approval in 2022 for the partial demolition

25
00:02:25,870 --> 00:02:28,790
of the existing building and the construction of a tower.

26
00:02:30,250 --> 00:02:34,810
The proposal outlined in the Heritage Permit application before the committee this evening

27
00:02:34,810 --> 00:02:40,810
is to further reduce a portion of the return on the south side of the building and to alter

28
00:02:40,810 --> 00:02:46,530
an existing second story window opening on the front facade to accommodate a new door

29
00:02:46,530 --> 00:02:47,590
for balcony access.

30
00:02:54,850 --> 00:03:01,530
The Heritage Attributes as identified in the designation by law include exterior attributes

31
00:03:01,530 --> 00:03:05,890
that are primarily located on the front or east facade of the building.

32
00:03:06,310 --> 00:03:10,270
The brick with Flemish bonding is also found on the side south return.

33
00:03:11,270 --> 00:03:17,710
And so I've included an excerpt from the designating by-law on this slide here for

34
00:03:18,410 --> 00:03:25,190
the committee's review and information of the exterior heritage attributes that have been identified on this property.

35
00:03:29,050 --> 00:03:32,850
As noted, the property is subject to an active site plan application,

36
00:03:32,850 --> 00:03:37,690
which has received conditional approval, as well as a heritage permit application which

37
00:03:37,690 --> 00:03:40,510
has received conditional approval back in 2022.

38
00:03:41,490 --> 00:03:46,970
Since that time, an amendment application was received in 2025 to reduce the conditionally

39
00:03:46,970 --> 00:03:52,690
approved 34-story tower to 21 stories, and as part of that amendment, there were no changes

40
00:03:53,380 --> 00:03:55,750
to the heritage facade contemplated.

41
00:03:55,750 --> 00:04:04,170
In July of this year, an amendment application was received to further request further changes

42
00:04:04,170 --> 00:04:09,970
to the site plan application, including a reduction in building height from 34 to 19 stories,

43
00:04:10,610 --> 00:04:16,070
reducing the community benefit space on the ground floor, introducing two commercial units

44
00:04:16,070 --> 00:04:21,750
on the ground floor facing Gaudi's lane, altering existing window opening on the front facade

45
00:04:21,750 --> 00:04:29,830
to provide a second story balcony access and reducing the excavation required to preserve

46
00:04:29,830 --> 00:04:32,130
the portions of the existing building being retained.

47
00:04:33,190 --> 00:04:38,210
In order to facilitate the site plan changes, a portion of the south side return is proposed

48
00:04:38,210 --> 00:04:38,950
to be removed.

49
00:04:39,770 --> 00:04:44,870
And this slide shows what was conditionally approved and the portions of this facade to

50
00:04:44,870 --> 00:04:49,530
be retained as part of the original site plan submission as shown on the left.

51
00:04:49,530 --> 00:04:55,970
and then what is now proposed on the on the right.

52
00:05:00,380 --> 00:05:08,500
The images on this slide further demonstrate what is proposed with respect to the reduction in the south side return.

53
00:05:09,220 --> 00:05:19,840
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.

54
00:05:19,840 --> 00:05:26,340
And the image on the right shows what the existing south facade looks like.

55
00:05:33,560 --> 00:05:38,780
As noted, a window on the second story of the front facade is now proposed to be altered

56
00:05:38,780 --> 00:05:41,820
to accommodate a door opening for access to the balcony.

57
00:05:42,460 --> 00:05:46,760
And the image on the screen notes where this change is proposed.

58
00:05:51,500 --> 00:05:55,120
In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following.

59
00:05:55,120 --> 00:06:01,100
The majority of the identified heritage attributes are located on the front east facade, which

60
00:06:01,100 --> 00:06:03,660
is proposed to be conserved in its entirety.

61
00:06:04,460 --> 00:06:08,900
The proposed alteration of a second story window opening to a door will not adversely

62
00:06:08,900 --> 00:06:12,280
impact the cultural heritage value of the building.

63
00:06:12,840 --> 00:06:18,200
A portion of the side including the brickwork will remain to maintain the legibility of the

64
00:06:18,200 --> 00:06:23,760
historic structure and the proposal facilitates redevelopment while preserving the buildings

65
00:06:23,760 --> 00:06:28,820
is character defining elements as identified within the designating by-law.

66
00:06:33,190 --> 00:06:40,010
And as such, Heritage Planning Staff is recommending approval of the Heritage Permit application

67
00:06:40,630 --> 00:06:43,850
subject to the three conditions as shown on the screen.

68
00:06:44,330 --> 00:06:50,970
The first one being that the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum that was recently provided

69
00:06:50,970 --> 00:06:55,930
be approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance

70
00:06:55,930 --> 00:07:03,210
of Heritage Permit, that an updated conservation plan be submitted and approved, and that the

71
00:07:03,210 --> 00:07:06,590
final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided.

72
00:07:07,250 --> 00:07:13,710
I also want to note that the conditions as outlined in the previous Heritage Permit

73
00:07:13,710 --> 00:07:20,350
application from 2022, which facilitate the demolition of the building and construction

74
00:07:20,350 --> 00:07:24,450
of the new tower are still applicable to this as well.

75
00:07:24,450 --> 00:07:28,370
And that concludes my presentation on this item.

76
00:07:28,770 --> 00:07:29,110
Thank you.

77
00:07:31,400 --> 00:07:32,440
Thank you, Victoria.

78
00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:39,400
I assume that there might be questions for staff.

79
00:07:39,840 --> 00:07:44,740
However, I would like to proceed with the delegation.

80
00:07:45,680 --> 00:07:49,380
And then we'll come back and stuff the questions.

81
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:52,720
So we

82
00:07:55,150 --> 00:07:57,690
have sorry,

83
00:08:00,820 --> 00:08:03,580
my

84
00:08:06,810 --> 00:08:10,630
note says Dan Curry and Brock Boehler,

85
00:08:12,840 --> 00:08:14,480
who I'm

86
00:08:17,840 --> 00:08:19,100
sorry, could you

87
00:08:19,100 --> 00:08:25,500
just speak right into the blank? Certainly. So it's myself, Christy Kerwin, with MHBC planning.

88
00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:31,120
Dan Curry is unfortunately away and was not able to make this meeting. So I'm here

89
00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:33,360
representing the Heritage Consultant and MHBC.

90
00:08:34,080 --> 00:08:36,640
And I'm also joined by Brian Prudham,

91
00:08:36,920 --> 00:08:41,080
who is the partner of with the momentum developments.

92
00:08:43,040 --> 00:08:44,280
Okay, thank you.

93
00:08:44,400 --> 00:08:44,740
Go ahead.

94
00:08:48,210 --> 00:08:51,890
Is there a, I'm prepared

95
00:08:55,920 --> 00:08:57,280
a short presentation today

96
00:08:57,280 --> 00:08:58,840
that just describes some of the changes

97
00:08:58,840 --> 00:08:59,840
in a little more detail.

98
00:09:00,140 --> 00:09:02,440
And I'm also available to answer questions.

99
00:09:02,440 --> 00:09:04,140
And if there's anything I can't answer,

100
00:09:04,340 --> 00:09:06,140
hopefully Brian will be able to answer as well.

101
00:09:06,140 --> 00:09:08,120
So this is,

102
00:09:10,320 --> 00:09:16,560
I think we're having difficulty hearing, definitely.

103
00:09:17,020 --> 00:09:18,500
Sorry, is this a little better?

104
00:09:19,000 --> 00:09:23,640
Yes, Maria, I'm assuming that you can up the volume.

105
00:09:24,280 --> 00:09:27,840
Apologies, I'm a soft spoken person, I'll try to project a little more.

106
00:09:27,880 --> 00:09:29,080
Right, thank you.

107
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:30,960
Is that better for committee?

108
00:09:31,320 --> 00:09:32,020
You can hear better.

109
00:09:33,220 --> 00:09:34,460
OK, thank you.

110
00:09:37,420 --> 00:09:39,420
All right, so this is regarding the,

111
00:09:39,420 --> 00:09:45,940
The, as Victorian mentioned, the redevelopment of the property at 20 Queen Street.

112
00:09:47,580 --> 00:09:54,260
And through site plan, there have been changes to the property, which we will describe

113
00:09:54,260 --> 00:09:56,100
in a little more detail in this presentation.

114
00:09:58,160 --> 00:10:08,460
Since the approval of the previous heritage permit application, the apologies, the changes

115
00:10:08,460 --> 00:10:14,240
is that we're going to go over include a reduction in height of 34 to 19 stories, addition

116
00:10:14,240 --> 00:10:19,960
of two commercial units at the ground floor, as Victoria mentioned, a reduction in the

117
00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:28,680
retained existing south façade of the current building, a reduction in the excavation required

118
00:10:28,680 --> 00:10:34,900
to preserve the existing portions of the building, so this includes micro piles on the exterior,

119
00:10:34,900 --> 00:10:42,100
steel structure as well as excavation under the existing facade and also the window opening

120
00:10:42,100 --> 00:10:46,440
that is proposed to be altered into a door to allow for balcony access.

121
00:10:50,140 --> 00:10:55,640
So the reduction in height, as Victoria mentioned, does not alter the heritage attributes

122
00:10:55,640 --> 00:11:01,700
of the building and it is not as part of this, no changes are proposed to the heritage facade.

123
00:11:01,700 --> 00:11:02,740
The

124
00:11:05,720 --> 00:11:09,440
ground floor has undergone some changes through the site plan process.

125
00:11:09,860 --> 00:11:12,820
This includes the addition of two commercial units.

126
00:11:13,400 --> 00:11:17,000
It also includes the reduction in size of the community benefit space.

127
00:11:17,640 --> 00:11:22,680
This space is proposed for a commemoration and that has not changed.

128
00:11:23,240 --> 00:11:26,740
So there's still proposed to be a commemorative plaque which is located in that area.

129
00:11:26,740 --> 00:11:36,440
And as well, if possible, the condition is uncertain, but the intent is to salvage materials

130
00:11:36,860 --> 00:11:38,900
to display for commemoration there as well.

131
00:11:43,870 --> 00:11:48,030
So as mentioned, the reduction in south to south is currently proposed.

132
00:11:48,610 --> 00:11:50,290
This is for a couple of reasons.

133
00:11:51,130 --> 00:11:55,390
It's intended to permit the inclusion of the two commercial units.

134
00:11:56,250 --> 00:12:06,630
It's also intended to permit goadies lane to the south to remain open for the duration

135
00:12:06,630 --> 00:12:07,930
of construction activities.

136
00:12:08,880 --> 00:12:14,130
As I mentioned, the installation of the micro piles and the steel structure on the exterior

137
00:12:14,520 --> 00:12:21,150
would have required the closure of goadies lane during the retention and construction.

138
00:12:22,990 --> 00:12:29,930
And it also decreases the risk to the existing building as it no longer requires excavation

139
00:12:29,930 --> 00:12:31,350
to have an underneath that facade.

140
00:12:36,860 --> 00:12:42,920
So as I mentioned in the graphic, you can see the reduction in excavation requirements,

141
00:12:43,540 --> 00:12:54,320
the area that was required by the engineers to excavate beneath the facade, do the retention

142
00:12:54,320 --> 00:12:59,180
on the exterior. That has now been reduced to the portion which you can see on the right.

143
00:13:04,680 --> 00:13:10,260
The window opening on the second story balcony of the front facade is proposed to be altered

144
00:13:10,260 --> 00:13:17,080
into a doorway to permit access to that balcony. We are proposing to retain bricks from the

145
00:13:17,080 --> 00:13:21,060
existing opening so that it can be returned to its original state at a later date.

146
00:13:23,640 --> 00:13:27,540
Those will be

147
00:13:27,540 --> 00:13:27,780
minimal.

148
00:13:30,650 --> 00:13:37,150
And just to conclude, the overall impacts in addition to what we're previously

149
00:13:37,150 --> 00:13:43,450
identified are minor negative impacts resulting from the removal of a slightly larger portion

150
00:13:43,450 --> 00:13:50,350
of the south facade, negligible impacts related to the window opening, and a beneficial impact

151
00:13:50,350 --> 00:13:54,390
resulting from the change in the structural short requirements,

152
00:13:56,950 --> 00:13:59,890
and that the recommendations

153
00:13:59,890 --> 00:14:04,790
the previous HIA remain applicable, and those are what we are recommending here as well.

154
00:14:10,480 --> 00:14:13,260
All right. Questions for the delegation?

155
00:14:19,990 --> 00:14:21,150
Peter, please.

156
00:14:24,190 --> 00:14:30,790
Yes, some technical questions first about the window, in the front of the sought.

157
00:14:33,930 --> 00:14:40,710
I would like, what if you have any more information about a couple of aspects of it? One is that the

158
00:14:41,590 --> 00:14:47,930
the relationship between the residential unit on the inside and its floor level and the

159
00:14:47,930 --> 00:14:49,090
floor level of the balcony.

160
00:14:51,060 --> 00:14:57,070
What's being shown here is they look to be identical and that there is no change between

161
00:14:57,070 --> 00:14:59,970
the floor elevation of the unit and the floor.

162
00:15:01,460 --> 00:15:28,780
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.

163
00:15:28,780 --> 00:15:35,640
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.

164
00:15:36,060 --> 00:15:36,700
Yes, that's correct.

165
00:15:37,000 --> 00:15:37,360
That's correct.

166
00:15:38,100 --> 00:15:46,360
So there is no information on what that opening looks like after you're done in this package.

167
00:15:51,480 --> 00:15:55,220
I believe it's shown on the elevations of the current building.

168
00:15:55,220 --> 00:15:57,540
the East elevation?

169
00:15:57,640 --> 00:16:00,780
If you could point me to that in the application, that would be great.

170
00:16:02,120 --> 00:16:02,340
Okay.

171
00:16:04,580 --> 00:16:09,320
I will have to take a look at that and get back to you.

172
00:16:09,760 --> 00:16:14,920
I mean, I'm not sure that we currently have available beyond what is in the elevations for though.

173
00:16:15,400 --> 00:16:15,640
Okay.

174
00:16:17,220 --> 00:16:22,160
So this new balcony is a change of use from the existing.

175
00:16:22,160 --> 00:16:30,000
therefore it would have to meet current codes and would not be grandfathered in under the existing.

176
00:16:30,940 --> 00:16:39,220
So the height that we see on the railing there looks to be substantially below what the requirements are for the

177
00:16:39,220 --> 00:16:45,160
guard height now under the current building code. And if I look at the plans that you have submitted for that,

178
00:16:45,160 --> 00:16:51,740
that it shows change in the characteristic of the balcony in the plan, existing.

179
00:16:51,920 --> 00:16:56,560
It shows the concrete or the stone-crenelated top.

180
00:16:57,340 --> 00:16:59,980
And it shows something different on the new.

181
00:17:00,740 --> 00:17:06,120
There is no other information on what the change is that you are suggesting to that front

182
00:17:06,120 --> 00:17:08,280
a particle because of that requirement.

183
00:17:08,820 --> 00:17:09,200
Is that correct?

184
00:17:10,300 --> 00:17:11,320
That is correct.

185
00:17:14,700 --> 00:17:18,360
The current existing detailing is proposed

186
00:17:18,360 --> 00:17:22,860
to remain the crinolated balcony rail.

187
00:17:24,980 --> 00:17:27,560
But beyond that, I'm not aware of other changes

188
00:17:27,560 --> 00:17:30,100
that are proposed to the balcony as a result of that.

189
00:17:30,100 --> 00:17:32,980
So we don't know what that will look like now at this point.

190
00:17:34,860 --> 00:17:40,900
It's proposed to, sorry, perhaps you could clarify a little more.

191
00:17:41,200 --> 00:17:47,200
That railing is part of the historic designation of the front.

192
00:17:47,620 --> 00:17:51,520
You were proposing a change to that railing, but we are not being shown what that changes.

193
00:17:52,320 --> 00:17:54,340
No changes are proposed to the railing.

194
00:18:01,180 --> 00:18:01,440
Okay.

195
00:18:01,440 --> 00:18:01,480
Okay,

196
00:18:03,640 --> 00:18:10,460
let's, some questions about the change to the building facade on Gaudiline.

197
00:18:12,580 --> 00:18:21,540
There are two arguments that you bring forth in the report of why this facade should

198
00:18:21,540 --> 00:18:22,080
be shortened.

199
00:18:23,360 --> 00:18:29,240
So the first one is, it is a reduction, this is a quote from a reduction of risk of accidental

200
00:18:29,240 --> 00:18:30,540
damage to the existing.

201
00:18:32,770 --> 00:18:43,010
There is no accompanying structural report with this application, and in the application

202
00:18:43,010 --> 00:18:47,530
itself there's an area that says to be determined after structural investigation.

203
00:18:50,930 --> 00:19:00,240
Without a structural report, how do you assess what that risk of accidental damage is and

204
00:19:00,240 --> 00:19:07,880
is a significant risk. And how, with how the structural report, how do we know that shortening

205
00:19:07,880 --> 00:19:11,800
this facade is actually necessary in order to remediate that risk?

