1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:19,300
Anyone interested in future meetings can register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca forward slash delegation, or via email at delegationatkitchener.ca.

2
00:00:19,300 --> 00:00:29,380
So, we'll now proceed to number two on our agenda which is disclosure, pecuniary, interest, or general nature thereof.

3
00:00:30,080 --> 00:00:33,160
Is there anyone with a pecuniary interest?

4
00:00:35,460 --> 00:00:37,680
Seeing none. Thank you.

5
00:00:38,580 --> 00:00:40,040
To our discussion items.

6
00:00:40,040 --> 00:01:05,700
The first one is the Heritage Permid Application HPA-2026 IV-021-16-20 Queen Street North removal of a portion of the side return and altering existing window opening into a door on the floor two of the front facade DSD-2026-316.

7
00:01:06,280 --> 00:01:13,880
Victoria Groen or Heritage Planner will provide a five-minute presentation and then we

8
00:01:13,880 --> 00:01:15,480
have some delegations.

9
00:01:17,730 --> 00:01:17,730
Victoria.

10
00:01:21,540 --> 00:01:25,420
Thank you Madam Chair. Before I begin this item I did want

11
00:01:25,420 --> 00:01:31,660
to just take a very brief moment to introduce our student planner, Luke Marlet, who is sitting

12
00:01:31,660 --> 00:01:37,180
next to me here. Luke will be presenting one of the items later on on this agenda but I just

13
00:01:37,180 --> 00:01:39,760
to introduce them to the committee before we begin.

14
00:01:40,340 --> 00:01:41,080
Thank you.

15
00:01:44,750 --> 00:01:48,250
So the Development Services Department is in receipt of a Heritage

16
00:01:48,250 --> 00:01:54,590
Permit application, HPA-2026, IV-021 for the property

17
00:01:54,590 --> 00:01:58,010
municipally addressed as 16 to 20 Queen Street North.

18
00:01:58,610 --> 00:02:02,350
This property is designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act

19
00:02:02,350 --> 00:02:06,650
through designating by law, 2022-077.

20
00:02:07,590 --> 00:02:13,190
This property is subject to an active site plan application which contemplates retention of the

21
00:02:13,190 --> 00:02:19,370
front facade and portion of the side returns as part of the construction of a multi-story residential tower.

22
00:02:20,390 --> 00:02:29,090
A Heritage Permit application received conditional approval in 2022 for the partial demolition of the existing building and the construction of a tower.

23
00:02:29,970 --> 00:02:48,010
The proposal outlined in the Heritage Permanent Application before the committee this evening is to further reduce a portion of the return on the south side of the building and to alter an existing second story window opening on the front facade to accommodate a new door for balcony access.

24
00:02:54,250 --> 00:03:01,630
The Heritage Attributes, as identified in the designation by law, include exterior attributes

25
00:03:01,630 --> 00:03:05,970
that are primarily located on the front or east facade of the building.

26
00:03:06,710 --> 00:03:10,450
The brick with flimish bonding is also found on the side south return.

27
00:03:11,470 --> 00:03:19,180
So I've included an excerpt from the designating by law on this slide here for the committee's

28
00:03:19,180 --> 00:03:24,940
review and information of the exterior heritage attributes that have been identified on this

29
00:03:24,940 --> 00:03:25,380
property.

30
00:03:29,280 --> 00:03:33,980
As noted, the property is subject to an active site plan application, which has received

31
00:03:33,980 --> 00:03:38,740
conditional approval, as well as a heritage permit application, which has received conditional

32
00:03:38,740 --> 00:03:45,800
approval back in 2022. Since that time, an amendment application was received in 2025 to reduce

33
00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:52,000
the conditionally approved 34 story tower to 21 stories and as part of that amendment, there

34
00:03:52,000 --> 00:03:58,940
were no changes to the heritage facades contemplated. In July of this year, an amendment

35
00:03:58,940 --> 00:04:05,000
application was received to further reduce or to request further changes to the site plan

36
00:04:05,000 --> 00:04:12,180
application including a reduction in building height from 34 to 19 stories, reducing the community

37
00:04:12,180 --> 00:04:18,040
benefit space on the ground floor, introducing two commercial units on the ground floor facing

38
00:04:18,040 --> 00:04:24,040
Gaudi's lane, alternate existing window opening on the front facade to provide a second

39
00:04:24,040 --> 00:04:30,720
story balcony access and reducing the excavation required to preserve the portions of the

40
00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:36,040
existing building being retained. In order to facilitate these site plan changes, a portion

41
00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:39,040
of the south side return is proposed to be removed.

42
00:04:39,840 --> 00:04:42,840
And the slide shows what was conditionally approved

43
00:04:42,840 --> 00:04:45,700
in the portions of this facade to be retained

44
00:04:45,700 --> 00:04:47,960
as part of the original site plan submission

45
00:04:47,960 --> 00:04:49,720
as shown on the left.

46
00:04:50,420 --> 00:04:56,120
And then what is now proposed on the right.

47
00:05:00,350 --> 00:05:02,570
The images on the slide for the demonstrate

48
00:05:03,230 --> 00:05:06,610
what is proposed with respect to the reduction

49
00:05:06,610 --> 00:05:08,690
in the south side return.

50
00:05:08,690 --> 00:05:20,090
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.

51
00:05:20,950 --> 00:05:26,470
And the image on the right shows what the existing south facade looks like.

52
00:05:33,570 --> 00:05:41,910
As noted, a window on the second story of the front facade is now proposed to be altered to accommodate a door opening for access to the balcony.

53
00:05:41,910 --> 00:05:47,010
And the image on this screen notes where this change is proposed.

54
00:05:51,670 --> 00:05:55,270
In reviewing the merits of the application heritage planning staff note the following,

55
00:05:55,750 --> 00:06:00,470
the majority of the identified heritage attributes are located on the front east facade,

56
00:06:01,150 --> 00:06:03,730
which is proposed to be conserved in its entirety.

57
00:06:04,550 --> 00:06:09,570
The proposed alteration of a secondary window opening to a door will not adversely impact

58
00:06:09,570 --> 00:06:12,450
the cultural heritage value of the building.

59
00:06:12,450 --> 00:06:29,110
A portion of the side, including the brickwork, will remain to maintain the legibility of the historic structure and the proposal facilitates redevelopment while preserving the building's character defining elements as identified within the designating by law.

60
00:06:32,860 --> 00:06:44,080
And as such, Heritage Planning staff is recommending a approval of the Heritage Permit application subject to the three conditions as shown on the screen.

61
00:06:44,600 --> 00:06:57,260
The first one being that the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum that was recently provided be approved by the director of development and housing approvals prior to the issuance of a Heritage Permit.

62
00:06:57,260 --> 00:07:03,900
that an updated conservation plan, the submitted and approved, and that the final building

63
00:07:03,900 --> 00:07:06,780
permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided.

64
00:07:07,620 --> 00:07:14,340
I also want to note that the conditions as outlined in the previous heritage permit application

65
00:07:14,340 --> 00:07:20,820
from 2022, which facilitates the demolition of the building and construction of the

66
00:07:20,820 --> 00:07:24,980
new tower are still applicable to this as well.

67
00:07:24,980 --> 00:07:28,540
And that concludes my presentation on this item.

68
00:07:28,660 --> 00:07:29,300
Thank you.

69
00:07:32,520 --> 00:07:46,780
I assume that there might be questions for staff, however, I would like to proceed with the delegation and then we'll come back and stuff the questions.

70
00:07:46,780 --> 00:07:47,940
So,

71
00:07:52,080 --> 00:07:54,380
we have,

72
00:07:57,550 --> 00:07:57,550
sorry,

73
00:08:03,700 --> 00:08:07,680
my note says Dan Curry and Brock Boehler,

74
00:08:10,550 --> 00:08:10,550
who,

75
00:08:14,520 --> 00:08:30,500
I'm sorry, could you just speak right into the blank certainly so it's myself Christy Kerwin with MHBC planning, Dan Curry is unfortunately away and was not able to make this meeting so I'm here representing the Heritage Consultant MHBC.

76
00:08:30,600 --> 00:08:38,240
And I'm also joined by Brian Prudeham, who is the partner of with momentum developments.

77
00:08:40,320 --> 00:08:40,660
Okay.

78
00:08:40,920 --> 00:08:41,340
Thank you.

79
00:08:41,580 --> 00:08:42,140
Go ahead.

80
00:08:45,640 --> 00:08:47,620
Is there a...

81
00:08:52,510 --> 00:08:57,090
Prepared a short presentation today that just describes some of the changes in a little more detail.

82
00:08:57,410 --> 00:08:59,650
And I'm also available to answer questions.

83
00:08:59,730 --> 00:09:03,470
And if there's anything I can't answer, hopefully Brian will be able to answer as well.

84
00:09:04,730 --> 00:09:06,110
So this is for...

85
00:09:08,190 --> 00:09:15,770
Um, I think we're having difficulty, um, hearing. Definitely. Sorry. Is this a little better?

86
00:09:16,390 --> 00:09:20,770
Yes. I'm sorry. I'm assuming that you can up the volume.

87
00:09:21,350 --> 00:09:26,450
Pologies. I'm a soft spoken person. I'll try to project a little more. Right. Thank you.

88
00:09:26,750 --> 00:09:31,890
Is that better for committee? You can hear better. Okay. Thank you.

89
00:09:33,900 --> 00:09:46,880
All right, so this is regarding the, as, as Victoria mentioned, the, the redevelopment of the property at 20 Queen Street and the through site plan.

90
00:09:47,060 --> 00:09:53,200
There have been changes to the property, which we will describe in a little more detail in this presentation.

91
00:09:54,900 --> 00:09:59,700
since the approval of the previous heritage permit application,

92
00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:06,960
the apologies, the changes that we're going to go over,

93
00:10:07,140 --> 00:10:10,400
include a reduction in height of 34 to 19 stories,

94
00:10:11,040 --> 00:10:13,400
addition of two commercial units at the ground floor,

95
00:10:13,640 --> 00:10:18,020
as Victoria mentioned, a reduction in the retained existing

96
00:10:18,020 --> 00:10:27,920
south facade of the current building. A reduction in the excavation required to preserve the existing

97
00:10:27,920 --> 00:10:33,840
portions of the building, so this includes micropiles on the exterior steel structure, as

98
00:10:33,840 --> 00:10:40,580
well as excavation under the existing facade, and also the window opening that is proposed to

99
00:10:40,580 --> 00:10:43,740
be altered into a door to allow for balcony access.

100
00:10:47,080 --> 00:10:50,440
So the reduction in height, as we

101
00:10:50,440 --> 00:10:56,020
to a mentioned does not alter the heritage attributes of the building, and it is not as part

102
00:10:56,020 --> 00:10:58,800
of this, no changes are proposed to the heritage facade.

103
00:11:02,920 --> 00:11:06,660
The ground floor has undergone some changes through the site plan process.

104
00:11:07,480 --> 00:11:10,000
This includes the addition of two commercial units.

105
00:11:10,620 --> 00:11:14,200
It also includes the reduction in size of the community benefit space.

106
00:11:15,000 --> 00:11:19,920
This space is proposed for commemoration, and that has not changed.

107
00:11:19,920 --> 00:11:36,160
So there's still proposed to be a commemorative plaque, which is located in that area, and as well if, if possible, the condition is uncertain, but the intent is to salvage materials to display for commemoration there as well.

108
00:11:41,130 --> 00:11:52,590
So, as mentioned, the reduction in south to south is currently proposed. This is for a couple of reasons. It's intended to permit the inclusion of the two commercial units.

109
00:11:53,450 --> 00:12:03,710
It's also intended to permit Goaties Lane to the south to remain open for the duration

110
00:12:03,710 --> 00:12:05,110
of construction activities.

111
00:12:06,210 --> 00:12:11,290
As I mentioned, the installation of the micro piles and the steel structure on the exterior

112
00:12:11,290 --> 00:12:18,230
would have required the closure of Goaties Lane during the retention and construction.

113
00:12:20,430 --> 00:12:26,930
And it also decreases the risk to the existing building as it no long requires excavation

114
00:12:26,930 --> 00:12:28,550
to happen underneath that facade.