206
00:19:14,600 --> 00:19:20,660
So we are the stabilization plan

207
00:19:20,660 --> 00:19:29,620
is currently being prepared by the project engineers. I don't think that the argument is specifically

208
00:19:29,620 --> 00:19:38,460
that it's necessary to prevent it. However, the reduction in excavation and

209
00:19:38,460 --> 00:19:42,220
shoring requirements will ultimately result in not being the case.

210
00:19:46,880 --> 00:19:51,320
We certainly are planning to share the stabilization plan when it's available.

211
00:19:52,320 --> 00:19:58,100
But the information in this report was also discussed in conversation with the

212
00:19:58,100 --> 00:20:01,060
projects, engineers, and so that's what they have stated.

213
00:20:01,940 --> 00:20:04,280
Okay. Sorry for taking much time. One last question.

214
00:20:04,920 --> 00:20:10,580
The second argument that you put forward for the reduction of the link of the sod

215
00:20:11,100 --> 00:20:17,900
is that it is required in order to accommodate the new commercial units

216
00:20:17,900 --> 00:20:19,600
which will face onto Gaudi's lane.

217
00:20:20,400 --> 00:20:25,460
Yes. Can you help me understand what it is about changing the use

218
00:20:25,460 --> 00:20:33,080
to commercial along Gaudi's lane, which prohibits the retention of that section of the building.

219
00:20:35,230 --> 00:20:43,070
Certainly. So I think it's probably not fair to say prohibits, but there are certain

220
00:20:43,950 --> 00:20:49,110
requirements that certainly make it desirable for commercial units to have their own entrances,

221
00:20:49,710 --> 00:20:54,270
to have a more activated streetscape, to have a high level of glazing, for example.

222
00:20:54,270 --> 00:21:00,210
and those requirements are part of what was being accommodated in order to allow for those commercial units.

223
00:21:00,990 --> 00:21:09,230
Could those items be met by retaining the existing facade and making alterations to it as opposed to demolishing the entire thing?

224
00:21:13,100 --> 00:21:21,640
I think it's certainly possible but it would be more of a challenge to accommodate the needs of those commercial units

225
00:21:21,640 --> 00:21:25,780
and it would still require the full closure of Godi's lane.

226
00:21:26,900 --> 00:21:27,760
All right, thank you.

227
00:21:30,270 --> 00:21:31,350
Thank you, Peter.

228
00:21:32,450 --> 00:21:34,670
Councillor Michele Lee of a question.

229
00:21:35,290 --> 00:21:35,570
Thank you.

230
00:21:35,850 --> 00:21:36,510
Yes, go ahead.

231
00:21:36,990 --> 00:21:37,990
Thanks for your presentation.

232
00:21:38,890 --> 00:21:42,450
I'm a little stuck a little on the community benefit space.

233
00:21:42,950 --> 00:21:50,290
This was quite an important piece as we initially went through this process of designating this building

234
00:21:50,290 --> 00:21:55,930
and then allowing it to grow into more space for departments or high-rise.

235
00:21:57,010 --> 00:22:01,870
So you're cutting the community space back to almost half of the space you have.

236
00:22:02,110 --> 00:22:10,990
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.

237
00:22:11,290 --> 00:22:13,690
So I'm curious as to why that's changed.

238
00:22:18,330 --> 00:22:20,690
So that was kind of a commitment that was made, I recall.

239
00:22:25,770 --> 00:22:26,290
Hi,

240
00:22:36,830 --> 00:22:40,770
good afternoon, everyone. My name is Heather Price. I'm the planning consultant on this file.

241
00:22:41,550 --> 00:22:48,770
I thought I would just scoot down here and explain that the community benefit space is a direct correlation

242
00:22:48,770 --> 00:22:55,970
with the amount of flurry in the building that's being proposed. So under the zoning framework that applies to this land,

243
00:22:55,970 --> 00:23:02,150
And there was a community benefits bonusing exchange for the amount of square footage that

244
00:23:02,150 --> 00:23:06,850
was proposed at the original height and the amount of community benefits space that

245
00:23:06,850 --> 00:23:12,150
needed to be provided to offset the density that was being sought.

246
00:23:12,870 --> 00:23:17,970
And so with the reduction in height, the amount of community benefits space has been scaled

247
00:23:17,970 --> 00:23:18,770
down accordingly.

248
00:23:19,850 --> 00:23:23,790
And that's in part of financial decision, which is not my area of expertise, and perhaps

249
00:23:23,790 --> 00:23:28,870
there, but we might tap in the third person on the team here to speak to that, but it certainly

250
00:23:28,870 --> 00:23:37,570
is a financial consideration and providing the right amount of amenity and community benefit,

251
00:23:37,610 --> 00:23:42,950
including the retention of the heritage, to offset the amount of density that's being sought.

252
00:23:45,060 --> 00:23:46,820
Okay, thank you. Thank you.

253
00:23:49,380 --> 00:23:52,840
Councilman Shaw, you had your answer.

254
00:23:54,160 --> 00:23:54,540
Thank you.

255
00:23:56,580 --> 00:23:57,700
Councillor Chaplin.

256
00:23:58,400 --> 00:23:58,960
Yeah, thank you.

257
00:24:00,060 --> 00:24:04,180
So, it sounds like this is a third iteration of this proposal.

258
00:24:06,180 --> 00:24:11,580
In order to save that south side, what height would you need?

259
00:24:11,900 --> 00:24:15,520
Can we go back to an earlier iteration where we've got to bring in more housing

260
00:24:15,520 --> 00:24:23,340
and we keep the facade the way it was originally planned and, you know, we work with, I mean,

261
00:24:23,420 --> 00:24:27,220
I think some of us were quite disappointed that the original building was being demolished

262
00:24:27,220 --> 00:24:32,560
at all, right? So, and here we are, and now we're going to take more of it away. We're

263
00:24:32,560 --> 00:24:39,000
going to cut back in the community benefit space. So it's becoming harder and harder to,

264
00:24:39,640 --> 00:24:45,060
well, certainly from my perspective, to really want to justify this. To understand how

265
00:24:45,060 --> 00:24:47,320
I can justify it, right, from a heritage perspective.

266
00:24:55,010 --> 00:24:57,390
I'm not sure if that's something you can speak to my dear.

267
00:24:57,590 --> 00:24:57,770
Yeah.

268
00:24:58,030 --> 00:24:59,090
I'll jump out.

269
00:24:59,090 --> 00:25:03,370
Could you just speak into the book like a little bit better, please?

270
00:25:03,550 --> 00:25:04,770
Got a team of whispers here.

271
00:25:04,870 --> 00:25:05,550
Sorry about that.

272
00:25:07,090 --> 00:25:07,790
It's okay.

273
00:25:09,270 --> 00:25:12,610
So from a zoning perspective, what's proposed complies?

274
00:25:13,810 --> 00:25:21,870
To answer the question on how many floors would need to be added in order to justify the

275
00:25:21,870 --> 00:25:28,010
retention of the southerly façade or how many bonus floors could be added if they were

276
00:25:28,010 --> 00:25:28,550
to do that.

277
00:25:28,730 --> 00:25:29,610
It's another way of saying it.

278
00:25:30,470 --> 00:25:33,850
That I don't have readily at my disposal today.

279
00:25:34,270 --> 00:25:34,450
Unfortunately.

280
00:25:34,710 --> 00:25:35,790
It already complied, right?

281
00:25:36,310 --> 00:25:37,070
It complied today.

282
00:25:37,830 --> 00:25:38,850
It complied from the very beginning.

283
00:25:39,010 --> 00:25:39,110
Yes.

284
00:25:39,350 --> 00:25:40,850
It complied with the changes.

285
00:25:41,150 --> 00:25:42,030
And now we're here again.

286
00:25:42,550 --> 00:25:43,750
Winning further changes.

287
00:25:44,090 --> 00:25:46,930
And so I don't think it's a question of complying.

288
00:25:47,070 --> 00:25:51,790
It's more a question of, you know, where does heritage fit into?

289
00:25:51,790 --> 00:25:56,950
this and where did the previous commitments fall into what's being proposed here?

290
00:26:07,070 --> 00:26:07,290
Was that

291
00:26:07,290 --> 00:26:13,090
a question? Was that a question? Well, I just wanted to clarify what my question was, I guess.

292
00:26:13,330 --> 00:26:21,870
I think Councillor Chaplin, you've asked a legitimate question and it's clear and what's the

293
00:26:21,870 --> 00:26:29,190
delegation have to say about it? How, what's your answer? Through you, Madam Chair, from my perspective,

294
00:26:29,190 --> 00:26:31,350
And again, I'm the land use planner on this file.

295
00:26:32,390 --> 00:26:36,410
Our priority is looking to official plan conformity and zoning compliance.

296
00:26:36,890 --> 00:26:40,470
And the plan as before you today does comply.

297
00:26:41,390 --> 00:26:45,990
It does attempt to, while it is a scaling down of the community benefits,

298
00:26:46,150 --> 00:26:49,170
it nevertheless does still contain community benefits.

299
00:26:49,830 --> 00:26:56,470
It is up to the committee to determine whether the amount is

300
00:26:56,470 --> 00:27:02,070
is justified based on the merits that have been presented to you this evening.

301
00:27:03,750 --> 00:27:12,630
And I think, sorry, I would just add that on a balance of competing priorities, the attempt

302
00:27:12,630 --> 00:27:19,350
is sort of to provide a number of different benefits.

303
00:27:19,830 --> 00:27:26,030
For example, a more activated streetscape along Gaudi-Sling, which those commercial units will

304
00:27:26,030 --> 00:27:31,050
provide while still offering some community benefit space.

305
00:27:32,190 --> 00:27:38,250
The retention of as much of the existing facade as is feasible while still allowing both

306
00:27:38,250 --> 00:27:41,770
of those items to coexist.

307
00:27:43,190 --> 00:27:48,530
So it's an attempt to weigh all the priorities and come out with a positive outcome.

308
00:27:54,900 --> 00:27:56,840
Councillor Chaplin, do you any further?

309
00:27:57,540 --> 00:28:00,380
No, I might have something later, but I know there's some other questions.

310
00:28:01,400 --> 00:28:02,360
Thank you.

311
00:28:03,560 --> 00:28:04,760
Other questions?

312
00:28:05,480 --> 00:28:07,180
Yes, Preston.

313
00:28:08,200 --> 00:28:08,940
Thank you.

314
00:28:10,300 --> 00:28:17,580
I guess this, to my mind, this speaks to kind of two different planning requirements.

315
00:28:17,780 --> 00:28:24,220
On one hand, we have the argument that the community benefits basis in ratio to density per the zoning requirements.

316
00:28:24,220 --> 00:28:34,840
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.

317
00:28:35,840 --> 00:28:41,340
So I guess that brings it back to the heritage impact assessment to my mind.

318
00:28:41,460 --> 00:28:46,240
Was there any consideration given to the contextual value and the impacts of these changes?

319
00:28:46,240 --> 00:28:50,360
We know that the streetscape is a public-facing one.

320
00:28:50,560 --> 00:28:53,440
We have open spaces at the market square across the way.

321
00:28:54,020 --> 00:28:57,900
We have the laneway itself acting as a public space

322
00:28:57,900 --> 00:29:01,400
with the lighting, the entrance signage,

323
00:29:01,760 --> 00:29:04,300
the street art, all of those things.

324
00:29:04,780 --> 00:29:08,580
But I don't recall any discussion of the contextual value

325
00:29:08,580 --> 00:29:11,200
and the community benefit of maintaining those spaces

326
00:29:11,640 --> 00:29:12,860
in the HIA.

327
00:29:13,100 --> 00:29:15,380
So I'm wondering if there was any consideration

328
00:29:15,380 --> 00:29:20,300
given while we're talking about community benefits to the benefits of more retention,

329
00:29:21,280 --> 00:29:27,980
as well as kind of tying that back into that argument about the community benefits base within

330
00:29:27,980 --> 00:29:33,360
the building itself. Just putting that into a wider contextual discussion,

331
00:29:33,780 --> 00:29:38,480
I don't know if you have anything you can add on that. Certainly, through you, Madam Chair.

332
00:29:40,440 --> 00:29:49,440
So within the HIA Dendom, we do express that from a purely a heritage perspective,

333
00:29:49,740 --> 00:29:56,480
retention of a greater portion of the South facade would be a more positive outcome for the cultural heritage resource.

334
00:30:07,520 --> 00:30:31,520
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.

335
00:30:31,520 --> 00:30:39,040
a minor negative impact from what was previously proposed on a purely heritage level of consideration.

336
00:30:46,360 --> 00:30:48,140
Preston, you have your answer?

337
00:30:49,580 --> 00:30:50,140
I do, yeah.

338
00:30:53,880 --> 00:30:56,480
Are there any other questions for the delegation?

339
00:30:57,640 --> 00:30:58,380
Yes, Magda.

340
00:31:00,570 --> 00:31:01,150
Thank you.

341
00:31:02,470 --> 00:31:06,370
So it might sound like I'm repeating a little bit some of the previous questions,

342
00:31:06,370 --> 00:31:09,510
but I feel like maybe you're restating them in a different way.

343
00:31:09,510 --> 00:31:19,490
might help help us get more information. So regarding the balcony, as it is so it's proposed

344
00:31:19,490 --> 00:31:25,710
to become accessible from one of the second floor residential units, is the railing of the balcony

345
00:31:26,230 --> 00:31:29,250
compliant with current OBC requirements?

346
00:31:33,740 --> 00:31:36,300
That is something that I would have to

347
00:31:36,300 --> 00:31:46,160
liaison with the project architects with and get back to you, but I as far as the drawings

348
00:31:46,160 --> 00:31:51,340
of the front facade that we have received, that railing is not proposed to be altered.

349
00:31:54,330 --> 00:31:55,510
Okay, but we don't know that.

350
00:31:55,890 --> 00:32:02,870
We don't know whether there's anything going behind or on top of the railing potentially.

351
00:32:04,650 --> 00:32:12,330
I might just add and perhaps redirect to staff, but as yet in the site plan approval process,

352
00:32:12,770 --> 00:32:22,690
we haven't received comments to my knowledge that identify that the railing has to be increased to conform to current building code standards.

353
00:32:23,310 --> 00:32:29,850
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.

354
00:32:30,690 --> 00:32:35,070
Yeah, I imagine that's not something that would be a discussion at site plan approval,

355
00:32:35,470 --> 00:32:39,610
but it's something that we're, well, many of us, I think, are interested in.

356
00:32:40,210 --> 00:32:40,690
Certainly.

357
00:32:41,110 --> 00:32:46,330
As our media, I mean, to be clear, we want to make sure it's safe as well, and building

358
00:32:46,330 --> 00:32:50,130
code compliance is really getting to the heart of safety with railing heights.

359
00:32:50,810 --> 00:32:53,270
So it's a great question that's been raised.

360
00:32:54,330 --> 00:32:59,150
Building department is circulated on our site plans, and building permit applications.

361
00:32:59,150 --> 00:33:06,310
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.

362
00:33:07,530 --> 00:33:18,250
So also if this current presentation to the committee, would this be assuming there's no further changes to the project?

363
00:33:18,670 --> 00:33:24,150
Would this be the last time that the Heritage Committee has a chance to ask questions and discuss?

364
00:33:28,200 --> 00:33:36,860
three Madam Chair. It's certainly our clients' intention to develop as proposed here. It is

365
00:33:36,860 --> 00:33:42,280
regrettable for all parties that the market has not been what everyone had hoped to realize the

366
00:33:42,280 --> 00:33:47,460
full density of the original plan. So it is partly those conditions that have caused us to

367
00:33:47,460 --> 00:33:54,780
having to keep pausing and restarting and pausing and restarting. That said, very excited to get going

368
00:33:54,780 --> 00:34:00,860
with this version of the plan. If there is support here, of course, from Heritage Committee

369
00:34:00,860 --> 00:34:03,300
and staff through the site plan approval process.

370
00:34:07,540 --> 00:34:09,440
I'm not sure that answers my question.

371
00:34:15,150 --> 00:34:22,790
I was just curious if this is approved and from

372
00:34:22,790 --> 00:34:27,480
a Heritage perspective, if this is the last time we'll see this because I feel like there's

373
00:34:27,480 --> 00:34:32,480
lot that information that's missing. And so, yeah, I was just wondering if it would come

374
00:34:32,480 --> 00:34:38,560
around again, or if this is the final stop assuming everything goes forward from this point

375
00:34:38,560 --> 00:34:38,800
on.

376
00:34:39,200 --> 00:34:43,820
Three Madam Chair. Sorry if I misunderstood the question. Yes, I think this would be the

377
00:34:43,820 --> 00:34:48,040
final say with respect to the applications that are before here.

378
00:34:48,040 --> 00:34:48,260
Okay.

379
00:34:48,560 --> 00:34:55,520
Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, and I do want to go back to the, of course, the South facade.

380
00:34:55,520 --> 00:35:04,100
So the statement of cultural heritage value or interest that was included as part of the application materials for this agenda,

381
00:35:05,700 --> 00:35:13,720
describes the contextual value of the property as including its functional and historical links to its surroundings, including specifically Gaudi's lane.

382
00:35:14,580 --> 00:35:19,920
So considering that most of the existing elevation facing Gaudi's lane is now proposed to be demolished,

383
00:35:19,920 --> 00:35:24,620
which would this be considered a negative impact to the contextual value of the property?

384
00:35:25,540 --> 00:35:30,600
And if so, is that documented anywhere because I don't believe that was mentioned in anything

385
00:35:30,600 --> 00:35:31,520
I read?

386
00:35:33,000 --> 00:35:39,660
Through you, Madam Chair, yes, the reduction in the south facade is considered an additional

387
00:35:39,660 --> 00:35:45,040
minor negative impact from what was previously reposed, which was the retention of the larger

388
00:35:45,040 --> 00:35:50,320
portion of the south facade to the heritage attributes of the building, which includes

389
00:35:50,320 --> 00:35:57,300
the context. The portion of the facade that is proposed to be retained, the intention

390
00:35:57,300 --> 00:36:03,340
is that a sufficient portion of the building is being retained, which allows for the legibility

391
00:36:03,340 --> 00:36:08,300
of the structure to still be read along Gaudi's lane. And it's similar to what is being retained

392
00:36:08,300 --> 00:36:14,260
on the north side of the structure as well. But it is in the Heritage Impact Assessment

393
00:36:14,260 --> 00:36:18,560
an addendum that this is an additional minor negative impact from a from a heritage perspective.

394
00:36:18,920 --> 00:36:18,980
Yes.

395
00:36:26,170 --> 00:36:33,870
And so the what we've seen as the proposal, the south facing return, it appears to be partially

396
00:36:33,870 --> 00:36:39,790
reconstructed. Is that the case? And could you maybe explain a little bit more what how is that

397
00:36:40,670 --> 00:36:46,550
meshing with the new the new construction and what that connection is going to be like?

398
00:36:46,550 --> 00:36:54,250
So, as I mentioned, we're still waiting on the final stabilization plan from the project

399
00:36:54,250 --> 00:37:01,250
engineers, so that's something that we will be providing more detail when it's available.

400
00:37:02,510 --> 00:37:10,990
But currently, the existing portions of the facade are proposed to be retained in place

401
00:37:10,990 --> 00:37:13,170
with a steel support skeleton.

402
00:37:13,810 --> 00:37:21,710
that will be along the front facade of the building and the return that is

403
00:37:21,710 --> 00:37:27,270
being retained along the the south facade does not require that retention

404
00:37:27,270 --> 00:37:33,490
structure because there's not going to be the underground excavation in

405
00:37:33,490 --> 00:37:33,710
place.

406
00:37:35,920 --> 00:37:44,440
Thank you and the regarding the salvage plan so we heard about how the the

407
00:37:44,440 --> 00:37:50,960
bricks removed from the, from beneath the window opening that's proposed to be turned into

408
00:37:50,960 --> 00:37:58,480
a door will be kept on site. But obviously there's a whole lot more material being demolished

409
00:37:58,480 --> 00:38:07,360
and so what proportion of the like physical material will be salvaged and what proportion will

410
00:38:07,360 --> 00:38:13,580
will go to landfill and of the materials that are salvaged what will happen to them

411
00:38:13,580 --> 00:38:15,080
after deconstruction.

412
00:38:17,430 --> 00:38:25,970
So the intent is to salvage as many features which include decorative detail which is

413
00:38:25,970 --> 00:38:27,950
characteristic of the building as possible.

414
00:38:28,470 --> 00:38:32,330
However, that's something that is going to have to be determined at the time of demolition

415
00:38:32,330 --> 00:38:37,690
by the demolition contractor because the condition of a lot of those features is not known.

416
00:38:37,690 --> 00:38:44,910
and so sometimes in the over the course of demolition, it will turn out that

417
00:38:44,910 --> 00:38:49,290
features are in a lot worse condition than anticipated. So that's not something

418
00:38:49,290 --> 00:38:54,130
that it's really possible to provide a specific percentage in advance

419
00:38:54,130 --> 00:38:57,790
because that's something that is going to have to be determined based on the

420
00:38:57,790 --> 00:39:01,770
conditions on site at the time of demolition. Okay, thank you.

421
00:39:04,190 --> 00:39:05,430
Thank you Magda.

422
00:39:05,430 --> 00:39:14,850
your answers. Sorry, I did think of one question that I was, came to me during the previous

423
00:39:14,850 --> 00:39:22,230
discussion regarding the commercial space. You know, there are new build commercial

424
00:39:22,230 --> 00:39:29,590
spaces along King Street with high visibility, like, smack, like, you know, a block from here

425
00:39:29,590 --> 00:39:33,750
that have been empty for, I don't know, five years or more.

426
00:39:35,730 --> 00:39:43,810
So I guess if we're going to see the commercial space on a very small lane, you know, I'll

427
00:39:43,810 --> 00:39:50,330
be an active space, I would say, in the downtown because of kind of the specific programming

428
00:39:50,330 --> 00:39:51,130
that goes on there.

429
00:39:52,770 --> 00:39:59,130
I guess I'm just wondering if I know you can't predict the future, but what are the

430
00:39:59,130 --> 00:40:05,990
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

431
00:40:06,910 --> 00:40:12,710
It's not then that the scale for me tips even further to well, that doesn't seem like it's worth it

432
00:40:12,710 --> 00:40:22,090
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

433
00:40:24,230 --> 00:40:24,750
and

434
00:40:24,750 --> 00:40:31,790
and in relation to downtown trends here in Kitchener.

435
00:40:38,210 --> 00:40:41,970
Three Madam Chair, our short answer collectively is no.

436
00:40:42,770 --> 00:40:45,010
Perhaps our client might be able to comment

437
00:40:45,010 --> 00:40:47,770
on their level of confidence for leasing a space

438
00:40:47,770 --> 00:40:52,010
in that environment, but that's side of our expertise

439
00:40:52,010 --> 00:40:53,710
or knowledge through this process.

440
00:41:01,550 --> 00:41:03,970
Yes, so it's slightly more than a wing in a prayer.

441
00:41:04,170 --> 00:41:05,590
A lot of the retail that you're referring to

442
00:41:05,590 --> 00:41:10,090
on King Street is not great sizes, right?

443
00:41:10,170 --> 00:41:13,150
You're seeing sort of 2,000 plus square foot retail spaces

444
00:41:13,150 --> 00:41:16,370
that are struggling to lease or sell within a condo.

445
00:41:17,310 --> 00:41:20,450
But these are designed just over 600 square feet,

446
00:41:20,570 --> 00:41:23,630
and I think it's just under 800 as the secondary one.

447
00:41:23,770 --> 00:41:28,250
So we like that size, and we like the probability

448
00:41:28,250 --> 00:41:30,930
of those leasing up to different users.

449
00:41:40,180 --> 00:41:45,600
I have more questions, I just have comments, so I can wait if you want to answer some questions.

450
00:41:46,640 --> 00:41:47,040
Grant.

451
00:41:48,320 --> 00:41:51,020
I was actually going to ask a small thank you Madam Chair, I was going to ask you some more

452
00:41:51,020 --> 00:41:51,440
question.

453
00:41:52,320 --> 00:41:54,940
What do you envision in terms of tenants for these spaces?

454
00:41:56,440 --> 00:42:00,620
I was also somewhat concerned although it's the developers prerogative that they think that

455
00:42:00,620 --> 00:42:06,340
But they contend at the space to provide commercial, but my understanding is that developers

456
00:42:06,340 --> 00:42:09,500
aren't too keen to be providing ground floor commercial where they absolutely have to.

457
00:42:09,840 --> 00:42:13,460
So what kind of tenants might occupy these spaces?

458
00:42:15,610 --> 00:42:16,130
That's on me too.

459
00:42:16,650 --> 00:42:24,530
So with the community benefit space in the middle, it does make things slightly more difficult.

460
00:42:26,550 --> 00:42:30,690
I understand the theory behind the community benefit space, but I've spoken to a number

461
00:42:30,690 --> 00:42:34,970
We're a different group so that we've considered putting in there almost all and not for profit.

462
00:42:35,870 --> 00:42:36,690
And there's challenges, right?

463
00:42:36,770 --> 00:42:38,070
It's not easy.

464
00:42:38,470 --> 00:42:42,890
So, I think the answer to the question is we're going to have to find that fit first,

465
00:42:43,270 --> 00:42:45,650
and then work the other two spaces around it.

466
00:42:46,350 --> 00:42:53,910
But again, 700 square feet at 20 bucks a square foot, there's users in that world.

467
00:42:54,310 --> 00:42:59,670
It's just when you start getting into the 1500 plus, you start limiting your options.

468
00:42:59,670 --> 00:42:59,750
questions.

469
00:43:02,250 --> 00:43:03,910
And one more quick question if I may.

470
00:43:05,070 --> 00:43:08,310
I'm just curious who's idea was it to reduce the south to south?

471
00:43:08,430 --> 00:43:14,070
Was this something that development team project team came up with as a preference to reduce

472
00:43:14,070 --> 00:43:18,870
shoring and excavation or was this the result of a comment coming from the site point process?

473
00:43:24,410 --> 00:43:30,790
Three Madam Chair, it's a complicated question and it's a risen out of a number of reasons.

474
00:43:30,790 --> 00:43:36,290
It wasn't at the recommendation of staff as that was one of the items that you listed there.

475
00:43:36,650 --> 00:43:42,490
It is largely driven by the reduction in floors and the market conditions that we're in right now.

476
00:43:43,150 --> 00:43:51,410
So the scaling back of the overall development affects the ability to deliver on some of

477
00:43:51,410 --> 00:43:58,150
these atypical and more costly measures to deliver community benefits so that you are

478
00:43:58,150 --> 00:44:04,990
seen the scaling down of the community space, but also the reduction of the return coming

479
00:44:04,990 --> 00:44:06,490
towards Queen Street.

480
00:44:08,790 --> 00:44:11,510
It's a little bit of chicken in the end, the egg that's happened

481
00:44:11,510 --> 00:44:15,950
to you through this iterative process, looking at what can be kept, what makes the most

482
00:44:15,950 --> 00:44:21,870
amount of sense when you think about reprogramming of the ground floor and making sure that it's

483
00:44:21,870 --> 00:44:26,970
as usable and has the highest potential to be an active animated space along that really

484
00:44:26,970 --> 00:44:33,170
important goodies lane that has informed the ultimate recommendation for you today.

485
00:44:34,550 --> 00:44:38,270
Yeah, thank you for that. That's helpful for that context. I am wondering, though,

486
00:44:39,030 --> 00:44:44,510
with the proposal that's before us, would retaining that portion, I certainly appreciate there's

487
00:44:44,510 --> 00:44:47,030
already been a bit of a haircut on this project as it is.

488
00:44:49,590 --> 00:44:51,530
Would it prohibit the development

489
00:44:51,530 --> 00:44:55,270
L-ray, or would there be any limitations going forward on seeing this come

490
00:44:55,270 --> 00:44:56,830
if that return.

491
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:01,220
The full length, the so-for-side.

492
00:45:04,020 --> 00:45:31,640
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,

493
00:45:31,640 --> 00:45:34,480
that would resolve from keeping that?

494
00:45:39,610 --> 00:45:40,990
Okay, look carefully.

495
00:45:41,430 --> 00:45:46,110
The project itself is financially struggles

496
00:45:46,110 --> 00:45:49,630
at 19 stories as opposed to where it was at 34 stories.

497
00:45:49,830 --> 00:45:54,590
So, you know, we're looking for any design,

498
00:45:55,670 --> 00:45:59,850
a break that we can come up with to just sort of help get it

499
00:45:59,850 --> 00:46:00,510
over the goal line.

500
00:46:01,150 --> 00:46:02,590
The one thing that we didn't really talk about here though,

501
00:46:02,590 --> 00:46:06,390
I think is the urban design component of it.

502
00:46:06,510 --> 00:46:09,130
So my office is actually at the backside of eight queen.

503
00:46:09,970 --> 00:46:11,290
And as you come down that lane,

504
00:46:11,550 --> 00:46:15,750
you have a 30, maybe 40 foot entry off of Queen Street

505
00:46:15,750 --> 00:46:17,610
where you have dead wall versus dead wall.

506
00:46:18,230 --> 00:46:21,990
And it, you know, my findings through the last three

507
00:46:21,990 --> 00:46:23,650
to four years in having work back there

508
00:46:23,650 --> 00:46:30,890
is that it's not a very appealing place to gravitate to.

509
00:46:30,890 --> 00:46:40,470
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.

510
00:46:41,950 --> 00:46:42,750
Wasn't your question.

511
00:46:45,500 --> 00:46:52,260
Yeah, I mean, that wasn't it. I was just wondering if maybe there's a dollar value to that aspect, keeping that aspect.

512
00:46:53,000 --> 00:46:55,220
I don't have a specific dollar value. That's fair.

513
00:46:56,680 --> 00:46:57,600
Thank you. That's everything.

514
00:46:58,580 --> 00:46:59,540
Thank you. Grant.

515
00:47:01,260 --> 00:47:04,360
And are there, yes, not only?

516
00:47:05,140 --> 00:47:13,840
Just wondering to the proposed stories originally went from 34 to 19.

517
00:47:14,380 --> 00:47:21,400
Other than financial reasons, was there any other reason for the significant reduction

518
00:47:21,840 --> 00:47:22,740
in that?

519
00:47:23,880 --> 00:47:24,360
Absolutely.

520
00:47:24,360 --> 00:47:54,260
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.

521
00:47:54,260 --> 00:47:58,220
that there's any sort of, you know, impact to the actual building and the structure,

522
00:47:58,360 --> 00:48:01,720
anything like that other than the financial and then the closure.

523
00:48:02,060 --> 00:48:07,740
But heritage speaking, is there any other reason why we cannot save that portion?

524
00:48:11,180 --> 00:48:19,580
So from a purely heritage perspective, there's not a reason that is based in heritage

525
00:48:19,580 --> 00:48:22,620
that there wouldn't be possible to retain that portion.

526
00:48:22,620 --> 00:48:23,740
Thank

527
00:48:27,190 --> 00:48:30,330
you, Natalie. Are there any other questions for the delegation?

528
00:48:33,070 --> 00:48:38,550
Seeing none, thank you. We'll now have our questions for staff.

529
00:48:40,470 --> 00:48:46,490
Councillor Misho, do you want to make a comment now or wait till after the questions will stop?

530
00:48:46,810 --> 00:48:50,890
Wait. All right. Questions then for staff?

531
00:48:59,350 --> 00:49:01,550
Councillor, yes, Natalie.

532
00:49:02,630 --> 00:49:07,270
Sorry, I just wanted to ask to follow up on what Peter had mentioned in the beginning

533
00:49:07,270 --> 00:49:09,570
as well as Magda regarding that balcony.

534
00:49:10,230 --> 00:49:15,090
I know it mentioned in the report that it is a heritage attribute, so just want to confirm

535
00:49:15,090 --> 00:49:19,330
that there will be no changes with it becoming a balcony that is in use now.

536
00:49:22,390 --> 00:49:29,830
Through the chair, it has not been noted to date that there is a change to the balcony proposed.

537
00:49:29,830 --> 00:49:37,650
As a result of the change from going from a window to a door, however, if a change to the

538
00:49:37,650 --> 00:49:44,870
guard is identified as being a requirement to meet building code, then that is something

539
00:49:44,870 --> 00:49:49,090
that would have to be further addressed through a Heritage Permit application, which would

540
00:49:49,090 --> 00:49:53,850
come back to this committee, because it would be a change to that identified heritage attribute.

541
00:49:56,550 --> 00:50:01,430
Thank you, Natalie. Any other questions or comments to staff?

542
00:50:04,540 --> 00:50:05,900
Thank you, Councillor Chaplin.

543
00:50:07,660 --> 00:50:13,800
Yeah, I guess I'd like you to comment on the one other question I think it was from

544
00:50:13,800 --> 00:50:20,680
you, Peter, about the floor, whether it's the same height, the floor and the interior

545
00:50:20,680 --> 00:50:23,860
to the floor and the balcony. Is there any information on that?

546
00:50:26,580 --> 00:50:28,660
I don't at this time.

547
00:50:29,380 --> 00:50:29,820
Okay.

548
00:50:31,300 --> 00:50:37,320
Also, as far as the Heritage Attributes in the Interior,

549
00:50:37,500 --> 00:50:40,120
the building, how impacted do you,

550
00:50:40,280 --> 00:50:44,660
what specifically will the impact be of what was already approved?

551
00:50:44,900 --> 00:50:46,600
Like we knew there were going to be impacts,

552
00:50:46,600 --> 00:50:49,880
but this sounds to me like there would be further impacts.