115
00:12:34,190 --> 00:12:40,150
So as I mentioned in the graphic, you can see the reduction in excavation requirements,

116
00:12:40,730 --> 00:12:51,390
the area that was required by the engineers to excavate beneath the facade, do the retention

117
00:12:51,390 --> 00:12:56,390
on the exterior. That has now been reduced to the portion which you can see on the right.

118
00:13:01,900 --> 00:13:07,340
The window opening on the second story balcony of the front facade is proposed to be altered

119
00:13:07,340 --> 00:13:14,500
into a doorway to permit access to that balcony. We're proposing to retain bricks from the existing

120
00:13:14,500 --> 00:13:19,120
opening so that it can be returned to its original state at a later date. Those will be stored

121
00:13:19,120 --> 00:13:24,920
on site, so that impact to the heritage aspect of the building is minimal.

122
00:13:27,750 --> 00:13:34,850
And just to conclude, the overall impacts in addition to what we're previously identified

123
00:13:35,570 --> 00:13:40,710
are minor negative impacts, resulting from the removal of a slightly larger portion of

124
00:13:40,710 --> 00:13:47,590
the south facade, negligible impacts related to the window opening, and a beneficial impact

125
00:13:47,590 --> 00:13:51,570
resulting from the change in the structural short requirements,

126
00:13:54,650 --> 00:13:56,990
and that the recommendations

127
00:13:56,990 --> 00:14:02,130
of the previous HAA remain applicable, and those are what we are recommending here as well.

128
00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:08,240
All right.

129
00:14:08,780 --> 00:14:10,280
Questions for the delegation?

130
00:14:17,380 --> 00:14:18,320
Peter, please.

131
00:14:21,270 --> 00:14:21,450
Yeah.

132
00:14:22,670 --> 00:14:23,790
Some technical questions.

133
00:14:24,070 --> 00:14:26,170
First about the window.

134
00:14:26,170 --> 00:14:28,150
In the front of the saw,

135
00:14:31,150 --> 00:14:36,130
what if you have any more information about a couple of aspects of it?

136
00:14:36,410 --> 00:14:46,110
One is is that the relationship between the residential unit on the inside and its floor level and the floor level of the balcony.

137
00:14:46,110 --> 00:14:56,990
Right? What's being shown here is they look to be identical. Right? And that there is no change between the floor elevation of the unit and the floor.

138
00:15:01,500 --> 00:15:16,720
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 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?

139
00:15:18,160 --> 00:15:21,420
Okay. So yeah, we will have to...

140
00:15:21,420 --> 00:15:22,880
I'm sorry, did not hear that.

141
00:15:23,960 --> 00:15:28,440
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.

142
00:15:28,440 --> 00:15:33,720
Okay. So in order to make a door out of window, you're going to have to remove a portion of the

143
00:15:33,720 --> 00:15:40,560
facade, which is below the window. Yes, that's correct. That's correct. So there's no information

144
00:15:40,560 --> 00:15:46,540
on what that opening looks like after you're done in this package.

145
00:15:51,520 --> 00:15:57,660
I believe it's shown on the elevations of the current building, the east elevations.

146
00:15:57,660 --> 00:16:01,060
If you could point me to that in the application, that would be great.

147
00:16:04,960 --> 00:16:09,720
I'm going to, I will have to take a look at that and get back to you.

148
00:16:10,220 --> 00:16:14,620
I mean, I'm not sure that we currently have available beyond what is in the elevations

149
00:16:14,620 --> 00:16:15,340
for though.

150
00:16:17,320 --> 00:16:22,320
So this new balcony is a change of use from the existing.

151
00:16:22,640 --> 00:16:25,600
Therefore, it would have to meet current codes

152
00:16:25,600 --> 00:16:30,080
and would not be grandfathered in under the existing.

153
00:16:31,120 --> 00:16:41,480
So the height that we see on the railing there looks to be substantially below what requirements are for the guard height now under the current building code.

154
00:16:42,480 --> 00:16:50,960
And if I look at the plan so that you have submitted for that, it shows a change in the characteristic of the balcony in the plan.

155
00:16:50,960 --> 00:16:59,340
existing, it shows the concrete or the stone-crant-layed atop, and it shows something different

156
00:16:59,340 --> 00:17:05,760
on the new. There is no other information on what the changes that you are suggesting to

157
00:17:05,760 --> 00:17:11,720
that front protocol because of that requirement. Is that correct? That is correct.

158
00:17:14,820 --> 00:17:15,860
The current

159
00:17:15,860 --> 00:17:21,700
existing detailing is proposed to remain the, the, the, the, the, the, the,

160
00:17:21,800 --> 00:17:27,340
granulated balcony rail. Um, but beyond that, I'm not aware of other

161
00:17:27,340 --> 00:17:30,860
changes that are proposed to the balcony as a result of. So we don't know

162
00:17:30,860 --> 00:17:37,200
what that will look like now at this point. It's, it's proposed to, um,

163
00:17:37,200 --> 00:17:40,240
Sorry, perhaps you could

164
00:17:40,940 --> 00:17:43,310
That railing is is part of the

165
00:17:45,280 --> 00:17:51,960
Historic designation of the front. Yeah, you were proposing a change to that railing, but we are not being shown what that changes

166
00:17:51,960 --> 00:17:54,900
No changes are proposed to the railing.

167
00:18:01,040 --> 00:18:02,340
Okay, let's

168
00:18:04,820 --> 00:18:10,740
Some questions vote the change to the building facade on gaudling

169
00:18:12,680 --> 00:18:22,180
There are two arguments that you bring forth in the report of why this facade should be shortened.

170
00:18:23,360 --> 00:18:30,780
So the first one is, it is a reduction, this is called from a reduction of risk of accidental damage to the existing.

171
00:18:32,910 --> 00:18:41,090
There is no accompanying structural report with this application.

172
00:18:42,270 --> 00:18:47,610
And in the application itself, there's an area that says to be determined after structural investigation.

173
00:18:50,510 --> 00:19:01,610
Without a structural report, how do we assess what that risk of accidental damage is and whether it is a significant risk.

174
00:19:01,610 --> 00:19:09,590
And how, without a structural report, how do we know that shortening this facade is actually

175
00:19:09,590 --> 00:19:11,970
necessary in order to remediate that risk?

176
00:19:15,070 --> 00:19:23,590
So, we are, we are the stabilization plan is currently being prepared by the project engineers.

177
00:19:24,930 --> 00:19:32,630
I don't think that the argument is specifically that it's necessary to prevent it, however,

178
00:19:32,630 --> 00:19:42,630
that the reduction in excavation and shoring requirements will ultimately result in that being the case.

179
00:19:47,310 --> 00:19:51,390
We certainly are planning to share this stabilization plan when it's available,

180
00:19:52,410 --> 00:19:59,190
but the information in this report was also discussed in conversation with the projects engineers,

181
00:20:00,050 --> 00:20:01,190
and so that's what they have stated.

182
00:20:01,190 --> 00:20:06,730
Okay, sorry for taking much time. One last question. The second argument that you

183
00:20:06,730 --> 00:20:14,870
put forward for the reduction of the length of the sod is that it is required in order

184
00:20:14,870 --> 00:20:21,910
to accommodate the new commercial units which will face on to Gaudy's name. Can you help

185
00:20:21,910 --> 00:20:30,730
me understand what it is about changing the use to commercial along Gaudy's lane, which prohibits

186
00:20:30,730 --> 00:20:33,350
the retention of that section of the building?

187
00:20:35,500 --> 00:20:43,520
Certainly, so I think it's probably not fair to say prohibits, but there are certain

188
00:20:44,220 --> 00:20:49,640
requirements that certainly make it desirable for commercial units to have their own entrances

189
00:20:49,640 --> 00:20:55,540
to have a more activated streetscape to have a high level of glazing, for example, and

190
00:20:55,540 --> 00:20:59,660
those requirements are part of what was being accommodated in order to allow for those

191
00:20:59,660 --> 00:21:06,840
commercially units. Could those items be met by retaining the existing facade and making alterations

192
00:21:06,840 --> 00:21:09,960
to it as opposed to demolishing the entire thing?

193
00:21:13,790 --> 00:21:18,470
I think it's certainly possible but it would

194
00:21:18,470 --> 00:21:23,130
be more of a challenge to accommodate the needs of those commercially units and it would still

195
00:21:23,130 --> 00:21:26,070
require the the full closure of of Gaudi's Lane.

196
00:21:27,310 --> 00:21:27,990
Thank

197
00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:31,580
you. Thank you, Peter.

198
00:21:32,520 --> 00:21:34,760
Councillor Mishol, you have a question.

199
00:21:35,340 --> 00:21:36,780
Thank you. Yes, go ahead.

200
00:21:37,100 --> 00:21:39,920
Thanks to your presentation. I'm a little a

201
00:21:39,920 --> 00:21:45,980
stuck a little on the community benefit space. This was quite an important piece.

202
00:21:46,480 --> 00:21:50,440
As we initially went through this process of designating this building

203
00:21:50,440 --> 00:21:56,180
and then allowing it to grow into a more space or an apartment or a high rise.

204
00:21:57,640 --> 00:22:02,020
So you're cutting the community space back to almost half of the space you have.

205
00:22:02,140 --> 00:22:06,100
And that was one of the, I thought that I recall, that was one of the big important kind of

206
00:22:06,100 --> 00:22:11,180
stickers that we had to keep this as a performance community space.

207
00:22:11,540 --> 00:22:13,800
So I'm curious as to why that's changed.

208
00:22:18,600 --> 00:22:20,880
So that was kind of a commitment that was made, I recall.

209
00:22:21,900 --> 00:22:26,540
I'm a little bit worried about the background on that, so I think I'm going to put this chair.

210
00:22:36,440 --> 00:22:41,160
Hi, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Heather Price. I'm the planning consultant on this file.

211
00:22:42,000 --> 00:22:48,860
I thought I would just scoot down here and explain that the community benefit space is a direct correlation

212
00:22:48,860 --> 00:22:56,260
for the amount of flory area in the building that's being proposed. So under the zoning framework that applies to this land,

213
00:22:56,260 --> 00:23:12,480
There was a community benefits boneless exchange for the amount of square footage that was proposed at the original height and the amount of community benefits that needed to be provided to offset the density that was being sought.

214
00:23:13,280 --> 00:23:19,020
And so with the reduction in height, the amount of community benefits basis been scaled down accordingly.

215
00:23:19,800 --> 00:23:24,040
And that's in part of financial decision, which is not my area of expertise, and perhaps

216
00:23:24,040 --> 00:23:29,060
there, when we might tap in the third person on the team here to speak to that, but it certainly

217
00:23:29,060 --> 00:23:37,800
is a financial consideration and providing the right amount of amenity and community benefit,

218
00:23:38,020 --> 00:23:43,860
including the retention of the heritage to offset the amount of density that's being sawed.

219
00:23:45,140 --> 00:23:46,400
Okay, thank you.

220
00:23:46,620 --> 00:23:47,480
Thank you.

221
00:23:49,590 --> 00:23:54,890
Councilman show, you had your answer, thank you.

222
00:23:56,710 --> 00:23:57,990
Councillor Chaplin.

223
00:23:58,630 --> 00:23:59,570
Yeah, thank you.

224
00:24:00,910 --> 00:24:04,510
So it sounds like this is a third iteration of this proposal.

225
00:24:06,770 --> 00:24:11,850
In order to save that south side, what height would you need?

226
00:24:12,070 --> 00:24:15,770
Can we go back to an earlier iteration where we've got to bring in more housing

227
00:24:15,770 --> 00:24:28,930
And we keep the facade the way it was originally planned and, you know, we work with, I mean, I think some of us are quite disappointed that the original building was being demolished at all, right?

228
00:24:29,450 --> 00:24:44,190
So, and here we are, and now we're going to take more of it away, we're going to cut back in the community benefit space, so it's becoming harder and harder to, certainly from my perspective, to really want to justify this.

229
00:24:44,190 --> 00:24:46,410
to understand how I can justify it, right?

230
00:24:46,430 --> 00:24:47,550
From a heritage perspective.

231
00:24:55,230 --> 00:24:56,590
I'm not sure if there's that type of

232
00:24:56,590 --> 00:24:57,950
interest between two or three of us.

233
00:24:58,310 --> 00:24:59,410
Yeah, I'll jump back.