553
00:50:52,450 --> 00:50:58,030
Through the chair, there were not interior features identified as

554
00:50:58,030 --> 00:51:08,630
as heritage attributes of the building specifically, but coming out of the commemorative plan and

555
00:51:08,630 --> 00:51:16,330
the, like, commemoration and interpretive plan, those resources were being identified through that process,

556
00:51:16,470 --> 00:51:24,010
and those reports have not yet been finalized, so the impact of what can be retained and

557
00:51:24,010 --> 00:51:28,410
incorporated into this development is still not fully known at this time.

558
00:51:28,410 --> 00:51:32,570
We would be working through that, through this site plan process to, to confirm what can

559
00:51:32,570 --> 00:51:37,810
be salvaged and where those features would be identified within the building.

560
00:51:38,710 --> 00:51:39,830
Okay, thank you.

561
00:51:42,400 --> 00:51:44,160
Thank you, Councillor Chapman.

562
00:51:44,880 --> 00:51:46,260
Any other comments here?

563
00:51:50,000 --> 00:51:52,880
I suppose this brings us to a motion.

564
00:51:54,380 --> 00:52:04,740
One of the observations I had from the report, to conclude 7-0, minor negative impact,

565
00:52:06,140 --> 00:52:16,140
what the proposal will be, and I find it very difficult to accept that in the report.

566
00:52:16,140 --> 00:52:29,060
I'm hearing concerns and also I would say that each of you have received from how

567
00:52:29,060 --> 00:52:43,720
Yeager a report, not necessarily a report, but a concern expressing that the community

568
00:52:43,720 --> 00:52:55,900
benefit space is being reduced. And if I recall, how much interaction there was on community

569
00:52:55,900 --> 00:53:03,120
benefit, there must have been 20 delegations when we had this first go round on saving

570
00:53:03,120 --> 00:53:10,400
this building and delegating and designating about the community benefit. And to think that

571
00:53:10,400 --> 00:53:17,420
But now we're going to have to have or even consider reducing the community benefit.

572
00:53:18,080 --> 00:53:20,960
It's really difficult to deal with.

573
00:53:22,940 --> 00:53:31,080
I think there's a good point, commercial space, and why and whether in fact it will attract

574
00:53:31,660 --> 00:53:37,740
and Magda raises a very good point, if you go up and down King Street, you see all kinds

575
00:53:37,740 --> 00:53:41,780
of commercial space available, sitting empty.

576
00:53:44,360 --> 00:53:52,480
I think there are many concerns with this, another one that comes to my mind, and I think

577
00:53:52,480 --> 00:54:02,000
of this person who was over on Park Street who recently wanted to open his door, the upper

578
00:54:02,000 --> 00:54:06,400
door, onto the balcony, and they had a nice balcony.

579
00:54:06,400 --> 00:54:10,600
And so, they had to modify that balcony.

580
00:54:11,340 --> 00:54:19,760
And I look at this portico, and I think this is what's left on the building, probably

581
00:54:19,760 --> 00:54:21,160
the main feature.

582
00:54:21,820 --> 00:54:30,200
And to me, I'm wondering, is this all that's going to be left of 1620 Queen Street North

583
00:54:30,200 --> 00:54:34,160
after we get through all of the building and so on?

584
00:54:34,400 --> 00:54:35,640
How will we keep it safe?

585
00:54:35,640 --> 00:54:42,780
and so we have the portico, so we have this balcony, the ballastrad, the railing, and

586
00:54:43,360 --> 00:54:52,060
to not know if we open up a door these days, and according to that person over on Park

587
00:54:52,060 --> 00:55:01,460
Street, they had to put in an extra railing to make it safe, and so I find it lacking

588
00:55:01,460 --> 00:55:06,600
and really disappointing that many of these details aren't here.

589
00:55:07,360 --> 00:55:14,540
Peter has raised many good points about how things are to should be in front of us

590
00:55:14,540 --> 00:55:22,120
and knowing engineering reports. And anyway, I find it very interesting to see

591
00:55:22,120 --> 00:55:24,860
have this report in front of us and the motion.

592
00:55:24,860 --> 00:55:33,760
but I suppose Mariah, we need to read the motion and I'm sorry, yes?

593
00:55:36,870 --> 00:55:38,470
Sorry, I can't.

594
00:55:40,960 --> 00:55:42,020
Oh, I'm sorry.

595
00:55:43,680 --> 00:55:47,620
Chair, if I may, I just wanted to offer a point of clarification before the committee

596
00:55:47,620 --> 00:55:51,480
does make their decision with regard to the community benefits.

597
00:55:51,660 --> 00:55:53,060
There has been some discussion.

598
00:55:53,060 --> 00:55:59,040
I just want to clarify that the community benefits is not currently before this committee

599
00:55:59,040 --> 00:55:59,860
for consideration.

600
00:56:00,400 --> 00:56:05,900
I just want everyone to be aware that the proposal to reduce the overall height and density

601
00:56:05,900 --> 00:56:11,860
of the site leads to an automatic reduction in the community benefits as per the registered

602
00:56:11,860 --> 00:56:15,140
community benefits agreement that is registered on title.

603
00:56:15,780 --> 00:56:21,140
So they received additional height and density for providing residential units downtown within

604
00:56:21,140 --> 00:56:23,220
in the former downtown geography that was identified

605
00:56:23,220 --> 00:56:26,820
in our official plan, as well as the retention

606
00:56:26,820 --> 00:56:32,500
of the heritage facade, which we have now since designated

607
00:56:32,500 --> 00:56:34,800
and it is a designated facade,

608
00:56:35,320 --> 00:56:38,220
as well as the provision for an amenity area.

609
00:56:38,820 --> 00:56:41,480
As the number of units has decreased

610
00:56:41,480 --> 00:56:44,640
and the requested increase in density has decreased,

611
00:56:44,960 --> 00:56:47,340
the size of the amenity area is then proportional.

612
00:56:47,340 --> 00:56:55,340
So committee can certainly make the decision on the return of the facade, that's what is in front of the committee

613
00:56:55,340 --> 00:57:00,980
but I think it is important to note that regardless of the outcome of a decision today and ultimately by council,

614
00:57:01,580 --> 00:57:06,320
they have under legislation and changes the legislation, the ability to reduce community benefits

615
00:57:06,320 --> 00:57:10,460
that is not altered at all with respect to the facade to the south.

616
00:57:14,680 --> 00:57:15,460
Thank you, Garrett.

617
00:57:15,460 --> 00:57:23,740
All right, so we have the motion before us, but Peter, before I go to the motion question.

618
00:57:25,570 --> 00:57:33,340
Yeah, I would just like to make one comment for, which is kind of summarized what I see before us.

619
00:57:34,780 --> 00:57:41,740
So the committee is being asked to decide on the validity of two things.

620
00:57:41,740 --> 00:57:47,020
one is the addition of the door, and the other is the reduction in the facade.

621
00:57:48,460 --> 00:57:53,780
So we look at the information that is so regarding the door, I look at the information that we are

622
00:57:53,780 --> 00:58:00,520
presented with, and I do not believe that it is adequate. There is not enough information

623
00:58:00,520 --> 00:58:09,620
there for the committee to make an informed decision on that aspect. Regarding the reduction of the

624
00:58:09,620 --> 00:58:12,900
The sod, there are two arguments that are put forward

625
00:58:12,900 --> 00:58:14,960
of why this facade has to be reduced.

626
00:58:15,620 --> 00:58:19,100
The first of all is that there is a risk of accidental damage

627
00:58:19,100 --> 00:58:21,180
to the existing building if it is not.

628
00:58:22,140 --> 00:58:25,840
There is no evidence accompanying this report

629
00:58:26,380 --> 00:58:28,220
to substantiate that claim.

630
00:58:29,620 --> 00:58:32,900
So I do not think that there is adequate information

631
00:58:32,900 --> 00:58:37,440
in order to accept that assertion.

632
00:58:37,440 --> 00:58:48,000
The second is that the SOD has to be reduced in order to accommodate the commercial use along the lane.

633
00:58:49,440 --> 00:58:54,980
Again, I don't think that has been adequately demonstrated within the information that is before us,

634
00:58:55,540 --> 00:59:05,780
and that the proponent has also said that it may be possible that it is retained if there are some modifications to it.

635
00:59:05,780 --> 00:59:13,520
and I think if the proponent came back with modifications suggested to that facade that the committee would be amenable to looking at them.

636
00:59:14,100 --> 00:59:18,880
But overall, I think there is inadequate information in this.

637
00:59:19,240 --> 00:59:27,460
And so I ask sort of who's beneficial, who benefits from this change, right, from the changes in front of us.

638
00:59:28,260 --> 00:59:34,820
And the only beneficiary that I can really see is the developer who benefits

639
00:59:34,820 --> 00:59:48,740
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.

640
00:59:50,040 --> 00:59:55,480
who does not benefit from this, everyone else, right?

641
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:18,220
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.

642
01:00:19,460 --> 01:00:35,800
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.

643
01:00:35,800 --> 01:00:54,160
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.

644
01:00:55,020 --> 01:01:02,620
So given that, I can support nothing that is being asked in this proposal.

645
01:01:02,620 --> 01:01:03,680
Thank

646
01:01:06,940 --> 01:01:08,500
you, Peter. Good summary.

647
01:01:11,080 --> 01:01:17,400
Any other further comments? Well, we do have a motion

648
01:01:17,400 --> 01:01:27,560
before us and I will read it, pursuant to section 33 of Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage

649
01:01:27,560 --> 01:01:37,340
Permit Application HVA 2026, 4-021 be approved to permit the removal of a portion of

650
01:01:37,340 --> 01:01:43,400
of the site, so-return, and the alteration of an existing window opening into a door

651
01:01:43,400 --> 01:01:50,580
on the second floor of the front facade on the Property Municipally Addressed 16-20

652
01:01:50,580 --> 01:01:54,080
Queen Street, North, subject to the following conditions.

653
01:01:54,820 --> 01:02:03,860
That the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum dated July 23, 2026 and prepared by MHBC,

654
01:02:03,860 --> 01:02:09,260
see the approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of

655
01:02:09,260 --> 01:02:10,320
a heritage permit.

656
01:02:10,780 --> 01:02:16,280
That an updated conservation plan be submitted and approved by the Director of Development

657
01:02:16,280 --> 01:02:21,100
and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of a heritage permit.

658
01:02:21,740 --> 01:02:28,500
And that the final building permit drawings be reviewed in Heritage Clarence provided by

659
01:02:28,500 --> 01:02:32,640
Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

660
01:02:32,640 --> 01:02:36,580
But do I have anyone that will move it?

661
01:02:36,980 --> 01:02:39,260
Madam Chair, can I ask a quick question before we vote on this?

662
01:02:39,620 --> 01:02:40,200
I know we're in the middle.

663
01:02:41,040 --> 01:02:43,880
I'm just wondering maybe to staff, and there's an advantage or

664
01:02:43,880 --> 01:02:48,820
a possibility to deferring what's before us here, as opposed to,

665
01:02:49,200 --> 01:02:52,500
I think I'm seeing where this might be going, and I'm wondering if there's an advantage to

666
01:02:52,500 --> 01:02:54,660
the proponent to defer it or refer it to staff.

667
01:02:55,320 --> 01:02:58,220
Maybe avoiding additional fees down the road, could speak to that.

668
01:02:59,880 --> 01:03:07,720
Through the chair, with a deferral, there are some timing implications that would come into play

669
01:03:07,720 --> 01:03:15,060
under statutory requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act. Based on when the application was deemed complete,

670
01:03:15,460 --> 01:03:21,580
a decision on the application is required within 90 days of that notice.

671
01:03:21,580 --> 01:03:30,340
and because there is no Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting in October or a council meeting in October,

672
01:03:30,940 --> 01:03:35,460
the deferral would move past that 90-day time frame.

673
01:03:38,160 --> 01:03:40,260
Would you still have an opportunity in that time frame?

674
01:03:40,260 --> 01:03:47,060
Even if it's past the statutory timeline there to work with the proponent, even when this committee is not sitting,

675
01:03:47,180 --> 01:03:53,020
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.

676
01:03:53,020 --> 01:03:55,200
because I think we've made clear what the issues are.

677
01:03:55,700 --> 01:03:57,120
I'm just wondering if there's a way to keep it alive.

678
01:04:00,200 --> 01:04:04,920
Through the chair, I don't have exact wording under the Ontario Heritage Act,

679
01:04:05,020 --> 01:04:13,120
but I believe that there is a mechanism to extend the timing of when an application can be considered

680
01:04:13,120 --> 01:04:17,300
if there's agreement between the proponent and the municipality.

681
01:04:18,160 --> 01:04:25,240
If this application is rejected by this committee, would they have to submit a new application?

682
01:04:25,240 --> 01:04:28,580
Application Heritage Permit Application and pay the fee and ride the ride again.

683
01:04:30,890 --> 01:04:36,990
Through the chair, if this application is rejected here and through Council, then yes,

684
01:04:37,150 --> 01:04:39,290
a new Heritage Permit Application would be required.

685
01:04:46,540 --> 01:04:49,960
Any comments on that grant?

686
01:04:50,180 --> 01:04:50,900
Councilor Chapman.

687
01:04:51,180 --> 01:04:55,820
I just, like sort of adding to what you're saying, I guess I'd ask the proponent.

688
01:04:56,080 --> 01:05:02,280
Would you be willing to come back if we did vote on a deferral and respond to the

689
01:05:02,280 --> 01:05:04,260
some of the questions that are being left unanswered here.

690
01:05:12,390 --> 01:05:13,790
And I appreciate that it's a terrible time

691
01:05:13,790 --> 01:05:15,690
given that there's a municipal election in a month

692
01:05:18,480 --> 01:05:19,920
to defer something that is.

693
01:05:24,620 --> 01:05:25,420
They're not alone.

694
01:05:33,010 --> 01:05:34,310
I mean, yes, yeah, yeah.

695
01:05:35,110 --> 01:05:36,450
Yeah, certainly we'd look at,

696
01:05:36,490 --> 01:05:40,090
we'd prefer it deferral than a rejection, yes.

697
01:05:42,170 --> 01:05:43,950
So you'd be willing to work with staff

698
01:05:43,950 --> 01:05:45,670
to address some of these concerns

699
01:05:45,670 --> 01:05:48,010
that have been brought up here.

700
01:05:48,330 --> 01:05:48,810
Yeah, absolutely.

701
01:05:48,950 --> 01:05:50,150
And then it would come back to,

702
01:05:50,150 --> 01:05:51,610
I guess it would come back in November.

703
01:05:51,610 --> 01:05:53,690
If I'm correct.

704
01:05:55,450 --> 01:06:01,090
Through the chair, yes, the next scheduled Heritage Kitchener committee meeting is November.

705
01:06:02,490 --> 01:06:09,390
I just want to confirm what the Ontario Heritage Act says with respect to, like, working

706
01:06:09,390 --> 01:06:17,850
with applicants if there is a deferral in it and extends beyond that 90-day time frame.

707
01:06:17,850 --> 01:06:25,730
because I do know that the act says that if a decision is not rendered within those 90 days

708
01:06:25,730 --> 01:06:32,990
and it becomes an automatic approval of an application, so I just want to confirm what the

709
01:06:32,990 --> 01:06:37,930
act says with respect to working with the applicant to extend that timeline if we're able to do that.

710
01:06:41,240 --> 01:06:47,060
So you're saying if can I still speak? You're saying if it was deferred, it would be an automatic

711
01:06:49,880 --> 01:06:54,440
So no opportunity to examine this further.

712
01:06:56,560 --> 01:06:59,780
Based on my understanding of the Ontario Heritage Act, that's correct.

713
01:07:00,260 --> 01:07:00,420
Okay.

714
01:07:00,760 --> 01:07:01,000
Thank you.

715
01:07:07,470 --> 01:07:08,950
Peter, you're looking this way.

716
01:07:10,070 --> 01:07:11,450
You have no comments.

717
01:07:13,490 --> 01:07:13,910
All right.

718
01:07:15,790 --> 01:07:17,330
Thank you very much.

719
01:07:18,570 --> 01:07:22,450
Staff, what is your recommendation here?

720
01:07:23,010 --> 01:07:27,550
Madam Chair, I would just confirm for you that any decision would have to be ratified

721
01:07:27,550 --> 01:07:31,290
by Council and that's anticipated to be on September 28th.

722
01:07:31,290 --> 01:07:36,430
A decision on December 28th by Kitchener Council is within the 90-day consideration window.

723
01:07:37,010 --> 01:07:43,170
I know we only have two Councillors on our committee, but I might suggest that if we are worried

724
01:07:43,170 --> 01:07:47,770
about the 90-day window and there's additional information that's needed prior to Council

725
01:07:47,770 --> 01:07:53,170
making decision that we endeavor to regroup with the two counselors that are on Heritage

726
01:07:53,170 --> 01:07:58,470
Kitchener, and see if we can provide the information self-standing, and then Council will at least

727
01:07:58,470 --> 01:08:02,390
have an opportunity to review that additional information before our final decision is rendered

728
01:08:02,390 --> 01:08:03,630
on September 28th.

729
01:08:06,750 --> 01:08:19,150
So what we're suggesting here is to defer this application based on Council's decision.

730
01:08:19,150 --> 01:08:25,690
Perhaps staff, you can come up with what it is that we can vote on.

731
01:08:26,290 --> 01:08:32,490
Madam Chair, I'd like to clarify this agenda, the entire agenda package from this evening

732
01:08:32,490 --> 01:08:37,750
will be proceeding to September 28th Council and ultimately Council will make a decision.

733
01:08:38,150 --> 01:08:42,230
Council will have regard for the decision that's made by Heritage Kitchener, but the final

734
01:08:42,230 --> 01:08:45,470
decision is made by Kitchener Council on these matters.

735
01:08:45,470 --> 01:08:50,510
What I'm suggesting to you today is whatever the committee decides, I think we've heard

736
01:08:50,510 --> 01:08:53,650
that there's some additional information that's needed and we've heard a commitment from

737
01:08:53,650 --> 01:08:55,050
the developer to provide that.

738
01:08:55,410 --> 01:08:59,670
I'm suggesting that there could be further dialogue with the two ward Councillors that are

739
01:08:59,670 --> 01:09:04,790
on Heritage Kitchener between now and September 28th and then we can potentially continue the

740
01:09:04,790 --> 01:09:09,070
discussion on September 28th and Council will have that additional information before a final

741
01:09:09,070 --> 01:09:09,790
decision is made.

742
01:09:11,210 --> 01:09:12,270
Thank you.

743
01:09:13,950 --> 01:09:14,590
Thank you.

744
01:09:15,190 --> 01:09:16,330
Yes, yes.

745
01:09:17,270 --> 01:09:20,150
I mean, I hear what you're saying, Garrett.

746
01:09:21,290 --> 01:09:26,690
Regardless, if we vote against this today, if the Heritage Committee were to reject this,

747
01:09:26,830 --> 01:09:30,630
it would still, there's that opportunity still exists, right?

748
01:09:30,950 --> 01:09:31,950
So just to clarify.

749
01:09:36,990 --> 01:09:39,570
So are we suggesting to go ahead with this?

750
01:09:39,570 --> 01:09:44,750
Well, I'm just saying that even if we were to reject it as a committee, it would still

751
01:09:44,750 --> 01:09:52,370
have to go back to Council, the end of September, but then the vote would be recorded as

752
01:09:53,060 --> 01:09:54,250
if that were the case.

753
01:09:54,610 --> 01:09:59,430
As a rejection, it doesn't mean that Council couldn't then approve it, and we could still

754
01:09:59,430 --> 01:10:05,070
do the work with the developer as was suggested by Garrett between now and then.

755
01:10:05,070 --> 01:10:12,070
So I guess what I'm saying is we could still reject this without anything really changing.

756
01:10:15,580 --> 01:10:16,000
All right.

757
01:10:16,420 --> 01:10:18,540
Is there someone who can move the motion?

758
01:10:23,210 --> 01:10:23,430
All right.

759
01:10:24,250 --> 01:10:25,750
What does that mean?

760
01:10:26,110 --> 01:10:27,250
I do not see anyone.

761
01:10:27,610 --> 01:10:28,190
Yes, Peter.

762
01:10:30,640 --> 01:10:32,620
Oh, Peter, thank you.

763
01:10:33,160 --> 01:10:33,480
All right.

764
01:10:34,040 --> 01:10:34,640
All right.

765
01:10:35,460 --> 01:10:37,560
Peter will move this motion.

766
01:10:39,420 --> 01:10:49,680
And so, all those in favor of, remember, I will take in favor and non-in favor.

767
01:10:50,100 --> 01:10:50,520
Okay.

768
01:10:50,760 --> 01:10:53,060
All those in favor of the motion,

769
01:10:58,040 --> 01:10:59,600
against the motion,

770
01:11:04,110 --> 01:11:04,710
seamlessly.

771
01:11:05,650 --> 01:11:10,710
So that will go to Council September 28th, right?

772
01:11:31,480 --> 01:11:40,300
Our next item is Heritage Permit Application HPA 2026V-0161292

773
01:11:40,300 --> 01:11:49,360
village road demolition and construction of a single detached dwelling DSD 2026286.

774
01:11:49,640 --> 01:11:56,640
Victoria Grun, Heritage Planner will present and do we have some

775
01:11:56,640 --> 01:11:58,340
Delegations here on this,

776
01:12:00,560 --> 01:12:03,080
okay, all right, Victoria.

777
01:12:07,440 --> 01:12:08,260
Thank you Madam Chair.

778
01:12:09,100 --> 01:12:13,580
The development services department is in receipt of a heritage permit application for

779
01:12:13,580 --> 01:12:17,180
the property municipally addressed as 1290 Dune Village Road.

780
01:12:17,440 --> 01:12:21,940
This property is located within the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District and

781
01:12:21,940 --> 01:12:24,520
designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act.

782
01:12:24,920 --> 01:12:30,360
The subject property contains a single detached dwelling constructed in 1965.

783
01:12:31,720 --> 01:12:36,940
I also wanted to note that the properties of 1290 and 1296

784
01:12:37,740 --> 01:12:44,460
Dune Village Road have merged on title, which is why there are two buildings shown on this property.

785
01:12:44,600 --> 01:12:48,440
But the one in question is the one that is circled up on the screen.

786
01:12:50,460 --> 01:12:55,360
The application proposal contemplates the demolition of the existing single detached dwelling

787
01:12:55,740 --> 01:12:59,660
and the construction of a new single detached dwelling in its place.

788
01:12:59,660 --> 01:13:00,680
The

789
01:13:04,900 --> 01:13:09,280
existing single detached dwelling is identified as a non-heritage building within the upper

790
01:13:09,280 --> 01:13:14,100
dune Heritage Conservation District Plan. Through Heritage Planning Staff's review of the property,

791
01:13:14,300 --> 01:13:20,600
there are no heritage attributes that have been identified to be retained as part of the

792
01:13:21,520 --> 01:13:22,660
redevelopment on the property.

793
01:13:26,200 --> 01:13:29,420
So the proposal contemplates the construction of a new two-story

794
01:13:29,420 --> 01:13:36,240
single detached dwelling with an attached one and a half story garage with a loft on the property.

795
01:13:36,600 --> 01:13:44,520
The image above shows the location of the existing dwelling in red and an overlay of the location

796
01:13:44,520 --> 01:13:46,460
of the proposed new dwelling in green.

797
01:13:47,140 --> 01:13:53,440
The subject property has a lot size of 1.75 hectare or 4.33 acres.

798
01:13:54,480 --> 01:13:59,860
The location of the proposed new dwelling is generally in the same location as the existing.

799
01:14:00,320 --> 01:14:04,340
However, the orientation of the footprint of the building is slightly rotated.

800
01:14:04,340 --> 01:14:13,760
The new dwelling is proposed to be set back approximately 6.27 meters or 20.57 feet further

801
01:14:13,760 --> 01:14:20,540
than the existing dwelling, maintaining limited to no impact on the Dune Village road streetscape.

802
01:14:26,200 --> 01:14:33,400
Based on the size of the existing lot, and noting that tree removals would be required to facilitate

803
01:14:33,400 --> 01:14:38,600
this development. Heritage planning made the requirement of the submission and approval

804
01:14:38,600 --> 01:14:44,180
of a tree management plan and arborist report, a condition of a heritage permit application

805
01:14:44,180 --> 01:14:50,740
approval. Since the preparation of the staff report that was included in the agenda package

806
01:14:50,740 --> 01:14:55,900
for this evening, heritage planning staff have since received the tree management plan and

807
01:14:55,900 --> 01:14:56,940
our RIS report and we're

808
01:15:00,000 --> 01:15:29,700
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.

809
01:15:29,700 --> 01:15:36,980
proposed to be removed, eight of which are within the boundary to facilitate the

810
01:15:36,980 --> 01:15:41,980
construction. The trees outside of the construction boundary that are proposed

811
01:15:41,980 --> 01:15:47,380
to be removed are dead or dying and are proposed for removal for general

812
01:15:47,380 --> 01:15:52,960
maintenance on the property. In general the removals recommended are not

813
01:15:52,960 --> 01:15:58,960
anticipated to have a significant impact on views to the property from from

814
01:15:58,960 --> 01:15:59,720
Dune Village Road.

815
01:16:02,140 --> 01:16:06,880
The size of the existing dwelling on the property is approximately 5,100

816
01:16:06,880 --> 01:16:14,720
square feet, and the size of the proposed dwelling is 4,303 square feet with an additional

817
01:16:14,720 --> 01:16:23,240
673 square feet of loft space above the attached garage. Due to existing grades on site and

818
01:16:23,240 --> 01:16:25,020
and working within these existing grades,

819
01:16:25,720 --> 01:16:28,660
the height of the proposed dwelling varies,

820
01:16:28,960 --> 01:16:33,140
ranging from 8.65 meters to 10.6 meters.

821
01:16:34,060 --> 01:16:37,240
But the significant setback of this dwelling

822
01:16:37,240 --> 01:16:40,180
will assist to visually reduce the perception

823
01:16:40,180 --> 01:16:41,740
of the building height.

824
01:16:42,460 --> 01:16:44,460
And the new dwelling is proposed to be clad

825
01:16:44,830 --> 01:16:47,820
in brick and stone in color tones

826
01:16:48,250 --> 01:16:50,300
that are shown on this slide.

827
01:16:54,740 --> 01:16:59,360
In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following.

828
01:17:00,080 --> 01:17:05,360
The existing dwelling is identified as a non-historic building and does not contain significant

829
01:17:05,360 --> 01:17:07,240
architectural or historical features.

830
01:17:08,220 --> 01:17:12,140
And the proposal is generally in keeping with the policies contained within the Upper

831
01:17:12,140 --> 01:17:18,740
Dune Heritage Conservation Plan as it relates to the form height, roof, windows, materials

832
01:17:18,740 --> 01:17:19,360
and setbacks.

833
01:17:20,040 --> 01:17:27,820
Heritage planning staff do note that historically the size of proposed new dwellings within this district has been a concern.

834
01:17:28,700 --> 01:17:36,440
However, the policies in the district plan do not specifically refer to size and given current zoning requirements.

835
01:17:36,920 --> 01:17:46,640
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.

836
01:17:46,640 --> 01:18:01,240
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.

837
01:18:02,880 --> 01:18:13,140
So based on on the above heritage planning staff are recommending approval of the heritage permit application subject to the following conditions.

838
01:18:13,140 --> 01:18:21,260
The first one being that the Tree Management Plan and Arborist Report be approved prior to the issuance of a heritage permit.

839
01:18:21,960 --> 01:18:31,360
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.

840
01:18:32,060 --> 01:18:34,760
And that concludes my presentation on this item.

841
01:18:35,100 --> 01:18:35,380
Thank you.

842
01:18:35,380 --> 01:18:37,980
So thank you, Victoria.

843
01:18:38,820 --> 01:18:47,740
Are there questions for, oh, I'm sorry, perhaps delegation, do we have anyone here?

844
01:18:51,780 --> 01:18:52,580
Through the chair, no.

845
01:18:52,780 --> 01:18:54,560
There's no one for this particular application.

846
01:18:55,160 --> 01:18:55,520
Thank you.

847
01:18:56,560 --> 01:18:58,520
Questions for staff on this?

848
01:18:59,520 --> 01:19:00,220
Yes, Natalie.

849
01:19:01,360 --> 01:19:03,680
Just a question regarding the trees.

850
01:19:04,020 --> 01:19:07,720
So in the staff report, I know you mentioned there was just a bit of information still missing

851
01:19:07,720 --> 01:19:12,120
from the tree removal. In the staff report, it says two trees were being removed.

852
01:19:12,400 --> 01:19:15,860
Now it's eight on the property for off the property, correct?

853
01:19:18,300 --> 01:19:19,300
Through the chair,

854
01:19:19,580 --> 01:19:25,420
for this application there are 12 removals proposed in total on this property.

855
01:19:26,220 --> 01:19:32,200
Eight of the removals are within direct relation to the development that's proposed. So where they're

856
01:19:32,200 --> 01:19:40,680
located is going to be impacted by the new dwelling, as well as the extension of the driveway

857
01:19:40,680 --> 01:19:46,740
that's proposed. The remaining four trees that are proposed to be removed are either dead

858
01:19:46,740 --> 01:19:51,900
or dying, so it's been recommended that they be removed just for general maintenance on

859
01:19:51,900 --> 01:19:52,240
the property.

860
01:19:53,120 --> 01:19:56,980
Fair enough with the four there, so just about those eight because in the staff report

861
01:19:56,980 --> 01:20:02,760
it's that the trees slated for removal or proposed to be replaced is the applicant now willing to

862
01:20:02,760 --> 01:20:05,620
replace all eight trees on the property.

863
01:20:10,390 --> 01:20:15,090
Through the chair, one of the recommendations coming out

864
01:20:15,090 --> 01:20:21,410
of the arborist report that's been prepared is that there may be a requirement for

865
01:20:22,370 --> 01:20:28,030
replacements on trees on the property. That's something that staff are still reviewing and would work

866
01:20:28,030 --> 01:20:32,930
through with the applicant directly okay yeah I think I would be a little bit more comfortable

867
01:20:32,930 --> 01:20:37,950
just knowing a little bit more information regarding that as even though trees may be not

868
01:20:37,950 --> 01:20:43,010
in our scope it is still a heritage value that deeply contributes to the area of doom so thank you so

869
01:20:43,010 --> 01:20:43,390
much.

870
01:20:45,400 --> 01:20:52,040
Thank you Natalie. Councillor Chaplin do you have any. Yeah I had a similar question about

871
01:20:52,040 --> 01:20:58,340
the trees but my other question has to do with the the color tones that are being proposed I mean I

872
01:20:58,340 --> 01:21:02,080
notice the the current structures like I don't know if it's hard to tell whether

873
01:21:02,080 --> 01:21:06,540
it's like a red brick or a brownie red brick I'm not sure what color it is but

874
01:21:06,540 --> 01:21:11,640
and now we're talking about a more sandstone color and I don't know if that's

875
01:21:11,640 --> 01:21:17,520
that you call it but you know what I mean so I'm just wondering is is that more

876
01:21:17,520 --> 01:21:22,860
is that in keeping with the heritage district itself or is it a bit of a

877
01:21:22,860 --> 01:21:23,560
departure?

878
01:21:30,340 --> 01:21:35,840
Through the chair, sorry, I'm just pulling up the staff report here.

879
01:21:39,040 --> 01:21:44,720
So through the policies that are identified within the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation

880
01:21:46,160 --> 01:21:53,340
District Plan with respect to colors, it speaks to materials and colors being historically

881
01:21:53,340 --> 01:21:58,320
the sympathetic colors that are quiet, subtle, and natural, or neutral shades.

882
01:21:59,220 --> 01:22:04,820
So the materials that are proposed here, the colors of them, I would say are in keeping

883
01:22:04,820 --> 01:22:07,880
with that policy with respect to being quiet, subtle, and neutral.

884
01:22:08,620 --> 01:22:09,620
Okay, thank you.

885
01:22:11,240 --> 01:22:12,000
Thank you.

886
01:22:12,560 --> 01:22:13,300
Councillor Chaplin?

887
01:22:13,620 --> 01:22:14,180
Other questions?

888
01:22:15,380 --> 01:22:16,260
Yes, Magda.

889
01:22:18,920 --> 01:22:24,160
So there hasn't been any demolition or new construction in the district since 2014.

890
01:22:26,980 --> 01:22:29,060
As far as I'm aware, yes, that's true.

891
01:22:30,340 --> 01:22:36,240
And when was this existing building that's proposed to me demolish, when was it built?

892
01:22:38,970 --> 01:22:42,950
Based on records, I believe it was around circa 1965.

893
01:22:46,030 --> 01:22:50,970
Okay, yeah, I was going to also ask about the trees, but we got a response to that.

894
01:22:51,130 --> 01:22:56,210
And I have a few other comments that maybe I'll wait till everyone has had a chance to ask

895
01:22:56,210 --> 01:22:56,650
questions.

896
01:22:56,650 --> 01:23:08,900
Thank you. Any other question? I wonder if you Victoria could bring up that picture of the tree

897
01:23:08,900 --> 01:23:11,980
from the road.

898
01:23:17,840 --> 01:23:28,420
That one. Okay. So this is a rather large proposal of a house. The orientation will

899
01:23:28,420 --> 01:23:37,720
will not be with a facade or the front facing the creek as it is now, and so it's going

900
01:23:37,720 --> 01:23:48,460
to stand up and out, up on the hill. However, if this role of trees is maintained,

901
01:23:49,380 --> 01:23:55,040
it will, shall we say, diminish the impact of this particular house.