234
00:24:59,430 --> 00:25:02,410
Could you just speak in to the book like

235
00:25:02,410 --> 00:25:03,590
a little bit better, please?

236
00:25:03,670 --> 00:25:05,690
Got a team of whispers here, sorry about that.

237
00:25:07,330 --> 00:25:08,210
That's okay.

238
00:25:09,750 --> 00:25:12,070
So from a zoning perspective, what's proposed

239
00:25:12,690 --> 00:25:13,130
complies?

240
00:25:14,330 --> 00:25:16,970
To answer the question on how many floors

241
00:25:16,970 --> 00:25:18,710
we need to be added in order to

242
00:25:18,710 --> 00:25:27,730
to justify the retention of the suddenly facade or how many bonus floors could be added

243
00:25:27,730 --> 00:25:33,710
if they were to do that. It's not the only thing that I don't have readily at my disposal

244
00:25:33,710 --> 00:25:34,270
today.

245
00:25:34,610 --> 00:25:36,270
It's already complied right?

246
00:25:36,510 --> 00:25:37,290
They complied today.

247
00:25:37,290 --> 00:25:39,030
They complied from the very beginning.

248
00:25:39,510 --> 00:25:44,010
They complied with the changes and now we're here again, wanting further changes.

249
00:25:44,010 --> 00:25:47,150
And so I don't think there's a question of complying.

250
00:25:47,330 --> 00:25:52,250
It's more a question of, you know, where does heritage fit into this?

251
00:25:52,370 --> 00:25:57,590
And where did the previous commitments fall into what's being proposed here?

252
00:26:07,180 --> 00:26:07,940
Was that a question?

253
00:26:08,000 --> 00:26:08,720
Was that a question?

254
00:26:10,360 --> 00:26:13,340
Well, I'll ask you to clarify what my question was, I guess.

255
00:26:13,660 --> 00:26:19,040
I think Councillor Chaplin, you've asked a legitimate question, and it's clear.

256
00:26:19,040 --> 00:26:24,220
And what is the delegation have to say about it?

257
00:26:24,340 --> 00:26:25,320
Help what you're answered?

258
00:26:27,120 --> 00:26:31,980
Through you, Madam Chair, I, from my perspective, and again, I'm the land use planner on this file.

259
00:26:32,520 --> 00:26:36,680
Her priority is looking to official plan, conformity, and zoning compliance.

260
00:26:37,260 --> 00:26:40,720
And the plan, as, as before you today, does comply.

261
00:26:41,400 --> 00:26:46,220
It does attempt to, while it is a scaling down of the community benefits,

262
00:26:46,220 --> 00:26:49,340
it nevertheless does still contain community benefits.

263
00:26:50,280 --> 00:26:56,180
It is up to the committee to determine whether the amount

264
00:26:56,180 --> 00:27:01,020
is justified based on the merits that have

265
00:27:01,020 --> 00:27:02,740
been presented to you this evening.

266
00:27:05,940 --> 00:27:11,580
I would just add that on a balance of competing priorities,

267
00:27:11,580 --> 00:27:21,140
the attempt is sort of to provide a number of different benefits. For example, a more

268
00:27:21,140 --> 00:27:27,160
activated street scape along Cody's Lane, which those commercial units will provide,

269
00:27:28,400 --> 00:27:34,260
while still offering some community benefits space. The retention of as much of the existing

270
00:27:34,260 --> 00:27:45,440
facade as is feasible while still allowing both of those items to coexist. So it's an attempt

271
00:27:45,440 --> 00:27:49,060
to weigh all the priorities and come out with a positive outcome.

272
00:27:55,390 --> 00:28:00,010
Councillor Chaplin, do you any further? No, I might have something later, but I know there's

273
00:28:00,010 --> 00:28:12,810
questions. Thank you. Other questions? Yes. Preston. Thank you. I guess this to my mind

274
00:28:12,810 --> 00:28:20,690
this speaks to kind of two different planning requirements. On one hand we have the argument

275
00:28:20,690 --> 00:28:29,990
that the community benefits basis in ratio to density per the zoning requirements. But we are

276
00:28:29,990 --> 00:28:35,150
community-wide and that designation speaks to community benefit across the entire city.

277
00:28:36,530 --> 00:28:41,550
So, I guess that brings it back to the Heritage Impact Assessment to my mind.

278
00:28:41,690 --> 00:28:46,490
Was there any consideration given to the contextual value in the impacts of these changes?

279
00:28:46,990 --> 00:28:50,590
We know that the streetscape is a public facing one.

280
00:28:50,750 --> 00:28:53,930
We have open spaces at the market square across the way.

281
00:28:53,930 --> 00:29:01,610
We have the Lainway itself acting as a public space with the lighting, the entrance signage,

282
00:29:02,410 --> 00:29:04,670
the street art, all of those things.

283
00:29:05,270 --> 00:29:13,170
But I don't recall any discussion of the contextual value and the community benefit of maintaining those spaces in the HIA.

284
00:29:13,390 --> 00:29:20,550
So I'm wondering if there was any consideration given what we're talking about community benefits to the benefits of more retention,

285
00:29:21,410 --> 00:29:27,370
as well as kind of tying that back into that argument about the community benefits

286
00:29:27,370 --> 00:29:32,930
based within the building itself. Just putting that into a wider contextual

287
00:29:32,930 --> 00:29:36,870
discussion under if you have any thing you can add on that.

288
00:29:37,470 --> 00:29:43,570
Certainly, three of you Madam Chair. So within the the HRA

289
00:29:44,470 --> 00:29:49,570
We do express that from a purely a heritage perspective,

290
00:29:50,430 --> 00:29:56,790
retention of a greater portion of the south facade would be a more positive outcome for the cultural heritage resource.

291
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:09,060
Ready on the reasons why that has been reduced. And that it is to point out that there are these other priorities that are at play here.

292
00:30:10,900 --> 00:30:20,880
And so, you know, this is ultimately a weighing and balancing of those priorities.

293
00:30:21,980 --> 00:30:31,120
And from a heritage perspective, we think that it is a justified change, but it does constitute

294
00:30:31,120 --> 00:30:38,500
an additional minor negative impact from what was previously proposed on a purely heritage level

295
00:30:38,500 --> 00:30:39,260
of consideration.

296
00:30:46,400 --> 00:30:48,300
Preston, you have your answer?

297
00:30:49,760 --> 00:30:50,020
I do.

298
00:30:53,620 --> 00:30:56,760
Are there any other questions for the delegation?

299
00:30:57,900 --> 00:30:57,980
Yes.

300
00:30:58,180 --> 00:30:58,860
Magda.

301
00:31:00,950 --> 00:31:01,330
Thank you.

302
00:31:02,490 --> 00:31:13,050
So it might sound like I'm repeating a little bit some of the previous questions, but I feel like maybe you're restating them in a different way might help get help us get more information.

303
00:31:13,770 --> 00:31:15,050
So regarding the balcony,

304
00:31:17,510 --> 00:31:29,370
as it is so it's proposed to become accessible from one of the second floor residential units, is the railing of the balcony compliant with current OBC requirements.

305
00:31:29,370 --> 00:31:30,530
That

306
00:31:34,400 --> 00:31:40,240
is something that I would have to liaison with the project architects with and get back to you.

307
00:31:42,120 --> 00:31:48,700
But as far as the drawings of the front facade that we have received,

308
00:31:49,400 --> 00:31:51,540
that railing is not proposed to be altered.

309
00:31:54,410 --> 00:31:56,090
Okay, but we don't know that.

310
00:31:56,270 --> 00:32:02,950
We don't know whether there's anything going behind or on top of the railing potentially.

311
00:32:04,190 --> 00:32:12,170
I might just add and perhaps redirect to staff, but as yet in the site plan approval process,

312
00:32:13,370 --> 00:32:20,070
we haven't received comments to my knowledge that identify that the railing has to be increased

313
00:32:20,070 --> 00:32:26,250
to conform to current building code standards. So as far as I know, there's not a requirement for that,

314
00:32:26,790 --> 00:32:30,090
but happy to have that confirmed by staff who are in attendance.

315
00:32:30,690 --> 00:32:35,250
Okay, yeah, I imagine that's not something that would be a discussion at site plan approval,

316
00:32:35,630 --> 00:32:40,030
but it's something that we're, well, many of us, I think are interested in this.

317
00:32:40,470 --> 00:32:45,210
Currently, as our media, I mean, to be clear, we want to make sure it's safe as well

318
00:32:45,210 --> 00:32:51,050
and building code compliance is really getting to the heart of safety with really high rates.

319
00:32:51,050 --> 00:32:53,690
So it's a great question that's been raised.

320
00:32:54,490 --> 00:32:59,230
Building department is circulated on our site plans and building permit applications.

321
00:32:59,230 --> 00:33:06,450
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.

322
00:33:07,890 --> 00:33:18,490
So also if this current like presentation to the committee, would this be assuming there's no further changes to the project?

323
00:33:18,770 --> 00:33:24,370
Would this be the last time that the Heritage Committee has a chance to ask questions and discuss?

324
00:33:24,370 --> 00:33:25,470
three

325
00:33:28,860 --> 00:33:34,220
-year Madam Chair, it's certainly our client's intention to develop as proposed.

326
00:33:35,320 --> 00:33:40,820
Here, it is regrettable for all parties that the market has not been what everyone had hoped

327
00:33:40,820 --> 00:33:43,980
to realize the full density of your original plan.

328
00:33:44,620 --> 00:33:50,440
So it is partly those conditions that have caused us to have to keep pausing and restarting

329
00:33:50,440 --> 00:33:52,320
and pausing and restarting.

330
00:33:52,320 --> 00:33:58,880
And that said, very excited to get going with this version of the plan, if there is support

331
00:33:58,880 --> 00:34:03,740
here, of course, from Heritage Committee and staff through the site plan approval process.

332
00:34:06,540 --> 00:34:10,080
I'm not sure that answers my question,

333
00:34:14,910 --> 00:34:16,010
if I can answer it.

334
00:34:17,710 --> 00:34:25,590
I was just curious if this is approved from a Heritage Perspective, if this is the last time

335
00:34:25,590 --> 00:34:30,330
see this because I feel like there's a lot that information that's missing and so I

336
00:34:30,330 --> 00:34:35,210
yeah I was just wondering if it would come around again or if this is the the final

337
00:34:35,210 --> 00:34:39,190
stop assuming everything goes forward from this point on.

338
00:34:39,290 --> 00:34:43,790
Do you read Madam Chair sorry if I misunderstood the question yes I think this would be the

339
00:34:44,310 --> 00:34:51,770
the final say with respect to the applications that are before. Okay. Thank you. Okay so

340
00:34:51,770 --> 00:34:58,850
And I do want to go back to the, of course, the south facade, so this statement of cultural heritage value

341
00:34:58,850 --> 00:35:04,390
or interest that was included as part of the application materials for this agenda.

342
00:35:06,070 --> 00:35:11,490
Describes the contextual value of the property as including its functional and historical links to its surroundings,

343
00:35:11,810 --> 00:35:13,950
including specifically Gaudi's Lane.

344
00:35:15,190 --> 00:35:19,970
So considering that most of the existing elevation facing Gaudi's Lane is now proposed to be demolished

345
00:35:19,970 --> 00:35:26,110
would this be considered a negative impact to the contextual value of the property and if so

346
00:35:26,110 --> 00:35:31,730
is that documented anywhere because I don't believe that was mentioned in anything I read.

347
00:35:33,490 --> 00:35:39,770
Through you, Madam Chair, yes, the reduction in the south facade is considered an additional

348
00:35:39,770 --> 00:35:45,530
minor negative impact from what was previously proposed, which was the retention of the larger portion

349
00:35:45,530 --> 00:35:51,190
of the south facade to the heritage attributes of the building, which includes the context.

350
00:35:52,790 --> 00:35:59,290
The portion of the facade that is proposed to be retained, the intention is that a sufficient

351
00:35:59,290 --> 00:36:04,090
portion of the building is being retained, which allows for the legibility of the structure

352
00:36:04,090 --> 00:36:09,330
to still be read on Gaudi's lane, and it's similar to what is being retained on the north side

353
00:36:09,330 --> 00:36:10,570
of the structure as well.