902
01:23:55,040 --> 01:24:06,440
The house being proposed is similar in size to that which exists and over the years the

903
01:24:06,440 --> 01:24:13,680
former owner did add on and add on because he loved to look out at the birds and the

904
01:24:13,680 --> 01:24:15,420
wildlife down on the creek.

905
01:24:16,580 --> 01:24:27,760
But anyway, the trees have been mentioned several times here, and I have concerns about

906
01:24:27,760 --> 01:24:37,820
the Arborist Report, and I would like to see on the finished project that these trees

907
01:24:37,820 --> 01:24:47,100
These are planted so that we diminish the impact of this house from the road.

908
01:24:50,920 --> 01:24:59,600
As you can see by having this quarter of trees up the lane, which is about maybe 75 feet,

909
01:25:00,120 --> 01:25:07,060
you can hardly see that large house that was shown, the one that exists there.

910
01:25:11,080 --> 01:25:14,080
Do you have something to say about this?

911
01:25:18,200 --> 01:25:18,420
Yes.

912
01:25:18,640 --> 01:25:18,900
Thank you.

913
01:25:19,220 --> 01:25:27,120
So, um, I just, I, I, yeah, I had concerns about this and my comments apply to this application

914
01:25:27,120 --> 01:25:33,240
and the next one, they're both in the same heritage district, they're kind of a similar

915
01:25:33,240 --> 01:25:35,660
age and they're proposed to be demolished and replaced.

916
01:25:36,420 --> 01:25:48,500
So I just wanted to bring up a couple ideas and perhaps the question at the end of this

917
01:25:48,500 --> 01:25:56,560
will be whether the city is working on anything related to what I'm about to say.

918
01:25:57,560 --> 01:26:02,980
So of course the buildings in question are not considered historic buildings within the

919
01:26:02,980 --> 01:26:08,760
parameters of the HCD. But as I mentioned, I have concerns about the fact that it would

920
01:26:08,760 --> 01:26:13,580
appear to be too fairly large functional dwellings are proposed to be demolished and presumably

921
01:26:13,580 --> 01:26:19,720
thrown in the landfill. So this application for $12.90 doing village road in fact specifically

922
01:26:19,720 --> 01:26:23,800
mentions that the existing house needs to be demolished because the owners wish to build

923
01:26:24,310 --> 01:26:27,100
a quote, durable energy efficient long-term residence.

924
01:26:29,260 --> 01:26:31,760
And so aside from the by now conventional

925
01:26:31,760 --> 01:26:38,660
wisdom, you know, the greenest building is the one that already exists. There are also numerous

926
01:26:38,660 --> 01:26:44,300
studies that show the environmental, economic, and social benefits of retrofit and reuse over

927
01:26:44,300 --> 01:26:52,360
demolition, demolition and new construction. So I'll just cite two, for instance, 2016 report

928
01:26:52,360 --> 01:26:58,900
by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the US found that, quote, it takes between 10 and

929
01:26:58,900 --> 01:27:03,600
80 years for a new building that is 30 percent more efficient than an average performing

930
01:27:03,600 --> 01:27:08,440
existing building to overcome through efficient operations, the negative climate change

931
01:27:08,440 --> 01:27:10,740
impacts related to the construction process.

932
01:27:12,060 --> 01:27:17,540
And number two, more recently this past February, the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals

933
01:27:17,540 --> 01:27:22,420
or CAP published a report called Unlocking the Value of Existing Buildings, a new approach

934
01:27:22,420 --> 01:27:24,580
to codes for carbon culture and cost.

935
01:27:24,580 --> 01:27:27,740
and among the findings of that report are that, quote,

936
01:27:28,260 --> 01:27:30,780
reusing existing buildings through retrofits emerges

937
01:27:30,780 --> 01:27:32,880
as one of the most effective strategies

938
01:27:32,880 --> 01:27:35,320
for reducing carbon emissions, development costs,

939
01:27:35,860 --> 01:27:36,920
and construction timelines.

940
01:27:37,660 --> 01:27:39,600
This approach minimizes embodied carbon

941
01:27:39,600 --> 01:27:41,800
and avoids the environmental and financial burdens

942
01:27:41,800 --> 01:27:45,260
of demolition, excavation, and new material production.

943
01:27:45,640 --> 01:27:48,980
Retrofit and addition scenarios consistently demonstrate

944
01:27:48,980 --> 01:27:50,900
the best balance of cost, performance,

945
01:27:51,480 --> 01:27:53,940
and emissions reduction across all case studies.

946
01:27:53,940 --> 01:28:00,740
So, these and other studies point to something that is sort of increasingly coming up in discussions

947
01:28:00,740 --> 01:28:05,560
about heritage conservation, which is that heritage buildings in addition to their cultural

948
01:28:05,560 --> 01:28:11,640
heritage value have inherent environmental benefits, and conversely, this culture of conservation

949
01:28:11,640 --> 01:28:18,260
can be expanded to non-designated buildings, non-designated existing buildings by recognizing

950
01:28:18,260 --> 01:28:23,960
their material and environmental value and figuring out how to creatively repair retrofit

951
01:28:23,960 --> 01:28:30,520
and adapt them for evolving needs. So the rationale for demolition provided in this application

952
01:28:30,520 --> 01:28:35,700
and the one that follows on the agenda include the statements that the existing buildings are

953
01:28:35,700 --> 01:28:43,620
quote and outdated or quote just old which struck me as funny reading that considering they are

954
01:28:43,620 --> 01:28:46,340
are located within Heritage Conservation Districts.

955
01:28:46,900 --> 01:28:51,540
And I think that these applications represent lost opportunities to adopt buildings from

956
01:28:51,540 --> 01:28:56,020
newer areas of construction in ways that are more sensitive to their surroundings and

957
01:28:56,020 --> 01:28:57,340
more environmentally conscious.

958
01:28:58,060 --> 01:29:04,320
And I realize that these are not part of the buildings that are recognized within those

959
01:29:04,320 --> 01:29:05,640
parameters of the HCD.

960
01:29:05,640 --> 01:29:14,700
but I feel strongly that there should be more impetus to, you know, not taking an entire

961
01:29:14,700 --> 01:29:21,160
existing building because it's 50 or 60 years old throwing it in the garbage and starting

962
01:29:21,160 --> 01:29:21,740
from scratch.

963
01:29:21,740 --> 01:29:26,900
I think that is still disruptive to the, you know, the continuity of the area.

964
01:29:27,620 --> 01:29:34,040
So I just wanted to bring that up just, yeah, I just wanted to share that because I feel

965
01:29:34,040 --> 01:29:40,060
very passionately about that. And I realized I might be yelling into the void.

966
01:29:40,340 --> 01:29:45,180
There's nobody here to delegate for this, but it wasn't necessarily named,

967
01:29:45,320 --> 01:29:50,080
you know, aimed specifically at the applicants for this application. It was just

968
01:29:50,080 --> 01:29:57,080
kind of a general comment, general encouragement for us to think more about the...

969
01:30:00,000 --> 01:30:29,860
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

970
01:30:29,860 --> 01:30:34,560
of fit addition, kind of, you know, not just taking a whole building and throwing it in landfill.

971
01:30:35,180 --> 01:30:38,840
Thank you. Thank you, Magda.

972
01:30:39,660 --> 01:30:40,220
Stuff?

973
01:30:42,730 --> 01:30:47,970
Through the chair. I believe that there was some discussion of having

974
01:30:48,530 --> 01:30:54,390
these types of policies incorporated into the new official plan. I don't

975
01:30:56,430 --> 01:31:01,270
know where that landed or what the policies are. I don't have them in front of me,

976
01:31:01,270 --> 01:31:06,950
but I certainly appreciate that the comments that you've made and definitely something for us to consider as we

977
01:31:08,250 --> 01:31:08,930
continue

978
01:31:10,090 --> 01:31:15,310
working on any sort of a policy development projects that come up.

979
01:31:18,810 --> 01:31:19,730
Thank you very much.

980
01:31:22,320 --> 01:31:25,960
Any other questions comments? Yes Laura.

981
01:31:28,370 --> 01:31:34,610
Thank you. I had read some discussion and concern about the large-scale

982
01:31:34,610 --> 01:31:42,570
replacement homes and I just wondered if this, does this application suggest that the city

983
01:31:42,570 --> 01:31:50,230
needs clearer policies on dwelling size and massing in upper dune or does staff feel

984
01:31:50,230 --> 01:31:52,330
that the policies are sufficient?

985
01:31:57,220 --> 01:32:00,580
Through the chair, as I mentioned, the upper dune

986
01:32:00,580 --> 01:32:06,940
heritage conservation district plan does not mention size of dwelling specifically.

987
01:32:06,940 --> 01:32:15,820
So when we are reviewing applications for new construction within the district, we look

988
01:32:15,820 --> 01:32:23,940
at other existing dwellings that are located within the area, but also consider context

989
01:32:23,940 --> 01:32:28,620
of those properties as well.

990
01:32:28,620 --> 01:32:39,140
with respect to potentially reviewing the policies of the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District Plan.

991
01:32:39,360 --> 01:32:46,520
That's not something that's been identified on heritage planning staff's work plan in the future.

992
01:32:47,620 --> 01:32:53,240
But each application is reviewed based on its own merit.

993
01:32:53,240 --> 01:32:53,660
All right, so,

994
01:32:56,190 --> 01:32:56,890
thank you.

995
01:33:00,520 --> 01:33:02,500
Thank you, Laura.

996
01:33:05,710 --> 01:33:08,980
I think in the report, if you look in the report

997
01:33:08,980 --> 01:33:11,620
of which Victoria presented,

998
01:33:12,680 --> 01:33:14,840
there is quite a bit of discussion

999
01:33:14,840 --> 01:33:19,580
as to what happened following 2014.

1000
01:33:20,180 --> 01:33:27,220
And the discussion, and it is of concern

1001
01:33:27,220 --> 01:33:38,220
because of the heritage buildings and houses that are of much smaller and most of them that

1002
01:33:38,220 --> 01:33:41,000
exist are 3,000 square feet and less.

1003
01:33:43,380 --> 01:33:48,940
Thank you. All right. I will go to the motion then that

1004
01:33:50,440 --> 01:33:56,040
We have pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Permit Application.

1005
01:33:59,140 --> 01:34:07,520
HPA 2026V-016B approved to permit the demolition of an existing single detached dwelling and

1006
01:34:07,520 --> 01:34:12,700
the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the property and unisably addressed

1007
01:34:12,700 --> 01:34:19,160
as 1290 Dune Village Road in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with

1008
01:34:19,160 --> 01:34:25,660
this application and subject to the following conditions, one that a tree management plan

1009
01:34:25,660 --> 01:34:32,100
and arborist report be submitted and approved prior to the issues of a heritage permit

1010
01:34:32,100 --> 01:34:38,000
and further, two, that the final building permit drawings be reviewed, heritage clearance

1011
01:34:38,000 --> 01:34:43,280
provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

1012
01:34:43,280 --> 01:34:47,640
that. So who would move this one?

1013
01:34:50,000 --> 01:34:55,160
Accounts from a show. Any questions? All those in favor?

1014
01:34:58,340 --> 01:34:58,810
Opposed?

1015
01:35:01,510 --> 01:35:12,470
No. So one abstin. All right. Moving on then. 4.3 Heritage Permit Application

1016
01:35:12,470 --> 01:35:23,170
HPA 2026, the dash 01951 Dunebrook place, demolition and construction of single detached dwellings.

1017
01:35:23,530 --> 01:35:29,230
The SD 2026305, Victoria Groen, will present.

1018
01:35:33,750 --> 01:35:34,670
Thank you, Madam Chair.

1019
01:35:35,370 --> 01:35:40,270
The Development Services Department is in receipt of a heritage permit application for the property

1020
01:35:40,270 --> 01:35:42,730
immediately addressed as 51 Dunebrook place.

1021
01:35:43,170 --> 01:35:47,430
The property is located within the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District and designated

1022
01:35:47,430 --> 01:35:49,630
under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act.

1023
01:35:50,410 --> 01:35:55,770
Dunebrook place is located in the western limits of the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District.

1024
01:35:56,690 --> 01:36:01,950
The subject, Heritage Permit Application, contemplates the demolition of the existing single detached

1025
01:36:01,950 --> 01:36:05,410
dwelling and the construction of a new single detached dwelling in its place.

1026
01:36:05,410 --> 01:36:11,800
The existing dwelling is identified in the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District Plan

1027
01:36:11,800 --> 01:36:13,220
as a non-historic building.

1028
01:36:13,940 --> 01:36:19,500
The dwelling was constructed circa 1968 and the attached garage was added in 2006.

1029
01:36:20,320 --> 01:36:26,380
The existing dwelling is approximately 3,600 square feet and set back approximately 10 meters

1030
01:36:26,380 --> 01:36:27,980
from the street at the closest point.

1031
01:36:29,040 --> 01:36:32,260
No heritage attributes have been identified to be retained.

1032
01:36:32,260 --> 01:36:33,320
The

1033
01:36:36,000 --> 01:36:41,760
new dwelling is proposed to be located in the general location of the existing as shown on the slide.

1034
01:36:42,620 --> 01:36:52,740
So the yellow is where the existing building footprint is located and the blue outline is the proposed new building footprint.

1035
01:36:53,720 --> 01:36:58,440
The new dwelling is proposed to be two stories in height with an attached one-story garage.

1036
01:36:58,440 --> 01:37:06,860
The proposed dwelling is 3,760 square feet and is cited to be 2.5 meters closer to the

1037
01:37:06,860 --> 01:37:12,220
street than the existing dwelling to account for updated zoning regulations and setback requirements.

1038
01:37:13,260 --> 01:37:18,360
Grading challenges have been identified which also contribute to the reciting of the proposed

1039
01:37:18,360 --> 01:37:19,600
dwelling on the property.

1040
01:37:21,420 --> 01:37:25,640
The height of the proposed dwelling is 29 feet 6 inches at the front elevation.

1041
01:37:25,640 --> 01:37:31,040
There is a significant grade change towards the rear of the dwelling with the most noticeable

1042
01:37:31,040 --> 01:37:35,760
impact on the west facade where the building appears to be three stories in height.

1043
01:37:36,660 --> 01:37:40,860
The proposed cladding is primarily red brick with stucco and wood accents on the front

1044
01:37:40,860 --> 01:37:45,620
facade and the ground story at the rear of the dwelling is proposed to be clad in stone.

1045
01:37:46,600 --> 01:37:54,700
Two trees are proposed to be removed on site and the applicant has indicated that there will

1046
01:37:54,700 --> 01:37:56,560
be replacement of those trees.

1047
01:38:01,260 --> 01:38:05,760
In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following.

1048
01:38:06,660 --> 01:38:11,520
The existing dwelling is identified as a non-historic building and does not contain significant

1049
01:38:11,520 --> 01:38:13,140
historic architectural features.

1050
01:38:13,760 --> 01:38:18,540
The proposal is generally compliant with the upper-dune heritage conservation district policies

1051
01:38:18,540 --> 01:38:22,660
regarding the form, the roof, windows, materials, and sighting.

1052
01:38:22,660 --> 01:38:28,080
And the size of the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the size of the dwelling that exists.

1053
01:38:29,220 --> 01:38:33,340
It is the opinion of heritage planning staff that the proposed demolition and

1054
01:38:33,340 --> 01:38:40,420
new construction is not anticipated to adversely impact the Dune Book Street or

1055
01:38:40,420 --> 01:38:42,880
the Upper Dune Heritage Conservation District.

1056
01:38:44,490 --> 01:38:50,780
And so heritage planning staff recommend approval of the application subject to the following

1057
01:38:50,780 --> 01:38:55,200
in condition that the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance

1058
01:38:55,200 --> 01:38:59,900
provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. And that

1059
01:38:59,900 --> 01:39:02,320
concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you.

1060
01:39:03,920 --> 01:39:08,440
Thank you. Thank you, Victoria.

1061
01:39:10,820 --> 01:39:15,240
Do we have anyone here for the application?

1062
01:39:15,240 --> 01:39:24,940
question. All right. Just for questions to answer. All right. Then are there questions

1063
01:39:24,940 --> 01:39:30,520
of staff or the delegation? Yes. Councilor Chapman.

1064
01:39:30,860 --> 01:39:40,120
Yeah. I just wanted to thank Magda for bringing this to our attention. I am looking at the official

1065
01:39:40,120 --> 01:39:45,740
plan 2051, and I can't get through it all in the time that we have here, but one of the

1066
01:39:45,740 --> 01:39:51,640
clauses that I just came across was referring to the circular economy, right, which would require

1067
01:39:51,640 --> 01:40:00,700
it says the city can establish standards to ensure at least 75% of buildings of a buildings demolition

1068
01:40:00,700 --> 01:40:07,760
material is diverted from landfills. So I guess I'd like staff to speak to that and I know we've

1069
01:40:07,760 --> 01:40:13,600
already passed the one application, but maybe you could speak to it in regard to this

1070
01:40:13,600 --> 01:40:14,180
application.