354
00:36:10,570 --> 00:36:19,530
But it is in the the heritage impact assessment of denim that this is an additional minor negative impact from a from a heritage perspective. Yes

355
00:36:25,680 --> 00:36:27,680
And so the

356
00:36:28,340 --> 00:36:39,960
What we've seen as the proposal the south facing return it appears to be partially reconstructed is that the case and could you maybe explain a little bit more what how is that?

357
00:36:39,960 --> 00:36:46,800
with the new construction and what that connection is going to be like.

358
00:36:49,060 --> 00:36:55,060
So as I mentioned, we're still waiting on the final stabilization plan from the project engineers.

359
00:36:56,020 --> 00:37:01,360
So that's something that we will be providing more detail when it's available.

360
00:37:01,360 --> 00:37:13,380
But currently, the existing portions of the facade are proposed to be retained in place with a steel support skeleton.

361
00:37:14,460 --> 00:37:17,480
That will be along the front facade of the building.

362
00:37:19,520 --> 00:37:26,360
And the return that is being retained along the south facade does not require that.

363
00:37:30,000 --> 00:37:34,800
Because there's not going to be the underground exclamation in place, so.

364
00:37:36,770 --> 00:37:48,070
Thank you. And the regarding the salvage plan, so we heard about how the the bricks from removed from the

365
00:37:48,070 --> 00:37:53,470
from beneath the window opening, that's proposed to be turned into a door will be kept on sight.

366
00:37:53,830 --> 00:37:58,170
But obviously there's a whole lot more material being demolished.

367
00:37:58,170 --> 00:38:15,530
And so what proportion of the like physical material will be salvaged and what proportion will go to landfill and of the materials that are salvaged what will happen to them after deconstruction.

368
00:38:17,940 --> 00:38:28,240
So the intent is to salvage as many features which include decorative detail which is characteristic of the building as possible.

369
00:38:28,240 --> 00:38:38,200
However, that's something that is going to have to be determined at the time of demolition by the demolition contractor because the condition of a lot of those features is not known.

370
00:38:39,840 --> 00:38:47,600
And so, sometimes in the over the course of demolition it will turn out that features are in a lot worse condition than anticipated.

371
00:38:47,600 --> 00:38:54,540
it. So that's not something that it's really possible to provide a specific percentage in advance

372
00:38:54,540 --> 00:38:58,380
because that's something that is going to have to be determined based on the conditions

373
00:38:58,380 --> 00:39:00,440
on site at the time of demolition.

374
00:39:01,300 --> 00:39:02,560
Okay, thank you.

375
00:39:04,780 --> 00:39:11,140
Thank you, Magda. Your answers. Sorry, I did think of one question that

376
00:39:11,800 --> 00:39:19,380
I was came to me during the previous discussion regarding the commercial space. You know,

377
00:39:19,380 --> 00:39:34,520
There are new builds, commercial spaces along King Street with high visibility, like a block from here that I've been empty for, I don't know, five years or more.

378
00:39:35,920 --> 00:39:52,700
So I guess if we're going to see the commercial space on a very small lane, I'll be an active space I would say in the downtown because of kind of the specific programming that goes on there.

379
00:39:53,380 --> 00:40:04,500
I guess I'm just wondering if I know you can't predict the future but what are the, how do we know that we're going to lose that facade and we're going to have some commercial space.

380
00:40:04,500 --> 00:40:12,220
that's empty, it's not then the scale for me tips even further to, well, that doesn't seem

381
00:40:12,220 --> 00:40:17,580
like it's worth it. So I guess I'm wondering what have there been any studies done on the

382
00:40:17,580 --> 00:40:22,640
viability of commercial spaces on that section of Goaties Lane.

383
00:40:26,240 --> 00:40:29,020
In relation to downtown

384
00:40:29,900 --> 00:40:31,820
trends here in the country.

385
00:40:38,540 --> 00:40:39,580
Three of them shared.

386
00:40:40,340 --> 00:40:42,620
Our short answer collectively is no.

387
00:40:43,340 --> 00:40:44,960
Perhaps our client might be able to

388
00:40:44,960 --> 00:40:47,140
comment on their level of confidence for

389
00:40:47,140 --> 00:40:49,380
leasing a space in that environment.

390
00:40:50,360 --> 00:40:52,640
But that's side of our expertise and

391
00:40:52,640 --> 00:40:54,460
knowledge through this process.

392
00:41:02,180 --> 00:41:03,660
Yes, would slightly more than a

393
00:41:03,660 --> 00:41:04,240
wing in a prayer.

394
00:41:04,300 --> 00:41:06,400
A lot of the retail that you're referring to on

395
00:41:06,400 --> 00:41:08,560
King Street is.

396
00:41:08,560 --> 00:41:10,360
not great sizes, right?

397
00:41:10,480 --> 00:41:13,400
You're seeing sort of 2000 plus square foot retail spaces

398
00:41:13,400 --> 00:41:16,960
that are struggling to lease or sell within a condo.

399
00:41:17,600 --> 00:41:20,720
But these are designed just over 600 square feet.

400
00:41:20,860 --> 00:41:23,940
I think it's just under 800 as the secondary one.

401
00:41:24,440 --> 00:41:27,080
So we like that size.

402
00:41:27,200 --> 00:41:29,380
We like the probability of those

403
00:41:29,380 --> 00:41:31,560
leasing up to different users.

404
00:41:37,630 --> 00:41:39,050
Magda, you have your answer.

405
00:41:40,210 --> 00:41:40,730
Thank you.

406
00:41:40,730 --> 00:41:45,110
Councillor Mishol. I have more questions. I just have comments, so I can wait if you want to

407
00:41:45,770 --> 00:41:46,130
grant.

408
00:41:48,510 --> 00:41:51,190
I was not sure you can ask us more. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to ask us a more

409
00:41:51,190 --> 00:41:58,710
question. What do you envision in terms of tenants for these spaces? I was also somewhat concerned

410
00:41:58,710 --> 00:42:03,650
although it's the developers' prerogative as they think that they can tenant the space to provide

411
00:42:03,650 --> 00:42:08,270
commercial, but my understanding is that developers aren't too keen to be providing ground floor

412
00:42:08,270 --> 00:42:13,690
commercial where they absolutely have to, so what kind of tenants might occupy these spaces?

413
00:42:16,460 --> 00:42:24,900
So, with the community benefit space in the middle, it does make things slightly more difficult.

414
00:42:27,200 --> 00:42:35,240
I understand the theory behind the community benefits space, but I've spoken to a number of different groups that we've considered putting in there, but I'll install them not for profit.

415
00:42:35,240 --> 00:42:46,460
and there's challenges, right? It's not easy. So, so I think the answer to the question is we're going to have to find that fit first and then work the other two spaces around it.

416
00:42:46,680 --> 00:42:54,300
But again, you know, 700 square feet at 20 bucks a square foot. There's users, there's users in that world.

417
00:42:54,520 --> 00:42:59,880
It's just when you start getting into the 1500 plus you start limiting your options.

418
00:43:02,540 --> 00:43:04,560
And one more quick question if I may.

419
00:43:05,380 --> 00:43:08,520
I'm just curious who's ideal was it to reduce the south facade?

420
00:43:08,680 --> 00:43:12,260
Was this something that development team project team came up with?

421
00:43:13,200 --> 00:43:15,220
As a preference to reduce shoreing and excavation?

422
00:43:15,720 --> 00:43:19,580
Or was this the result of a comment coming from the side point process?

423
00:43:21,900 --> 00:43:22,640
I can feel that.

424
00:43:25,020 --> 00:43:27,660
It's a complicated question.

425
00:43:28,100 --> 00:43:31,140
And it's a risen out of a number of reasons.

426
00:43:31,140 --> 00:43:36,740
It wasn't at the recommendation of staff, that was one of the items that you listed there.

427
00:43:37,080 --> 00:43:43,120
It is largely driven by the reduction in floors and the market conditions that we're in right now.

428
00:43:43,400 --> 00:43:45,820
So the scaling back of the overall development.

429
00:43:47,600 --> 00:43:57,080
It affects the ability to deliver on some of these atypical and more costly measures to deliver community benefits.

430
00:43:57,080 --> 00:44:06,920
So that you are seeing the scaling down of the community space, but also the reduction of the return coming towards Queen Street.

431
00:44:08,900 --> 00:44:17,200
It's a little bit of chicken and the egg that's happened to through this iterative process looking at what can be kept what makes the most amount of sense.

432
00:44:17,580 --> 00:44:26,820
When you think about reprogramming of the ground floor and making sure that it says usable and has the highest potential to be an active animated space along

433
00:44:26,820 --> 00:44:32,980
not really important goodies lane that has informed the ultimate recommendation before

434
00:44:32,980 --> 00:44:33,860
you today.

435
00:44:35,360 --> 00:44:35,900
Yeah, thank you for that.

436
00:44:36,000 --> 00:44:37,660
That's helpful for that context.

437
00:44:37,880 --> 00:44:43,360
I am wondering though, with the proposal that's before us, would retaining that portion?

438
00:44:43,680 --> 00:44:48,080
I certainly appreciate there's already been a bit of a haircut on this project as it is.

439
00:44:50,320 --> 00:44:54,320
Would it prohibit the development algorithm, or would there be any limitations going forward

440
00:44:54,320 --> 00:44:57,040
on seeing this come to fruition if that returns.

441
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:01,420
The full length of this episode.

442
00:45:04,400 --> 00:45:14,920
I'm at 3 a.m. Chair, Brian, I think is going to say that to make that viable requires the additional units and the additional floors.

443
00:45:15,820 --> 00:45:21,480
So, the scaling back that's happening goes hand in hand with the reduction of the heritage facade.

444
00:45:22,380 --> 00:45:30,440
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,

445
00:45:30,440 --> 00:45:34,960
any of the costs, Delta that would resolve from keeping that?

446
00:45:41,010 --> 00:45:49,330
The project itself is financially struggles at 19 stories as opposed to where it was at 34

447
00:45:49,330 --> 00:45:49,770
stories.

448
00:45:50,290 --> 00:46:00,210
We're looking for any design a break that we can come up with to help get it over the

449
00:46:00,210 --> 00:46:05,770
online. The one thing that we didn't really talk about here though, I think is the the urban design

450
00:46:05,770 --> 00:46:11,010
component of it. So my office is actually at the backside of a big queen. And as you come down

451
00:46:11,010 --> 00:46:17,210
that lane, you have a 30, maybe 40 foot entry off of queen street where you have dead wall versus

452
00:46:17,210 --> 00:46:23,330
dead wall. And it, you know, my, my findings through the last three to four years in having work

453
00:46:23,330 --> 00:46:41,330
back there is that it's not a very appealing place to to gravitate to. 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 up there.

454
00:46:41,930 --> 00:46:43,510
wasn't your question but

455
00:46:45,780 --> 00:46:48,400
yeah I mean that wasn't and I was just wondering if maybe

456
00:46:48,400 --> 00:46:54,480
there's a dollar value to that. I keep being that aspect. I don't have a specific dollar

457
00:46:54,480 --> 00:46:59,880
value. That's fair. Thank you. That's everything. Thank you Grant.

458
00:47:01,840 --> 00:47:12,600
are there? Yes, not only. Just a wondering to the proposed stories originally went from

459
00:47:12,600 --> 00:47:20,880
34 to 19 other than financial reasons, was there any other reason for the significant

460
00:47:20,880 --> 00:47:29,860
reduction in that? Absolutely not. It was designed as a plan economy, many people, and

461
00:47:29,860 --> 00:47:34,920
Okay, and then just a follow-up question with that as well. So I know it was mentioned,

462
00:47:34,940 --> 00:47:40,340
the reduction in excavation prior with the presentation there and not honestly kind of

463
00:47:40,340 --> 00:47:46,040
appreciate with today's like time and place, it can be very, very expensive. But other than the

464
00:47:46,040 --> 00:47:51,320
closure of Gaudi's lane temporarily, while the construction is happening, is there any other heritage

465
00:47:51,320 --> 00:47:57,700
impact specifically? Because I'm not really convinced that there's any sort of impact to the actual building

466
00:47:57,700 --> 00:48:03,240
in the structure or anything like that other than the financial and then the closure, but

467
00:48:03,240 --> 00:48:08,000
heritage-speaking is there any other reason why we cannot save that portion?