1071
01:40:17,390 --> 01:40:21,670
Through you, Madam Chair. So, Kitchen 2051 has been approved by Council

1072
01:40:21,670 --> 01:40:26,010
and was still in front of the province for final consideration. However, there is a new

1073
01:40:26,010 --> 01:40:32,470
section that Councillor Chapman is referring to the waste of resources. And what that chapter

1074
01:40:32,470 --> 01:40:38,350
calls out is that there's a driving need to divert material from landfills and to reduce

1075
01:40:38,350 --> 01:40:43,590
the need for new raw materials and energy, and it talks about a circular economy where

1076
01:40:43,590 --> 01:40:46,490
we repair, reuse, recover, and recycle things.

1077
01:40:47,050 --> 01:40:50,590
This is different than the current approach where most things are made used and disposed

1078
01:40:50,590 --> 01:40:55,030
of, changes in natural system energy systems and trade and partners all lead us to a more

1079
01:40:55,030 --> 01:40:56,010
circular economy.

1080
01:40:56,650 --> 01:41:01,830
So that is the overall objective between now and 2021, and there are policies, there's three

1081
01:41:01,830 --> 01:41:07,670
policies in this section which talk about creating the circular economy strategy for development

1082
01:41:07,670 --> 01:41:21,990
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.

1083
01:41:22,730 --> 01:41:36,650
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

1084
01:41:36,650 --> 01:41:41,390
where they do become waste, ensure that 75% of the materials are diverted from landfill.

1085
01:41:41,870 --> 01:41:55,570
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.

1086
01:41:55,830 --> 01:42:01,490
There are some in place now, I know that building materials, some of them are sorted, some of them are reused.

1087
01:42:01,490 --> 01:42:04,770
some building materials actually reused at the landfill,

1088
01:42:05,030 --> 01:42:08,050
but that is a growing body of work.

1089
01:42:08,190 --> 01:42:09,690
And it's something that this policy supports

1090
01:42:09,690 --> 01:42:12,870
over the fullness of time of our kitchen in 2021 plan.

1091
01:42:14,010 --> 01:42:19,330
But if we were to be more restrictive on demolition

1092
01:42:19,330 --> 01:42:24,870
and look at retrofitting and working within the existing structures

1093
01:42:25,390 --> 01:42:28,210
we wouldn't have the landfill problem.

1094
01:42:28,690 --> 01:42:30,370
I mean, bringing it back to us as a city,

1095
01:42:30,370 --> 01:42:37,170
What tools do we have to ensure that we're being environmentally proper?

1096
01:42:39,110 --> 01:42:43,830
And like I said, I just pulled that out quickly out of the official plan.

1097
01:42:43,950 --> 01:42:49,670
I'm sure you could direct us to other aspects of the official plan that might speak more

1098
01:42:49,670 --> 01:42:52,130
specifically to demolition.

1099
01:42:54,220 --> 01:42:55,200
Yes, and through the chair.

1100
01:42:55,420 --> 01:43:00,440
So certainly, that's within the energy conservation section.

1101
01:43:00,440 --> 01:43:04,880
there are also cultural heritage sections including the retention and

1102
01:43:04,880 --> 01:43:09,000
designating and retaining of buildings. So it's something that I think this

1103
01:43:09,000 --> 01:43:12,460
committee rightfully points out that an existing building is the

1104
01:43:12,460 --> 01:43:15,200
greenest building and we've been working hard through our

1105
01:43:15,720 --> 01:43:18,720
municipal heritage review to designate properties to ensure that

1106
01:43:19,480 --> 01:43:24,480
they will be retained over time. So it's not something that's lost on us but it's

1107
01:43:24,480 --> 01:43:27,740
something that's part of our objectives between now and 2021.

1108
01:43:27,740 --> 01:43:28,920
And

1109
01:43:31,030 --> 01:43:36,350
if another application of the start were to come forward, would staff be in a position

1110
01:43:36,350 --> 01:43:39,110
to reject it before it comes to heritage?

1111
01:43:41,320 --> 01:43:48,780
Through the chairs, so in terms of, I won't hypothesize about future applications, but

1112
01:43:48,780 --> 01:43:55,100
I will say there are residential demolition considerations within the Planning Act, and

1113
01:43:55,100 --> 01:43:59,440
then there's retention in building material recycling programs.

1114
01:43:59,440 --> 01:44:14,040
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.

1115
01:44:19,720 --> 01:44:27,360
Thank you, Councillor Chaplin. Any other questions? Yes, Peter.

1116
01:44:29,000 --> 01:44:38,200
I have a question. I remember when I first joined the committee many years ago that there

1117
01:44:38,200 --> 01:44:43,000
was more development that was going on, redevelopment that was going on in the

1118
01:44:43,000 --> 01:44:55,820
area. And there was a lot of frankly anger and a lot of negative feedback from the residents

1119
01:44:55,820 --> 01:44:56,980
of Doom 4.

1120
01:45:00,000 --> 01:45:08,200
Committee as approving large buildings that were inappropriate in scale and inappropriate in

1121
01:45:08,200 --> 01:45:16,460
style for the, for the due neighborhood. Since there hasn't been any development substantially

1122
01:45:16,460 --> 01:45:27,700
since 2014, we haven't had to experience that. So my question is, even though this building

1123
01:45:27,700 --> 01:45:35,220
building is, for it goes from 3,600 square feet to 3,760 square feet, as a building footprint.

1124
01:45:36,040 --> 01:45:41,560
It appears that the gross floor area of the building is substantially larger than the building that is there.

1125
01:45:41,920 --> 01:45:45,220
So this building is three stories from the back, two stories from the front.

1126
01:45:46,100 --> 01:45:54,200
So in terms of the total mass of the building, it looks much larger than the building is there.

1127
01:45:54,200 --> 01:45:59,860
So my question is, have the neighbors been consulted over this proposal?

1128
01:46:04,370 --> 01:46:24,350
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.

1129
01:46:24,350 --> 01:46:28,210
but through city process that has not happened.

1130
01:46:30,190 --> 01:46:30,870
Thank you.

1131
01:46:32,170 --> 01:46:33,150
Thank you, Peter.

1132
01:46:35,210 --> 01:46:38,870
In the audience, do we have a delegation who would like to speak?

1133
01:46:45,910 --> 01:46:48,530
Good evening. I'm the owner of 51 Dune Brook.

1134
01:46:49,230 --> 01:46:50,870
So I have...

1135
01:46:50,870 --> 01:46:51,230
Sorry.

1136
01:46:51,470 --> 01:46:54,830
Okay. I'm the owner of 51 Dune Brook.

1137
01:46:55,090 --> 01:46:56,890
So regarding the size of the building,

1138
01:46:57,230 --> 01:46:58,810
currently it's one and a half story building.

1139
01:46:58,810 --> 01:47:13,530
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.

1140
01:47:14,390 --> 01:47:25,250
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.

1141
01:47:25,250 --> 01:47:33,210
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.

1142
01:47:33,610 --> 01:47:38,090
The total height does not increase substantially because of expanding the second floor.

1143
01:47:38,830 --> 01:47:42,930
Regarding the neighbors, there are five housed in the Dundbrooke Village and the Dundbrooke place.

1144
01:47:43,190 --> 01:47:48,130
We've been living there for the five years. We are all friends there with pretty much all the neighbors.

1145
01:47:48,290 --> 01:47:54,870
We get together regularly, so we've been informing them about the plans and showed them designs of the buildings that color renderings.

1146
01:47:54,870 --> 01:47:58,630
As far as like two years ago, we've been discussing that with them.

1147
01:47:59,830 --> 01:48:01,190
So that's what I have to say on that.

1148
01:48:05,180 --> 01:48:05,840
Yes, Peter.

1149
01:48:09,260 --> 01:48:12,680
The member of the Heritage Committee who is the representative for Dune,

1150
01:48:13,840 --> 01:48:21,180
I wonder if I could solicit their opinion on the necessity of whether there's a necessity

1151
01:48:21,180 --> 01:48:24,560
for neighborhood consultation above which has already been done.

1152
01:48:26,760 --> 01:48:27,820
Yes,

1153
01:48:33,440 --> 01:48:46,680
I'm in the initial meeting that was a question, and I understand that the owners

1154
01:48:46,740 --> 01:48:55,580
have asked the other neighbors about their proposal and presented it.

1155
01:48:55,580 --> 01:49:09,040
But I think it is very important, I have concerns about the back end and how it is

1156
01:49:09,040 --> 01:49:17,500
going to fare with all the buildings, the bungalows that are immediate to the right and

1157
01:49:17,500 --> 01:49:18,640
left of this property.

1158
01:49:21,220 --> 01:49:21,940
Actually.

1159
01:49:22,180 --> 01:49:23,680
Any other questions of the delegation?

1160
01:49:26,500 --> 01:49:27,520
Peter, do you have any more?

1161
01:49:28,020 --> 01:49:28,480
Thank you.

1162
01:49:28,480 --> 01:49:29,300
Thank

1163
01:49:32,620 --> 01:49:32,940
you.

1164
01:49:35,260 --> 01:49:35,800
Oh,

1165
01:49:38,580 --> 01:49:45,380
Magda. I just wondered what is the actual exterior cladding proposed because

1166
01:49:45,380 --> 01:49:53,780
we in the report we see it says brick in the rendering it looks like staco or something and in

1167
01:49:53,780 --> 01:50:01,400
the drawing it looks like a stone. So would you be able to clarify what the exterior cladding will be?

1168
01:50:01,400 --> 01:50:08,160
Yes, the upper two levels are going to be red brick, closely resembling the existing

1169
01:50:08,160 --> 01:50:13,680
brick, so we've selected the brick with a very similar texture and a very similar color.

1170
01:50:14,520 --> 01:50:20,060
And the lower level, which is only visible from the left side and from the back, is going

1171
01:50:20,060 --> 01:50:21,940
to be a gray stone.

1172
01:50:22,680 --> 01:50:26,980
And stock accents are going to be only where the cables are.

1173
01:50:26,980 --> 01:50:40,620
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.

1174
01:50:40,840 --> 01:50:45,600
Then it would have been either just a flat two-story tall building with a flat facade.

1175
01:50:50,830 --> 01:50:57,500
Thank you, Magda. Any other scene none? Thank you very much.

1176
01:50:58,970 --> 01:51:09,550
All right. We have a motion before us pursuant to section 42 of the Ontario Heritage

1177
01:51:10,470 --> 01:51:19,310
Permit Application HPA 2026 V-019 be approved to permit a demolition of an existing single

1178
01:51:19,310 --> 01:51:24,670
detached dwelling and the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the property.

1179
01:51:24,670 --> 01:51:30,450
Municipally addressed is 51 Dunebrook Place in accordance with the supplementary information

1180
01:51:30,970 --> 01:51:36,510
submitted with this application and subject to the following condition that the final building

1181
01:51:36,510 --> 01:51:42,510
permit drawings be reviewed in heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to

1182
01:51:42,510 --> 01:51:45,210
the issues of a building permit.

1183
01:51:45,730 --> 01:51:47,430
Who will move this?

1184
01:51:48,770 --> 01:51:50,690
Grant will move it.

1185
01:51:50,690 --> 01:51:54,070
Any further questions? All those in favor?

1186
01:51:56,780 --> 01:51:58,660
A, one abstention.

1187
01:51:59,920 --> 01:52:00,720
Thank you.

1188
01:52:06,880 --> 01:52:12,880
And I neglected to say that item 4.2 and 4.3 will go to

1189
01:52:14,320 --> 01:52:17,700
Council September 28th, 2026.

1190
01:52:18,760 --> 01:52:24,700
Now we have Heritage Permit Application HPA 2026 V-024,

1191
01:52:25,480 --> 01:52:33,460
421 St. Ledger Street Construction of Side Yard Edition DSD 2026318, Victoria Grun.

1192
01:52:34,380 --> 01:52:37,220
IRT's planner will present, thank you.

1193
01:52:40,810 --> 01:52:42,970
Through you, Madam Chair, I will be presenting this report.

1194
01:52:43,470 --> 01:52:45,470
So bear with me, we're

1195
01:52:51,800 --> 01:52:53,180
out of order, here's this bear with me.

1196
01:52:54,320 --> 01:52:55,040
There we go.

1197
01:52:57,800 --> 01:53:00,640
So the application before us is 21 St. Ledger Street.

1198
01:53:00,960 --> 01:53:04,520
It's located between the south side of St. Ledger Street and

1199
01:53:04,520 --> 01:53:06,460
and between Victoria Street North.

1200
01:53:06,920 --> 01:53:10,200
It is designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act

1201
01:53:11,000 --> 01:53:13,000
through its location within the Civic Center

1202
01:53:13,000 --> 01:53:15,240
Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District.

1203
01:53:15,600 --> 01:53:18,640
It contains a two-story Berlin vernacular brick dwelling

1204
01:53:18,640 --> 01:53:20,680
constructed around 1920.

1205
01:53:21,600 --> 01:53:23,880
The proposal is to replace an existing porch

1206
01:53:23,880 --> 01:53:25,860
with a new side yard addition,

1207
01:53:26,600 --> 01:53:28,500
retain the original brickwork and openings,

1208
01:53:29,320 --> 01:53:31,600
relocate entrance steps within the new addition

1209
01:53:31,600 --> 01:53:36,140
and use contemporary materials complementary to the historic dwelling.

1210
01:53:38,560 --> 01:53:46,220
This is a slide showing in plan view to the left, the proposed addition, and then an elevation,

1211
01:53:46,820 --> 01:53:51,680
a hand sketched elevation of the proposed addition to the right.

1212
01:53:56,600 --> 01:54:03,260
This is the existing condition, so you can see there's already an existing addition off the

1213
01:54:03,260 --> 01:54:10,460
side of the house with a porch and situated in front of the entry and then us the window

1214
01:54:10,460 --> 01:54:14,180
located directly adjacent to the porch so that this is the existing condition current.

1215
01:54:18,960 --> 01:54:23,120
So the merits of this application that proposed addition is subordinate to the original 1910

1216
01:54:23,120 --> 01:54:28,780
Berlin vernacular dwelling, allowing the historical building to remain the prominent feature on

1217
01:54:28,780 --> 01:54:29,320
the property.

1218
01:54:29,920 --> 01:54:34,720
The addition is complementary in form, massing and roof design while remaining distinguishable

1219
01:54:34,720 --> 01:54:37,480
from the original construction through the use of contemporary materials.

1220
01:54:38,140 --> 01:54:43,480
The proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the Civic Center Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District Plan.

1221
01:54:44,120 --> 01:54:48,620
It is compatible with the guidelines for subordinate distinguishable and complementary additions.

1222
01:54:57,090 --> 01:55:00,770
So, Sandra, that's the report.

1223
01:55:03,710 --> 01:55:07,950
Fine. Are there any questions about this proposal?

1224
01:55:09,530 --> 01:55:10,530
Yes, Magda.

1225
01:55:11,390 --> 01:55:16,890
I just wondered the owner's application indicates that this is the second request for this

1226
01:55:16,890 --> 01:55:17,350
project.

1227
01:55:17,350 --> 01:55:23,810
And I was just wondering what happened with the first did it just peter out or was there

1228
01:55:23,810 --> 01:55:24,250
an issue?

1229
01:55:28,880 --> 01:55:29,880
Can you hear me?

1230
01:55:30,200 --> 01:55:33,000
I am the homeowner of 21 St. Leider Street.

1231
01:55:34,430 --> 01:55:41,760
We drew a proposal for this edition along with our front porch proposal last year and it

1232
01:55:41,760 --> 01:55:48,900
was deemed at the time that that was just too much to work through, so in order to proceed

1233
01:55:48,900 --> 01:55:55,700
on our front porch we had to put a big X through our drawing for the side porch. So I have had it

1234
01:55:55,700 --> 01:56:05,780
drawn up by a building designer already and then that was determined to be to not subordinate to our

1235
01:56:05,780 --> 01:56:09,700
proposed our house so we've drawn it up again.

1236
01:56:11,820 --> 01:56:12,480
Thank you.

1237
01:56:15,850 --> 01:56:18,510
Are there any other questions for the delegation?

1238
01:56:20,370 --> 01:56:21,230
Councilor Chapman?

1239
01:56:21,490 --> 01:56:21,590
Yeah.

1240
01:56:21,930 --> 01:56:26,610
What is the setback from the adjacent property of this addition?

1241
01:56:27,110 --> 01:56:28,790
There should be at least four feet.

1242
01:56:29,330 --> 01:56:30,510
Like it's within...

1243
01:56:30,510 --> 01:56:32,650
I figured it would be, but I was just curious to know with it.

1244
01:56:32,810 --> 01:56:33,710
So it's about four feet.

1245
01:56:34,370 --> 01:56:34,450
Yep.

1246
01:56:35,150 --> 01:56:35,270
Okay.

1247
01:56:35,550 --> 01:56:35,810
Thank you.

1248
01:56:35,810 --> 01:56:36,830
Thank

1249
01:56:38,940 --> 01:56:41,340
you, Councillor Chapman. Any other, yes, Peter?

1250
01:56:43,580 --> 01:56:51,680
Yeah, the, in, we see a lot of additions that come up on heritage buildings in the heritage

1251
01:56:51,680 --> 01:57:02,200
district. And for the most part, it's, if it is not visible from the street, from the

1252
01:57:02,200 --> 01:57:08,280
public realm, right? Then, personally, I say, like, have at it, right? You know, it's like,

1253
01:57:10,000 --> 01:57:15,720
it's it's it's really no concern to the public about what happens in in the parts of the

1254
01:57:15,720 --> 01:57:20,360
building that that are not visible. But in this one, there's there's one thing that is visible

1255
01:57:20,360 --> 01:57:28,580
from the street that is that I find inconsistent. And that is the shape of that window on the on

1256
01:57:28,580 --> 01:57:29,220
on the front of it.

1257
01:57:29,640 --> 01:57:34,720
And it has that angled, it has a top that angles up

1258
01:57:35,080 --> 01:57:38,880
to match the line of the roof.

1259
01:57:39,340 --> 01:57:42,700
Well, we need to, I want to leave the two windows

1260
01:57:42,700 --> 01:57:45,460
that are on that side aspect of the house as they are.

1261
01:57:45,660 --> 01:57:46,400
So it has to be high.

1262
01:57:46,440 --> 01:57:47,740
Sorry, could you speak closer to the mic?

1263
01:57:47,920 --> 01:57:48,040
Sure.

1264
01:57:48,420 --> 01:57:52,540
So we need to take in the window as well as the door

1265
01:57:53,160 --> 01:57:56,340
in order, so it's high there to cover the window,

1266
01:57:56,340 --> 01:57:57,540
which is actually high.

1267
01:57:58,120 --> 01:58:03,260
the the windows that are currently on that wall are going to remain intact one of

1268
01:58:03,260 --> 01:58:07,160
them will be inside the mudroom and the other one will be outside the mudroom.

1269
01:58:07,600 --> 01:58:12,400
Right so it's just the one elevation at the front facing the very front right

1270
01:58:12,400 --> 01:58:19,660
that has like to it can we look at it so I know which one you mean I don't know so

1271
01:58:19,660 --> 01:58:24,500
it's the one where I'm taking in the one window because it has to cover has to

1272
01:58:24,500 --> 01:58:27,540
cover the window and the door. Do you mean it?

1273
01:58:28,900 --> 01:58:33,120
Through you, Madam Chair, watch me struggle with this for a minute, but I'm going to get to where we need to.

1274
01:58:33,720 --> 01:58:34,860
That one? That's the one.

1275
01:58:35,020 --> 01:58:39,020
The window to the right of the door. Why is the top of the window sloped?

1276
01:58:39,520 --> 01:58:46,660
Oh, that was just to make best use of this space. It could easily be a rectangular window.

1277
01:58:47,240 --> 01:58:50,800
That's what I'm asking you to consider because I find that.

1278
01:58:51,120 --> 01:58:51,480
Absolutely.

1279
01:58:51,480 --> 01:58:55,720
The shape of that window is inconsistent with the language of the rest of the building

1280
01:58:55,720 --> 01:58:56,720
that faces the street.

1281
01:58:57,040 --> 01:58:57,200
Sure.

1282
01:58:57,600 --> 01:58:58,580
I'm happy to change that.

1283
01:58:59,060 --> 01:59:00,840
That's my old name.

1284
01:59:01,020 --> 01:59:01,360
Good notes.

1285
01:59:01,600 --> 01:59:01,820
Thank you.

1286
01:59:01,900 --> 01:59:02,340
Thank you.

1287
01:59:07,470 --> 01:59:08,410
Thank you, Peter.

1288
01:59:08,610 --> 01:59:10,610
Any other questions for the delegation?

1289
01:59:12,050 --> 01:59:12,870
Thank you.

1290
01:59:13,650 --> 01:59:13,930
Okay.

1291
01:59:14,230 --> 01:59:14,490
Thanks.

1292
01:59:17,450 --> 01:59:23,970
So I'm assuming then that your comment will be included.

1293
01:59:23,970 --> 01:59:30,950
Victoria you're taking note of what Peter has said okay all right we'll move

1294
01:59:30,950 --> 01:59:38,010
them to the motion pursuant to section 42 of the Interior Heritage Act

1295
01:59:38,010 --> 01:59:45,750
Heritage Permit Application HPA 2026 V-024 be approved to permit a

1296
01:59:45,750 --> 01:59:50,470
construction of a side yard addition to the property municipality addressed as

1297
01:59:50,470 --> 01:59:57,030
was 21 ledger street in accordance with the supplementary information sub

1298
02:00:00,000 --> 02:00:14,460
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?

1299
02:00:31,960 --> 02:00:32,520
Victoria.

1300
02:00:33,520 --> 02:00:36,960
Through the chair, actually, our student planner, Luke, is going to present this one.

1301
02:00:37,040 --> 02:00:37,320
Thank you.

1302
02:00:37,740 --> 02:00:38,520
Very good.

1303
02:00:57,580 --> 02:00:58,740
Thank you, Madam Chair.

1304
02:00:59,120 --> 02:01:03,820
The Development Services Department is in receipt of the Heritage application for the

1305
02:01:03,820 --> 02:01:07,140
Property Municipally Addressed as 17 Norfolk Crescent.

1306
02:01:08,820 --> 02:01:14,320
The property is located on the north side of Norfolk Crescent west of St. Clair Avenue.

1307
02:01:14,720 --> 02:01:19,220
It is designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act through its location within the

1308
02:01:19,220 --> 02:01:24,440
St. Mary's Heritage Conservation District, and it contains a one-and-a-half-story residential

1309
02:01:24,440 --> 02:01:29,320
dwelling representative of the traditional residential character found throughout the district.

1310
02:01:31,840 --> 02:01:35,600
What is being proposed in this application is the construction of a one-story

1311
02:01:35,600 --> 02:01:41,800
rear-edition to the existing dwelling, as illustrated in this drawing from the side of the dwelling.

1312
02:01:42,200 --> 02:01:45,960
The addition will contain wood-siding that complements the existing dwelling,

1313
02:01:45,960 --> 02:01:52,160
as is labeled on the drawing. It is also labeled above that the rear roof line will be extended

1314
02:01:52,160 --> 02:01:53,860
to make the addition possible.

1315
02:01:57,180 --> 02:01:59,660
The purpose of this application is to expand the existing

1316
02:01:59,660 --> 02:02:04,360
bathroom at the back of the dwelling, which is circled in red on the second drawing showing

1317
02:02:04,360 --> 02:02:09,120
the layout of the dwelling. Since the addition is completely in the rear

1318
02:02:09,120 --> 02:02:13,760
of the dwelling, this proposal will maintain limited visibility from the public streetscape.

1319
02:02:15,780 --> 02:02:30,700
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.

1320
02:02:31,300 --> 02:02:40,680
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.

1321
02:02:40,680 --> 02:02:52,480
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.

1322
02:02:53,320 --> 02:03:01,580
Further guidelines for residential additions which recommend against expanding the buildings width are met since the addition only extends towards the rear.

1323
02:03:02,400 --> 02:03:10,180
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.

1324
02:03:10,180 --> 02:03:26,820
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.

1325
02:03:27,320 --> 02:03:30,040
And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you.

1326
02:03:31,760 --> 02:03:38,020
Thank you, Luke. Any questions to Luke? Yes, Magda.

1327
02:03:38,020 --> 02:03:46,600
Thank you. I just noticed that the staff report says that according to the HCD plan, additions

1328
02:03:46,600 --> 02:03:50,600
at the rear should always be slightly lower than the existing roof ridge line, which is

1329
02:03:50,600 --> 02:03:58,280
the case, and stepped in at the sides. So this is a small detail, but this addition to

1330
02:03:58,280 --> 02:04:05,140
me does not look like it's stepped in. It goes right to the edge of the building. So I'm

1331
02:04:05,140 --> 02:04:12,480
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.

1332
02:04:20,650 --> 02:04:23,730
Through the chair, noted, thank you.

1333
02:04:25,110 --> 02:04:41,770
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.

1334
02:04:41,770 --> 02:04:49,970
with respect to that particular policy, it was determined that this edition meets the

1335
02:04:50,470 --> 02:04:55,770
overall intent with respect to editions being located at the rear end and being subordinate

1336
02:04:55,770 --> 02:04:59,030
to the primary dwelling on the property.

1337
02:05:03,800 --> 02:05:07,620
Thank you, Magda, your questions answered, right?

1338
02:05:08,140 --> 02:05:12,480
Any other questions or comments?

1339
02:05:12,480 --> 02:05:19,440
So we'll have the motion that pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage

1340
02:05:19,440 --> 02:05:28,200
Permit Application HBA, 2026V-023 to permit the construction of one-story rear addition

1341
02:05:28,200 --> 02:05:34,700
on the property municipally addressed as 17 Norfolk Crescent be approved in accordance

1342
02:05:34,700 --> 02:05:40,460
with the supplementary information submitted with this application and subject to the following

1343
02:05:40,460 --> 02:05:46,740
condition that final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided

1344
02:05:46,740 --> 02:05:53,840
by heritage planning staff prior to the issues of a building permit. Who will move this?

1345
02:05:55,060 --> 02:06:00,240
Councillor Chapman, any comments? All those in favor?

1346
02:06:01,320 --> 02:06:04,520
Carried unanimously? I just want to say great job, move.

1347
02:06:04,520 --> 02:06:05,340
And

1348
02:06:15,060 --> 02:06:22,500
this will be delegated, it will be carried under delegated approval authority, okay.

1349
02:06:23,440 --> 02:06:33,720
All right, now we have notice of intention to designate 1051117 onward avenue under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act, Victoria.

1350
02:06:37,590 --> 02:06:38,550
Thank you, Madam Chair.

1351
02:06:39,130 --> 02:06:43,750
Heritage planning stuff is bringing forward a notice of intention to designate the property

1352
02:06:43,750 --> 02:06:49,070
already municipally addressed as 105 to 117 onward avenue, this property was previously

1353
02:06:49,070 --> 02:06:53,970
considered by the Heritage Kitchener Committee in May and based on an evaluation of the

1354
02:06:53,970 --> 02:06:57,730
property, it would be six of nine criteria for designation.

1355
02:06:59,350 --> 02:07:04,830
The building on the subject property is representative of the structuralist architectural style characterized

1356
02:07:04,830 --> 02:07:10,970
by its cubic built form rectilinear massing of modest proportions, clear expression of interior

1357
02:07:10,970 --> 02:07:14,090
functions on the exterior of the building and the flat roof.

1358
02:07:14,470 --> 02:07:19,290
The building features two H-plan modules connected by a rectangular module.

1359
02:07:24,200 --> 02:07:28,740
The historical associative value of the property relates to the role of apartment buildings in

1360
02:07:28,740 --> 02:07:32,760
Kitchener's post-war housing boom in the original owner and builder, Michael Kraus.

1361
02:07:33,500 --> 02:07:38,140
The building illustrates the role of apartment buildings in addressing post-war housing needs

1362
02:07:38,140 --> 02:07:44,120
in Kitchener and this architectural style offered a utilitarian and economical solution for

1363
02:07:44,120 --> 02:07:49,500
for government buildings, public schools, and apartment complexes for the growing post-war population in Canada.

1364
02:07:50,220 --> 02:07:59,260
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.

1365
02:08:00,620 --> 02:08:07,980
And Michael Crouse founded Crouse Carpent Mills and Struidex Fibers in the late 1950s and early 1970s respectively.

1366
02:08:07,980 --> 02:08:10,600
Currently, these businesses are still in operation.

1367
02:08:11,220 --> 02:08:16,500
Crouse was also founder of Stam Investments, a company owned by the new Apostolic Church of Canada,

1368
02:08:16,760 --> 02:08:19,280
which was involved in apartment construction and land development.

1369
02:08:20,120 --> 02:08:25,460
He was either owner or builder of several other similar apartment complexes across the city.

1370
02:08:27,860 --> 02:08:31,760
The contextual value resides in the property's contribution to maintaining and

1371
02:08:31,760 --> 02:08:35,240
supporting the character of the onward avenue and we were 3D streetscapes.

1372
02:08:35,640 --> 02:08:39,140
The building is in its original location, maintains its original use,

1373
02:08:39,140 --> 02:08:46,020
and is located in an area which was represented of the limits of Kitchener's urban development.

1374
02:08:46,560 --> 02:08:51,120
There is a link between this building and the neighboring H-Plan apartment buildings at 265

1375
02:08:51,120 --> 02:08:55,980
Ubers Street East and 149, or 141 to 149 Board and Avenue North.

1376
02:08:59,150 --> 02:09:05,270
Based on the outlined information, heritage planning staff is recommending the following.

1377
02:09:05,270 --> 02:09:09,070
that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

1378
02:09:09,290 --> 02:09:13,150
The clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property,

1379
02:09:13,390 --> 02:09:18,950
municipally addressed as 105 to 117 onward avenue, as being of cultural heritage value or interest.

1380
02:09:19,570 --> 02:09:21,690
And that concludes my presentation on this item.

1381
02:09:21,910 --> 02:09:22,190
Thank you.

1382
02:09:23,490 --> 02:09:24,730
Thank you, Victoria.

1383
02:09:25,130 --> 02:09:27,090
Any questions on this one?

1384
02:09:29,660 --> 02:09:31,880
Seeing none, we'll move to the motion.

1385
02:09:31,880 --> 02:09:41,880
And if the motion, if the report receives approval from the Committee, I will go to council for approval September 28th.

1386
02:09:41,980 --> 02:09:52,700
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,

1387
02:09:52,700 --> 02:10:01,480
The municipal address as 105-117 onward avenue is being of cultural heritage value or interest.

1388
02:10:02,320 --> 02:10:03,760
Who will move it?

1389
02:10:04,240 --> 02:10:05,420
Councillor Mouschaud would.

1390
02:10:05,840 --> 02:10:06,880
All those in favor?

1391
02:10:08,180 --> 02:10:08,540
Carried.

1392
02:10:09,040 --> 02:10:09,500
Thank you.

1393
02:10:10,180 --> 02:10:19,720
So we've had several of these buildings built by the same person and it's interesting if

1394
02:10:19,720 --> 02:10:33,380
we had a file on I find. So information items, tracking, sheet, all right. I just wanted

1395
02:10:33,380 --> 02:10:39,940
to make a comment or two about those properties on Dune Village Road or sorry, the Heritage

1396
02:10:39,940 --> 02:10:47,440
Conservation of Dune and especially the 51 Dune Brook Place. And we're finding and there's

1397
02:10:47,440 --> 02:11:15,980
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.

1398
02:11:15,980 --> 02:11:21,600
and we like the more modern ones and what is up in the subdivision.

1399
02:11:22,300 --> 02:11:28,240
And so, you know, I'm wondering how we deal with this and we should be thinking of this

1400
02:11:28,240 --> 02:11:36,920
because these houses will be having a turnover in probably the next 10, 15 years

1401
02:11:36,920 --> 02:11:39,100
and then how to maintain them.

1402
02:11:39,740 --> 02:11:45,280
I think Magda, you have brought some very good information about reuse

1403
02:11:45,280 --> 02:11:54,140
and how to reuse them and make them fit according to the needs of today's society.

1404
02:11:54,820 --> 02:11:57,080
And we need to be thinking about that.

1405
02:11:57,840 --> 02:12:04,380
And perhaps staff can put that on its agenda of work, how we deal with it.

1406
02:12:05,200 --> 02:12:11,520
Two items of information, doors open, Waterloo Region is Saturday, September 19th.

1407
02:12:11,520 --> 02:12:16,700
If you go to the site, you'll see all the buildings listed that are open, the Waterloo County

1408
02:12:16,700 --> 02:12:24,620
jailing governor's house, if I can put in a plug for whoever would like to help, monitor

1409
02:12:25,010 --> 02:12:28,840
the doors and hand out pamphlets would be welcome.

1410
02:12:29,880 --> 02:12:38,700
And then lastly, the National Trust for Canada Conference, October 22nd to the 25th, 2026 Water

1411
02:12:38,700 --> 02:12:46,140
to region first time ever here and it will be at the crown plaza and also the

1412
02:12:46,140 --> 02:12:53,200
Walper Hotel. Good speakers. If you go on site on the site you will see the

1413
02:12:53,200 --> 02:12:59,100
speakers and also the many tours and Magda you're doing one tour of the

1414
02:12:59,100 --> 02:13:06,560
Victoria Park District. So very good. It's in the making. All right who would

1415
02:13:06,560 --> 02:13:07,660
I'd like to adjourn the meeting,

1416
02:13:09,960 --> 02:13:10,800
Councillor Michele.

1417
02:13:12,100 --> 02:13:13,380
Thank you very much.

1418
02:13:14,960 --> 02:13:17,320
We'll see you in November.