468
00:48:11,520 --> 00:48:20,180
So from a purely heritage perspective, there's not a reason that is based in heritage that

469
00:48:20,180 --> 00:48:23,080
there wouldn't be possible to retain that portion.

470
00:48:27,130 --> 00:48:27,870
Thank you, Natalie.

471
00:48:28,290 --> 00:48:30,570
Are there any other questions for the delegation?

472
00:48:32,270 --> 00:48:34,270
Thank you.

473
00:48:35,130 --> 00:48:39,810
We'll now have our questions for staff.

474
00:48:40,550 --> 00:48:46,810
Councillor Mishodhi wanted to make a comment now or wait till after the questions was stopped.

475
00:48:47,530 --> 00:48:48,450
All right.

476
00:48:49,650 --> 00:48:51,490
Questions then for staff?

477
00:49:00,850 --> 00:49:01,710
Yes, Natalie.

478
00:49:03,130 --> 00:49:09,290
Sorry, I just wanted to ask to follow up on what Peter had mentioned at the beginning as well as

479
00:49:09,290 --> 00:49:17,390
I know it mentioned in the report that it is a heritage attribute, so just want to confirm that there will be no changes with it

480
00:49:17,390 --> 00:49:19,490
becoming a balcony that is in use now.

481
00:49:22,570 --> 00:49:29,850
Through the chair, it has not been noted to date that there is a change to the balcony proposed.

482
00:49:30,570 --> 00:49:39,610
As a result of the change from going from a window to a door, however, if a change to the guard is identified as

483
00:49:40,390 --> 00:49:46,230
being a requirement to to meet building code. Then that is something that would have to be for the

484
00:49:46,230 --> 00:49:50,930
redress through a heritage permit application which would come back to this committee because it would be a

485
00:49:50,930 --> 00:49:54,250
change to that identified heritage attribute.

486
00:49:56,650 --> 00:50:01,350
Thank you Natalie. Any other questions or comments to

487
00:50:04,240 --> 00:50:12,540
Thank you. Councillor Chaplin. Yeah, I guess I'd like you to comment on the, one of the

488
00:50:12,540 --> 00:50:19,480
question I think it was for me, Peter, about the floor, whether it's the same height,

489
00:50:19,800 --> 00:50:24,300
the floor in the interior to the floor in the balcony. Is there a Japanese information on that?

490
00:50:27,020 --> 00:50:29,340
I don't at this time.

491
00:50:31,720 --> 00:50:40,160
Also, as far as the heritage attributes in the interior, the building, how impacted do you?

492
00:50:40,660 --> 00:50:44,820
Like what specifically will the impact be of what was already approved?

493
00:50:44,980 --> 00:50:50,100
Like we knew there were going to be impacts, but this sounds to me like there would be further impacts.

494
00:50:52,610 --> 00:50:55,890
Through the chair, there were not.

495
00:50:55,890 --> 00:51:02,970
into your features identified as a heritage attributes of the building specifically, but coming

496
00:51:02,970 --> 00:51:13,190
out of the commemorative plan and the memorization and interpretive plan, those resources

497
00:51:13,190 --> 00:51:19,510
were being identified through that process and those reports have not yet been finalized.

498
00:51:19,510 --> 00:51:27,650
So the impact of what can be retained and incorporated into this development is still not fully

499
00:51:27,650 --> 00:51:28,510
known at this time.

500
00:51:28,510 --> 00:51:33,610
We would be working through that through this site plan process to confirm what can be salvaged

501
00:51:33,610 --> 00:51:37,930
and where those features would be identified within the building.

502
00:51:39,550 --> 00:51:40,650
Thank you.

503
00:51:42,700 --> 00:51:46,860
Thank you, Councillor Chapman, any other comments here?

504
00:51:49,500 --> 00:51:53,080
I suppose this brings us to a motion.

505
00:51:55,440 --> 00:51:58,300
One of the observations I had from the report,

506
00:52:00,180 --> 00:52:05,060
can conclude 70 minor negative impact,

507
00:52:07,140 --> 00:52:08,860
but the proposal will be,

508
00:52:09,660 --> 00:52:13,860
and I find it very difficult to accept that

509
00:52:13,860 --> 00:52:26,840
from in the in the report. I'm hearing concerns and also I would say that each of you have

510
00:52:26,840 --> 00:52:26,980
Thanks for watching!

511
00:52:30,000 --> 00:52:47,060
Yeager, a report, not necessarily a report, but a concern expressing that the community benefit space is being reduced.

512
00:52:47,060 --> 00:53:08,620
And if I recall what how much interaction there was on community benefit, there must have been 20 delegations when we had this first go round on saving this building and delegating and designating about the community benefit.

513
00:53:08,620 --> 00:53:16,940
And to think that now we're going to have to have or even consider reducing the community

514
00:53:16,940 --> 00:53:21,440
benefit, it's really difficult to deal with.

515
00:53:23,400 --> 00:53:31,440
I think there's a good point, commercial space, and why and whether in fact it will attract

516
00:53:31,920 --> 00:53:37,900
and mag the raises of very good point, if you go up and down King Street, you see all kinds

517
00:53:37,900 --> 00:53:42,180
of commercial space available, sitting empty.

518
00:53:45,180 --> 00:53:49,340
I think there are many concerns with this.

519
00:53:49,540 --> 00:53:57,440
Another one that comes to my mind, and I think of this person who was over on Park Street,

520
00:53:57,620 --> 00:54:05,980
who recently wanted to open his door, the upper door, onto the balcony, and they had an

521
00:54:05,980 --> 00:54:13,660
balcony. And so they had to modify that balcony. And I look at this

522
00:54:13,660 --> 00:54:20,480
pornicale and I think this is what's left on the building, the probably the

523
00:54:20,480 --> 00:54:28,420
main feature. And to me I'm wondering is this all that's going to be left of

524
00:54:28,420 --> 00:54:34,880
1620 Queen Street North after we get through all of the building and so on? How

525
00:54:34,880 --> 00:54:42,440
we keep it safe, and so we have the particle. So we have this balcony, the balustrad, the railing,

526
00:54:43,520 --> 00:54:52,400
and to not know if we open up a door these days, and according to that person over on park

527
00:54:52,400 --> 00:55:02,700
street, they had to put in an extra railing to make it safe. And so I find it lacking and really

528
00:55:02,700 --> 00:55:10,500
disappointing that many of these details aren't here. Peter has raised many good points about

529
00:55:10,500 --> 00:55:20,820
how things are to should be in front of us and knowing engineering reports. Anyway, I find it very

530
00:55:20,820 --> 00:55:29,700
interesting to have this report in front of us and the motion. But I suppose, Mariah, we need to

531
00:55:29,700 --> 00:55:34,360
the motion, and I'm sorry. Yes?

532
00:55:37,570 --> 00:55:38,490
Sorry. Okay.

533
00:55:41,280 --> 00:55:42,480
Oh, I'm sorry.

534
00:55:44,260 --> 00:55:47,860
Chair, if I may, I just wanted to offer a point of clarification before the committee

535
00:55:47,860 --> 00:55:53,300
does make their decision with regard to the community benefits. There has been some discussion.

536
00:55:53,920 --> 00:55:59,260
I just want to clarify that the community benefits is not currently before this committee

537
00:55:59,260 --> 00:56:05,440
for consideration. I just want everyone to be aware that the proposal to reduce the overall height

538
00:56:05,440 --> 00:56:11,040
and density of the site leads to an automatic reduction in the community benefits as

539
00:56:11,040 --> 00:56:16,900
per the registered community benefits agreement that is registered on title. So they received

540
00:56:16,900 --> 00:56:22,200
additional height and density for providing residential units downtown within the former downtown

541
00:56:22,200 --> 00:56:28,160
geography that was identified in our official plan as well as the retention of the heritage

542
00:56:28,160 --> 00:56:37,020
which we have now since designated and it is a designated facade as well as the provision

543
00:56:37,020 --> 00:56:38,480
for an amenity area.

544
00:56:39,140 --> 00:56:44,980
As the number of units has decreased and the requested increase and density has decreased,

545
00:56:45,260 --> 00:56:47,540
the size of the amenity area is then proportional.

546
00:56:48,840 --> 00:56:53,880
So, committee can certainly make the decision on the return of the facade.

547
00:56:54,000 --> 00:56:57,400
That's what is in front of the committee, but I think it is important to note that

548
00:56:57,400 --> 00:57:01,240
regardless of the outcome of a decision today and ultimately by council.

549
00:57:01,980 --> 00:57:06,040
They have under legislation and changes the legislation, the ability to reduce community

550
00:57:06,040 --> 00:57:10,700
benefits that is not altered at all with respect to the facade of the south.

551
00:57:15,200 --> 00:57:15,860
Thank you, Garrett.

552
00:57:17,800 --> 00:57:24,120
So we have the motion before us, but Peter before I go to the motion question.

553
00:57:25,420 --> 00:57:32,680
I would just like to make one comment for which is kind of summarized what I see before

554
00:57:32,680 --> 00:57:34,900
before us.

555
00:57:35,480 --> 00:57:41,920
So the committee is being asked to decide on the validity of two things.

556
00:57:42,120 --> 00:57:47,320
What is the addition of the door and the other is the reduction in the facade.

557
00:57:48,680 --> 00:57:58,440
So we look at the information that is, so regarding the door, I look at the information that we are presented with, and I do not believe that it is adequate.

558
00:57:59,640 --> 00:58:06,100
There is not enough information there for the committee to make an informed decision on that aspect.

559
00:58:07,860 --> 00:58:14,020
Regarding the reduction of the sod, there are two arguments that are put forward of why this

560
00:58:14,020 --> 00:58:15,280
sod has to be reduced.

561
00:58:16,120 --> 00:58:20,460
The first of all is that there is a risk of accidental damage to the existing building

562
00:58:20,460 --> 00:58:21,500
if it is not.

563
00:58:22,760 --> 00:58:28,660
There is no evidence accompanying this report to substantiate that claim.

564
00:58:29,740 --> 00:58:37,700
So, I do not think that there is adequate information in order to accept that assertion.

565
00:58:38,640 --> 00:58:44,920
The second is that the thought has to be reduced in order to accommodate the commercial

566
00:58:46,600 --> 00:58:48,360
use along the lane.

567
00:58:49,680 --> 00:58:55,500
Again, I don't think that has been adequately demonstrated within the information that is before us,

568
00:58:55,500 --> 00:59:03,820
and that the proponent has also said that he has that it may be possible that is retained

569
00:59:03,820 --> 00:59:08,560
if there are some modifications to it. And I think if the proponent came back with modifications

570
00:59:08,560 --> 00:59:15,340
suggested to that facade that the committee would be amenable to looking at them. But overall

571
00:59:15,340 --> 00:59:24,380
I think there is inadequate information in this. And so I ask sort of who's been equivalent

572
00:59:24,380 --> 00:59:27,880
Well, who benefits from this change, from the changes in front of us?

573
00:59:29,160 --> 00:59:37,120
And the only beneficiary that I can really see is the developer who benefits by what must

574
00:59:37,120 --> 00:59:42,400
be a fairly significant reduction in the construction cost by eliminating the requirement

575
00:59:42,400 --> 00:59:47,620
to have that building sod during the corner and have two pieces of the sod that are retained

576
00:59:47,620 --> 00:59:54,920
as opposed to one. Who does not benefit from this? Everyone else.

577
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:07,340
I do not believe that this is a minor change to what is left here that it is a fairly substantial change.

578
01:00:08,120 --> 01:00:18,500
And that the loss of that portion of the facade will really affect how this building is read, when it is enveloped in this tower.

579
01:00:20,040 --> 01:00:28,320
From the street, being able to identify what the original mass of that building is, as it turns the corner, as it sits in Gaudi's lane,

580
01:00:28,320 --> 01:00:33,720
is important for the future understanding of what that building shape is and how it sits

581
01:00:33,720 --> 01:00:41,220
and how it interacts with the street. And to remove that, I think further diminishes the heritage

582
01:00:41,220 --> 01:00:47,980
value of reducing the part of the building that this retained is to simply a front facade,

583
01:00:48,520 --> 01:00:58,280
which is applied to the front of a new modern condo tower. So, given that, I can support

584
01:00:59,640 --> 01:01:02,960
Nothing that is being asked in this proposal.

585
01:01:07,100 --> 01:01:08,720
Thank you, Peter. Good summary.

586
01:01:11,400 --> 01:01:13,660
Any other further comments?

587
01:01:15,540 --> 01:01:19,660
Well, we do have a motion before us.

588
01:01:20,660 --> 01:01:23,380
And I will read it.

589
01:01:23,380 --> 01:01:33,620
pursuant to Section 33 of Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HBA-2026-4-021

590
01:01:33,620 --> 01:01:40,840
be approved to permit the removal of a portion of the site, so-th return, and the alteration

591
01:01:40,840 --> 01:01:47,510
of an existing window opening into a door on the second floor of the front facade on the

592
01:01:47,510 --> 01:01:54,390
property, municipality addresses 16-20 Queen Street North subject to the following conditions

593
01:01:54,940 --> 01:02:04,010
that the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum dated July 23, 2026 in prepare by MHBC,

594
01:02:04,490 --> 01:02:09,030
the approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance

595
01:02:09,030 --> 01:02:15,010
of the Heritage Burmett, that an updated conservation plan be submitted and approved

596
01:02:15,010 --> 01:02:20,750
by the director of development and housing approvals prior to the issuance of a heritage

597
01:02:20,750 --> 01:02:27,810
permit. And that the final building permit drawings be reviewed in a heritage clearance

598
01:02:27,810 --> 01:02:34,630
provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Do I have

599
01:02:34,630 --> 01:02:39,570
anyone that will move it? Madam Chair, can I ask a quick question before we vote on this?

600
01:02:40,730 --> 01:02:47,150
I'm just wondering maybe to staff and there's an advantage or possibility to deferring what's

601
01:02:47,150 --> 01:02:51,770
before us here, as opposed to I think I'm seeing where this might be going and I'm wondering if

602
01:02:51,770 --> 01:02:56,650
there's an advantage to the proponent to defer it or refer it to staff, maybe avoiding additional

603
01:02:56,650 --> 01:02:58,730
fees down the road. Could speak to that.

604
01:03:01,210 --> 01:03:06,090
Through the chair with a deferral, there are some timing

605
01:03:06,090 --> 01:03:11,530
implications that would come into play under statutory requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act.

606
01:03:12,490 --> 01:03:18,810
Based on when the application was deemed complete, a decision on the application is required within

607
01:03:19,370 --> 01:03:28,230
90 days of that notice, and because there is no heritage, kitchen or committee meeting in October,

608
01:03:28,790 --> 01:03:35,530
or a council meeting in October, the deferral would move past that 90 day timeframe.

609
01:03:38,250 --> 01:03:41,870
Would you still have an opportunity in that time frame even if it's past the statutory

610
01:03:41,870 --> 01:03:44,830
the statutory timeline there to work with the proponent?

611
01:03:45,450 --> 01:03:50,570
Even when this committee is not sitting I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity to work on this

612
01:03:50,570 --> 01:03:55,150
Rather than just reject and send it back to the drawing board because I think we've made clear what what the issues are

613
01:03:55,630 --> 01:03:57,430
I'm just wondering there's way to keep it alive

614
01:04:00,350 --> 01:04:05,030
Through the chair. I don't have exact wording under the Ontario Heritage Act

615
01:04:05,030 --> 01:04:17,490
But I believe that there is a mechanism to extend the timing of one an application can be considered if there's agreement between the proponent and the municipality.

616
01:04:18,750 --> 01:04:28,830
If this application is rejected by this committee, would they have to submit a new application heritage permit application and pay the fee and ride the ride again?

617
01:04:30,940 --> 01:04:37,640
Through the chair, if this application is rejected here in through Council, then yes, a new

618
01:04:37,640 --> 01:04:39,540
app heard it from an application would be required.

619
01:04:46,730 --> 01:04:48,990
Any comments on that?

620
01:04:50,050 --> 01:04:50,130
Grant?

621
01:04:51,010 --> 01:04:55,990
Yeah, I just found, like sort of adding to what you're saying, I guess I'd ask the proponent.

622
01:04:56,310 --> 01:05:02,950
Would you be willing to come back if we did vote on a deferral with and respond to some of the questions

623
01:05:02,950 --> 01:05:04,650
that are being left on answered here?

624
01:05:12,140 --> 01:05:16,160
and I appreciate that it's a terrible time given that there's a municipal election in a month

625
01:05:18,570 --> 01:05:20,570
to defer something that is.

626
01:05:24,590 --> 01:05:25,590
They're not alone.

627
01:05:33,120 --> 01:05:36,960
For me to answer, yeah, yeah. Yeah, certainly we'd look at, uh,

628
01:05:37,000 --> 01:05:40,340
I'd be preferred to furl the rejection. Yes.

629
01:05:42,400 --> 01:05:47,120
So you'd be willing to work with staff to address some of these concerns that have been

630
01:05:47,120 --> 01:05:51,340
brought up here. Yeah, absolutely. And then it would come back to, I guess it would come back in

631
01:05:51,340 --> 01:05:53,880
November, if I'm correct.

632
01:05:56,040 --> 01:06:01,180
Through the chair, yes, the next scheduled Heritage Kitchener committee meeting is November.

633
01:06:02,520 --> 01:06:18,100
I just want to confirm what the Ontario Heritage Act says with respect to, like, working with applicants if the, if there is a deferral and it extends beyond that 90 day time frame,

634
01:06:18,100 --> 01:06:25,860
because I do know that the act says that if a decision is not rendered within those 90 days

635
01:06:25,860 --> 01:06:29,960
and it becomes an automatic approval of an application.

636
01:06:30,920 --> 01:06:35,200
So I just want to confirm what the act says with respect to you working with the applicant

637
01:06:35,200 --> 01:06:38,300
to extend that timeline if we're able to do that.

638
01:06:41,570 --> 01:06:44,510
So you're saying it, can I still speak?

639
01:06:45,050 --> 01:06:49,270
You're saying if it was deferred it would be an automatic approval after the 90 days.

640
01:06:50,690 --> 01:06:54,970
So no opportunity to, to examine this further.

641
01:06:56,910 --> 01:07:00,010
Based on my understanding of the Ontario Heritage Act, that's correct.

642
01:07:00,550 --> 01:07:01,490
Okay, thank you.

643
01:07:07,720 --> 01:07:09,240
Peter, you're looking this way.

644
01:07:10,680 --> 01:07:11,740
You have no comments.

645
01:07:13,780 --> 01:07:14,300
All right.

646
01:07:15,860 --> 01:07:17,700
Thank you very much.

647
01:07:19,100 --> 01:07:22,720
Staff, what is your recommendation here?

648
01:07:22,720 --> 01:07:26,940
So, Madam Chair, I would just confirm for you that any decision would have...

649
01:07:30,000 --> 01:07:36,760
Subtomber 28, decision on December 28 by Kitchener Council is within the 90-day consideration window.

650
01:07:37,300 --> 01:07:44,780
I know we only have two Councillors on our committee, but I might suggest that if we are worried about the 90-day window,

651
01:07:44,840 --> 01:07:48,840
and there's additional information that's needed prior to Councilmaking decision.

652
01:07:49,180 --> 01:07:56,940
That we endeavor to regroup with the two Councillors that are on Heritage Kitchener, and see if we can provide the information self-standing,

653
01:07:56,940 --> 01:08:01,420
and then Council will at least have an opportunity to review that additional information before

654
01:08:01,420 --> 01:08:04,360
a final decision is rendered on September 28th.

655
01:08:07,640 --> 01:08:19,380
So what we're suggesting here is to defer this application based on Council's decision.

656
01:08:20,080 --> 01:08:26,260
Perhaps staff, you can come up with what it is that we can vote on.

657
01:08:26,260 --> 01:08:32,740
So Madam Chair, I'd just to clarify this agenda, the entire agenda package from this evening

658
01:08:32,740 --> 01:08:38,200
will be proceeding to September 28th Council and ultimately Council, make a decision.

659
01:08:38,500 --> 01:08:42,480
Council will have regard for the decision that's made by Heritage Kitchener, but the final

660
01:08:42,480 --> 01:08:45,760
decision is made by Kitchener Council on these matters.

661
01:08:46,380 --> 01:08:50,800
What I'm suggesting to you today is whatever the committee decides, I think we've heard

662
01:08:50,800 --> 01:08:53,900
that there's some additional information that's needed and we've heard a commitment from

663
01:08:53,900 --> 01:08:55,540
the developer to provide that.

664
01:08:55,540 --> 01:09:00,160
I'm suggesting that there could be further dialogue with the two board counselors that are on

665
01:09:00,160 --> 01:09:05,340
heritage kitchen every now and September 28 and then we can potentially continue the discussion

666
01:09:05,340 --> 01:09:10,250
on September 28 and council will have that additional information before final decision is made.

667
01:09:12,300 --> 01:09:12,630
Thank you.

668
01:09:14,880 --> 01:09:24,560
So, yes, yes. I mean, I hear what you're saying, Garrett, regardless if we vote against this today,

669
01:09:24,560 --> 01:09:30,480
if the Heritage Committee were to reject this, it would still, there's that opportunity still exists,

670
01:09:30,880 --> 01:09:30,980
right?

671
01:09:31,240 --> 01:09:32,180
So just to clarify.

672
01:09:37,170 --> 01:09:42,410
So, are we suggesting to go ahead with this, well, I'm just saying that even if we were to

673
01:09:42,410 --> 01:09:48,690
reject it as a committee, it would still have to go back to Council, the end of September,

674
01:09:49,570 --> 01:09:56,450
but then the vote would be recorded as a, if that were the case, as a rejection, it doesn't

675
01:09:56,450 --> 01:09:58,810
I mean, the council couldn't then approve it.

676
01:09:59,110 --> 01:10:01,050
And we could still do the work with the developer

677
01:10:01,830 --> 01:10:05,490
as was suggested by Garrett, between now and then.

678
01:10:05,890 --> 01:10:09,130
So I guess what I'm saying is we could still

679
01:10:09,130 --> 01:10:12,270
reject this without anything really changing.

680
01:10:16,010 --> 01:10:18,890
All right, is there someone who can move the motion?

681
01:10:23,670 --> 01:10:26,030
All right, what does that mean?

682
01:10:26,390 --> 01:10:27,610
I do not see anyone.

683
01:10:27,870 --> 01:10:28,490
Yes, Peter.

684
01:10:31,320 --> 01:10:33,020
Oh, Peter, thank you.

685
01:10:33,420 --> 01:10:33,860
All right.

686
01:10:33,860 --> 01:10:50,020
All right, Peter will move this motion and so all those in favor of remember I will take in favor and non-in favor.

687
01:10:50,660 --> 01:10:54,040
Okay, all those in favor of the motion.

688
01:11:04,520 --> 01:11:10,900
So that will go to Council, September 28th.

689
01:11:31,700 --> 01:11:31,780
All right.

690
01:11:31,920 --> 01:11:41,820
Our next item is Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026v-016-1292 Village Road.

691
01:11:42,080 --> 01:11:49,540
Demolition and construction of single detached dwelling, DSD-2026-286.

692
01:11:49,540 --> 01:11:59,540
Victoria Grown heritage planner will present and do we have some delegations here on this?

693
01:12:01,420 --> 01:12:03,400
Okay, all right, Victoria.

694
01:12:07,940 --> 01:12:08,620
Thank you, Madam Chair.

695
01:12:09,520 --> 01:12:23,120
The development services department is in receipt of a heritage permit application for the property

696
01:12:23,120 --> 01:12:24,860
five of the Ontario Heritage Act.

697
01:12:25,380 --> 01:12:30,660
The subject property contains a single detached dwelling constructed in 1965.

698
01:12:32,600 --> 01:12:39,980
I also wanted to note that the properties of 1290 and 1296 do in village road have merged

699
01:12:39,980 --> 01:12:45,900
on title, which is why there are two building shown on this property, but the one in question

700
01:12:45,900 --> 01:12:48,820
is the one that is circled up on this screen.

701
01:12:50,580 --> 01:12:53,860
The application proposal contemplates the demolition

702
01:12:53,860 --> 01:12:55,580
of the existing single detached dwelling

703
01:12:55,580 --> 01:12:59,100
and the construction of a new single detached dwelling

704
01:12:59,100 --> 01:13:00,080
in its place.

705
01:13:05,090 --> 01:13:07,310
The existing single detached dwelling is identified

706
01:13:07,310 --> 01:13:10,190
as a non-herited building within the upper-dune heritage

707
01:13:10,190 --> 01:13:11,810
conservation district plan.

708
01:13:12,210 --> 01:13:14,350
Through heritage planning staff's review of the property,

709
01:13:14,610 --> 01:13:17,550
there are no heritage attributes that have been identified

710
01:13:17,550 --> 01:13:22,350
to be retained as part of the redevelopment

711
01:13:22,350 --> 01:13:22,950
on the property.

712
01:13:26,680 --> 01:13:30,500
So the proposal contemplates the construction of a new two-story single-detached

713
01:13:30,500 --> 01:13:36,460
dwelling with an attached one-and-a-half story garage with a loft on the property.

714
01:13:37,360 --> 01:13:44,880
The image above shows the location of the existing dwelling in red and an overlay of the location

715
01:13:44,880 --> 01:13:52,060
of the proposed new dwelling in green. The subject property has a lot size of 1.75 hectare

716
01:13:52,060 --> 01:13:53,880
or 4.33 acres.

717
01:13:55,340 --> 01:13:57,100
The location of the proposed new dwelling

718
01:13:57,100 --> 01:14:00,160
is generally in the same location as the existing.

719
01:14:00,700 --> 01:14:02,600
However, the orientation of the footprint

720
01:14:02,600 --> 01:14:04,540
of the building is slightly rotated.

721
01:14:05,460 --> 01:14:08,880
The new dwelling is proposed to be set back approximately

722
01:14:08,880 --> 01:14:14,060
6.27 meters or 20.57 feet further

723
01:14:14,060 --> 01:14:18,300
than the existing dwelling, maintaining limited to no impact

724
01:14:18,300 --> 01:14:20,880
on the Dune Village Road Streetscape.

725
01:14:25,650 --> 01:14:33,650
Based on the size of the existing lot, in noting that tree removals would be required to facilitate

726
01:14:33,650 --> 01:14:39,710
this development, Heritage Planning made the requirement of the submission and approval of a tree

727
01:14:39,710 --> 01:14:45,090
management plan and arborist report, a condition of a Heritage Permit application approval.

728
01:14:46,430 --> 01:14:52,310
Since the preparation of the staff report, that was included in the agenda package for this evening,

729
01:14:52,310 --> 01:14:57,130
Heritage Planning staff have since received the Tree Management Plan and Arborist Report and work.

730
01:15:00,000 --> 01:15:27,220
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 excess on that drawing.

731
01:15:28,060 --> 01:15:31,680
So there are 12 trees proposed to be removed,

732
01:15:32,760 --> 01:15:37,880
aid of which are within the boundary to facilitate the construction.

733
01:15:38,060 --> 01:15:43,060
The trees outside of the construction boundary that are proposed to be removed

734
01:15:43,060 --> 01:15:49,100
are dead or dying and are proposed for removal for general maintenance on the property.

735
01:15:50,200 --> 01:15:55,020
In general, the removals recommended are not anticipated to have

736
01:15:55,020 --> 01:15:59,820
is significant impact on views to the property from, from Dune Village Road.

737
01:16:02,340 --> 01:16:07,800
The size of the existing dwelling on the property is approximately 5,100 square feet,

738
01:16:08,280 --> 01:16:19,840
and the size of the proposed dwelling is 4,303 square feet with an additional 673 square feet of loft space above the attached garage.

739
01:16:20,880 --> 01:16:25,300
Due to existing grades on-site and working within these existing grades,

740
01:16:25,300 --> 01:16:34,800
The height of the proposed dwelling varies ranging from 8.65 meters to 10.6 meters, but the

741
01:16:34,800 --> 01:16:41,240
significant setback of this dwelling will assist to visually reduce the perception of the

742
01:16:41,240 --> 01:16:47,320
building height, and the new dwelling is proposed to be clad in brick and stone, in color

743
01:16:47,320 --> 01:16:50,520
tones that are shown on this slide.

744
01:16:54,800 --> 01:16:59,500
In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following.

745
01:17:00,080 --> 01:17:05,380
The existing dwelling is identified as a non-historic building, and does not contain significant

746
01:17:05,380 --> 01:17:07,440
architectural or historical features.

747
01:17:08,420 --> 01:17:12,660
And the proposal is generally in keeping with the policies contained within the upper-doin

748
01:17:12,660 --> 01:17:18,820
Heritage Conservation District Plan, as it relates to the form height roof windows, materials,

749
01:17:19,040 --> 01:17:19,560
and setbacks.

750
01:17:19,560 --> 01:17:25,960
Heritage planning staff do note that historically the size of proposed new dwellings within

751
01:17:25,960 --> 01:17:31,600
this district has been a concern. However, the policies in the district plan do not

752
01:17:31,600 --> 01:17:39,560
specifically refer to size and given current zoning requirements. The context of this particular

753
01:17:39,560 --> 01:17:45,480
site as it relates to the location of the proposed dwelling on the subject lock and the general

754
01:17:45,480 --> 01:17:51,320
of the subject lot. It is the opinion of heritage planning staff that the demolition of the existing dwelling

755
01:17:51,320 --> 01:17:57,240
in the construction of the proposed new dwelling. We will not adversely impact the heritage conservation

756
01:17:57,240 --> 01:18:06,620
district or the the Dune Village Road streetscape. So based on on the above heritage planning

757
01:18:06,620 --> 01:18:13,180
staff are recommending approval of the heritage permit application subject to the following conditions.

758
01:18:13,180 --> 01:18:21,440
The first one being that the Tree Management Plan and Arbor's report be approved prior to the issuance of a heritage permit.

759
01:18:22,280 --> 01:18:31,620
And further that the building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

760
01:18:32,280 --> 01:18:36,520
And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you.

761
01:18:36,520 --> 01:18:48,440
Thank you, Victoria. Are there questions for, oh I'm sorry, perhaps, delegation, do we have anyone here?

762
01:18:51,840 --> 01:18:54,600
Through the chair, no, there's no one for this particular application.

763
01:18:55,400 --> 01:19:00,360
Thank you. Questions for staff on this? Yes, Natalie.

764
01:19:01,800 --> 01:19:07,160
Just a question regarding the trees. So in the staff report, I know you mentioned there was just a bit of information

765
01:19:07,160 --> 01:19:12,280
still missing from the tree removal. In the staff report it says two trees were being removed.

766
01:19:12,600 --> 01:19:16,020
Now it's eight on the property for off the property correct.

767
01:19:18,760 --> 01:19:20,420
Through the chair for this

768
01:19:20,420 --> 01:19:27,960
application there are 12 removals proposed in total on this property. Eight of the removals are

769
01:19:27,960 --> 01:19:38,740
within direct relation to the development that's proposed. So where they're located is going to be

770
01:19:38,740 --> 01:19:47,520
the extension of the driveway. That's proposed. The remaining four trees that are proposed to be removed are either dead or dying.

771
01:19:48,100 --> 01:19:52,500
So it's been recommended that they be removed just for general maintenance on the property.

772
01:19:52,960 --> 01:20:00,560
All right. Fair enough with the four there. So just about those eight because in this staff report it said the trees slated for removal or proposed to be replaced.

773
01:20:00,560 --> 01:20:05,940
is the applicant now willing to replace all eight trees on the property.

774
01:20:10,590 --> 01:20:16,870
Through the chair, one of the recommendations coming out of the the Arborist report

775
01:20:16,870 --> 01:20:21,270
that's been prepared is that there may be a requirement for

776
01:20:22,650 --> 01:20:25,250
replacements on for trees on the property.

777
01:20:25,650 --> 01:20:30,090
That's something that staff are still reviewing and would work through with the applicant directly.

778
01:20:30,090 --> 01:20:36,210
Okay, yeah, I think I would be a little bit more comfortable just knowing a little bit more information regarding that as

779
01:20:36,210 --> 01:20:42,390
Even though trees maybe not in our scope, it is still a heritage value that deeply contributes to the area of dunes.

780
01:20:42,390 --> 01:20:44,150
So thank you so much.

781
01:20:45,920 --> 01:20:46,580
Thank you, Natalie.

782
01:20:47,860 --> 01:20:49,660
Council captain, did you have any?

783
01:20:50,680 --> 01:20:59,900
Yes, I had a similar question about the trees, but my other question has to do with the

784
01:20:59,900 --> 01:21:07,180
It's like, I don't know if it's hard to tell whether it's like a red brick or a brownie red brick, I'm not sure what color it is, but

785
01:21:07,180 --> 01:21:13,560
and now we're talking about it more sandstone color, and I don't know if that's what you call it, but you know what I mean.

786
01:21:14,320 --> 01:21:15,000
So I'm just wondering,

787
01:21:17,200 --> 01:21:23,680
is that more, is that in keeping with the heritage district itself, or is it a bit of a deep departure?

788
01:21:23,680 --> 01:21:24,740
through

789
01:21:30,720 --> 01:21:36,960
the chair, so I'm just pulling up the staff report here,

790
01:21:39,400 --> 01:21:42,380
so through the policies

791
01:21:42,380 --> 01:21:47,680
that are identified within the upper-do and heritage conservation district plan with respect

792
01:21:47,680 --> 01:21:55,260
to colors, it speaks to materials and colors being historically sympathetic colors that

793
01:21:55,260 --> 01:22:02,720
quiet subtle and natural or neutral shades. So the materials that are proposed to you

794
01:22:02,720 --> 01:22:06,840
that the colors of them I would say are in keeping with that policy with respect to being

795
01:22:06,840 --> 01:22:14,340
quiet subtle and neutral. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Chapman, other questions.

796
01:22:15,760 --> 01:22:16,400
Yes, Magda.

797
01:22:19,460 --> 01:22:24,120
So there hasn't been any demolition or new construction in the district since 2014.

798
01:22:30,000 --> 01:22:36,660
And one was the existing building that's proposed to me, demolish one was it built?

799
01:22:38,820 --> 01:22:43,180
Based on records, I believe it was around circa 1965.

800
01:22:45,380 --> 01:22:51,200
Okay. Yeah, I was going to also ask about the trees, but we got a response to that.

801
01:22:51,200 --> 01:22:57,860
And I have a few other comments, but maybe I'll wait till everyone has had a chance to ask questions. Thank you.

802
01:22:59,370 --> 01:23:01,490
Any other question?

803
01:23:03,190 --> 01:23:12,250
I wonder if you Victoria could bring up that picture of the tree from the road,

804
01:23:18,330 --> 01:23:18,990
that one.

805
01:23:19,790 --> 01:23:25,970
Okay, so this is a rather large proposal of a house.

806
01:23:25,970 --> 01:23:34,870
The orientation will not be with a facade or the front facing the creek as it is now,

807
01:23:35,650 --> 01:23:41,650
and so it's going to stand up and out up on the hill.

808
01:23:42,970 --> 01:23:48,790
However, if this role of trees is maintained,

809
01:23:48,790 --> 01:23:55,270
And it will, shall we say, diminish the impact of this particular house.

810
01:23:55,950 --> 01:24:03,730
The house in being proposed is similar in size to that which exists.

811
01:24:05,130 --> 01:24:11,490
And over the years, the former owner did add on and add on, because he loved to look

812
01:24:11,490 --> 01:24:15,730
out at the birds and the wildlife down on the creek.

813
01:24:16,670 --> 01:24:22,330
But anyway, this, the trees have been mentioned several times here.

814
01:24:23,590 --> 01:24:29,470
And I have concerns about the Arborist Report.

815
01:24:30,090 --> 01:24:39,690
And I would like to see on the finished project that these trees are planted,

816
01:24:39,690 --> 01:24:47,230
And so that we diminish the impact of this house on the road.

817
01:24:50,870 --> 01:24:58,630
As you can see, by having this corridor of trees up the lane, which is about, oh maybe,

818
01:24:58,830 --> 01:25:07,430
75 feet, you can hardly see that large house that was shown, the one that exists there.

819
01:25:11,240 --> 01:25:14,500
Amag, do you have something to say about this?

820
01:25:17,860 --> 01:25:29,940
Yeah, thank you. So I had concerns about this and my comments apply to this application and the next one they're both in the same

821
01:25:30,640 --> 01:25:41,860
Heritage District, they're kind of similar age and they're proposed to be demolished and replaced. So I just wanted to

822
01:25:41,860 --> 01:25:49,900
Yeah, just bring up a couple ideas and and perhaps the question at the end of this will be what is

823
01:25:51,360 --> 01:25:53,680
Whether the city is is working on

824
01:25:54,380 --> 01:25:56,820
Anything related to to what I'm about to say

825
01:25:57,440 --> 01:26:04,640
So of course the buildings in question are not considered historic buildings within the parameters of the HCD

826
01:26:05,900 --> 01:26:11,560
But as I mentioned I've concerns about the fact that would appear to be too fairly large functional dwellings

827
01:26:11,560 --> 01:26:14,740
are proposed to be demolished and presumably thrown in the landfill.

828
01:26:16,120 --> 01:26:18,900
So this application, for 1290 June Village Road,

829
01:26:19,020 --> 01:26:21,480
in fact specifically mentions that the existing house

830
01:26:21,480 --> 01:26:23,520
needs to be demolished because the owners wish

831
01:26:23,520 --> 01:26:26,800
to build a quote, durable energy efficient long-term

832
01:26:26,800 --> 01:26:28,560
residents and quote.

833
01:26:29,940 --> 01:26:32,600
And so aside from the by now conventional wisdom,

834
01:26:33,580 --> 01:26:36,300
the greenest building is the one that's already exists.

835
01:26:37,880 --> 01:26:40,760
There are also numerous studies that show the environmental

836
01:26:40,760 --> 01:26:47,780
economic and social benefits of retrofit and reuse over demolition, demolition and new construction.

837
01:26:48,920 --> 01:26:54,900
So I'll just cite two, for instance, 2016 report by the National Trust for Historic Preservation

838
01:26:54,900 --> 01:27:01,740
in the U.S., found that, quote, it takes between 10 and 80 years for a new building that is 30% more

839
01:27:01,740 --> 01:27:07,120
efficient than an average performing existing building to overcome through efficient operations.

840
01:27:07,120 --> 01:27:11,160
the negative climate change impacts related to the construction process.

841
01:27:12,800 --> 01:27:16,800
And number two, more recently this past February, the Canadian Association of Heritage

842
01:27:16,800 --> 01:27:21,780
Professionals or CAP published a report called unlocking the value of existing buildings

843
01:27:21,780 --> 01:27:27,060
and you approach to codes for carbon culture and cost, and among the findings of that report

844
01:27:27,060 --> 01:27:31,960
are that, quote, reusing existing buildings through retrofits emerges as one of the most

845
01:27:31,960 --> 01:27:34,480
effective strategies for reducing carbon emissions,

846
01:27:34,940 --> 01:27:37,120
development costs, and construction timelines.

847
01:27:37,980 --> 01:27:39,820
This approach minimizes embodied carbon

848
01:27:39,820 --> 01:27:42,000
and avoids the environmental and financial burdens

849
01:27:42,000 --> 01:27:45,460
of demolition, excavation, and new material production.

850
01:27:45,780 --> 01:27:48,500
Retrofit and addition scenarios consistently

851
01:27:48,500 --> 01:27:52,160
demonstrate the best balance of cost performance and emissions

852
01:27:52,160 --> 01:27:54,140
reduction across all case studies.

853
01:27:55,220 --> 01:27:57,600
So these and other studies point to something

854
01:27:57,600 --> 01:28:00,920
that is increasingly coming up in discussions

855
01:28:00,920 --> 01:28:06,100
about heritage conservation, which is that heritage buildings in addition to their cultural heritage

856
01:28:06,100 --> 01:28:11,740
value have inherent environmental benefits. And conversely, this culture of conservation

857
01:28:11,740 --> 01:28:18,300
can be expanded to non-designated buildings, non-designated existing buildings by recognizing

858
01:28:18,300 --> 01:28:24,200
their material and environmental value and figuring out how to creatively repair retrofit

859
01:28:24,200 --> 01:28:30,620
and adopt them for evolving needs. So the rationale for demolition provided in this application

860
01:28:30,620 --> 01:28:35,960
and the one that follows on the agenda include the statements that the existing buildings are

861
01:28:35,960 --> 01:28:43,780
quote an outdated or quote just old which struck me as funny reading that considering they are

862
01:28:43,780 --> 01:28:49,280
located within heritage conservation districts. And I think that these applications represent

863
01:28:49,280 --> 01:28:54,320
lost opportunities to adopt buildings from newer areas of construction in ways that are more

864
01:28:54,320 --> 01:28:59,860
sensitive to their surroundings and more environmentally conscious. And I realize that these are not

865
01:28:59,860 --> 01:29:05,880
You know, part of the buildings that are recognized within those parameters of the HCD,

866
01:29:06,260 --> 01:29:15,800
but I feel strongly that there should be more impetus to not taking an entire existing building,

867
01:29:15,860 --> 01:29:21,960
because it's 50 or 60 years old throwing it in the garbage and starting from scratch.

868
01:29:22,100 --> 01:29:27,080
I think that is still disruptive to the continuity of the area.

869
01:29:27,680 --> 01:29:34,600
So I just wanted to bring that up, just, yeah, I just wanted to share that because I feel very

870
01:29:34,600 --> 01:29:41,160
passionately about that, and I realized I might be yelling into the void, there's nobody

871
01:29:41,160 --> 01:29:46,720
here to delegate for this, but it wasn't necessarily named, you know, aimed specifically

872
01:29:47,360 --> 01:29:49,540
at the applicants for this application.

873
01:29:49,720 --> 01:29:56,660
It was just kind of a general comment, general encouragement to for us to think more about

874
01:29:56,660 --> 01:29:56,920
Yeah.

875
01:30:00,000 --> 01:30:04,240
Intersex with climate change and environmental issues.

876
01:30:05,720 --> 01:30:26,940
So, yeah, so I guess I don't know if you can answer this, but is there any kind of policy perhaps within 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,

877
01:30:26,940 --> 01:30:33,180
but encouraging the kind of retrofit addition, kind of, you know, not just taking a whole building

878
01:30:33,180 --> 01:30:40,500
and throwing it in landfill. Thank you. Thank you, Magda, stuff.

879
01:30:43,190 --> 01:30:45,710
Through the chair, I believe

880
01:30:45,710 --> 01:30:52,230
that there was some discussion of having these types of policies incorporated into the new

881
01:30:52,230 --> 01:31:00,970
official plan. I don't know where that landed or what the policies are. I don't have them in

882
01:31:00,970 --> 01:31:05,670
front of me but I can certainly appreciate the comments that you've made and definitely something

883
01:31:05,670 --> 01:31:15,050
for us to consider as we back continue working on any sort of policy development projects that

884
01:31:15,050 --> 01:31:15,950
come up.

885
01:31:19,090 --> 01:31:20,110
Thank you very much.

886
01:31:22,640 --> 01:31:26,080
Any other questions, comments? Yes, Laura.

887
01:31:28,790 --> 01:31:29,330
Thank you.

888
01:31:30,410 --> 01:31:38,110
I had write some discussion and concern about the large scale replacement homes and I just

889
01:31:38,110 --> 01:31:46,690
wondered if this this application suggests that the city needs clear policies on dwelling size

890
01:31:46,690 --> 01:31:52,550
and massing an upper-dune or the staff feel that the policies are sufficient.

891
01:31:58,060 --> 01:32:03,960
Through the chair, as I mentioned, the upper-dune heritage conservation district plan does

892
01:32:03,960 --> 01:32:12,860
not mention size of dwellings specifically, so when we are reviewing applications for new

893
01:32:12,860 --> 01:32:19,860
construction within the district, we look at other existing dwellings that are located

894
01:32:19,860 --> 01:32:32,840
within the area, but also consider context of those properties as well with respect to, you know,

895
01:32:33,200 --> 01:32:39,300
potentially reviewing the policies of the upper-do and heritage conservation district plan.

896
01:32:39,580 --> 01:32:46,740
That's not something that's been identified on on heritage planning staff's work plan in the future.

897
01:32:46,740 --> 01:32:53,400
But yeah, each application is reviewed based on its own own merit.

898
01:32:54,180 --> 01:32:54,260
So,

899
01:32:56,790 --> 01:32:57,210
thank you.

900
01:33:00,980 --> 01:33:02,560
Thank you, Laura.

901
01:33:05,480 --> 01:33:13,860
I think in the report, if you look in the report, which Victoria presented, there is

902
01:33:13,860 --> 01:33:21,640
quite a bit of discussion as to what happened following 2014 and the discussion.

903
01:33:21,640 --> 01:33:36,260
And it is of concern because of the heritage buildings and houses that are of much smaller.

904
01:33:37,140 --> 01:33:41,440
And most of them that exist are 3,000 square feet in less.

905
01:33:43,380 --> 01:33:44,300
Thank you.

906
01:33:44,300 --> 01:33:47,540
All right, I will go to the motion,

907
01:33:49,860 --> 01:33:53,960
then, that pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage

908
01:33:53,960 --> 01:33:56,380
Act Heritage Permit Application,

909
01:33:59,080 --> 01:34:05,800
HPA-2026V-016V approved to permit the demolition of an existing

910
01:34:05,800 --> 01:34:11,340
single detached dwelling and the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the

911
01:34:11,340 --> 01:34:17,940
Union Assembly addressed as 1290 doom village road in accordance with the supplementary information,

912
01:34:18,640 --> 01:34:22,380
submit it with this application and subject to the following conditions.

913
01:34:23,640 --> 01:34:30,080
One, that a tree management plan in Arborist report be submitted and approved prior to the

914
01:34:30,080 --> 01:34:36,920
issuance of a heritage permit and further, too, that the final building permit drawings be reviewed,

915
01:34:36,920 --> 01:34:43,520
Heritage Clarence provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

916
01:34:44,820 --> 01:34:48,400
So, um, who would move this one?

917
01:34:50,240 --> 01:34:53,520
The Council must show, uh, any questions?

918
01:34:54,380 --> 01:34:55,440
All those in favor?

919
01:34:58,410 --> 01:34:58,950
Opposed?

920
01:35:01,770 --> 01:35:01,910
Being?

921
01:35:03,150 --> 01:35:03,310
No.

922
01:35:03,970 --> 01:35:05,490
So, one abstin.

923
01:35:06,890 --> 01:35:09,530
All right, um, moving on then?

924
01:35:09,530 --> 01:35:20,730
4.3 Heritage Permit Application, HPA 2026, V-019-51, Dunbrook Place, Demolition and Construction,

925
01:35:21,370 --> 01:35:29,510
a single detached dwellings, DSD 2026305, Victoria Grown, will present.

926
01:35:33,970 --> 01:35:34,850
Thank you, Madam Chair.

927
01:35:35,530 --> 01:35:40,260
The Development Services Department is in receipt of a Heritage Permit Application for the

928
01:35:42,660 --> 01:35:47,540
The property is located within the upper-dune heritage conservation district and designated

929
01:35:47,540 --> 01:35:49,900
under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act.

930
01:35:50,580 --> 01:35:55,980
Dune brick place is located in the western limits of the upper-dune heritage conservation district.

931
01:35:57,060 --> 01:36:02,460
The subject heritage permit application contemplates the demolition of the existing single detached dwelling

932
01:36:02,460 --> 01:36:05,640
and the construction of a new single detached dwelling in its place.

933
01:36:07,210 --> 01:36:13,390
The existing dwelling is identified in the upper-do and heritage conservation district plan as a non-historic building.

934
01:36:14,570 --> 01:36:19,590
The dwelling was constructed circa 1968, and the attached garage was added in 2006.

935
01:36:20,590 --> 01:36:28,370
The existing dwelling is approximately 3,600 square feet and set back approximately 10 meters from the street at the closest point.

936
01:36:28,950 --> 01:36:32,370
No heritage attributes have been identified to be retained.

937
01:36:32,370 --> 01:36:33,350
The

938
01:36:36,030 --> 01:36:41,970
new dwelling is proposed to be located in the general location of the existing as shown on the slide.

939
01:36:43,030 --> 01:36:52,910
So the yellow is where the existing building footprint is located and the blue outline is the proposed new building footprint.

940
01:36:53,930 --> 01:36:58,770
The new dwelling is proposed to be two stories in height with an attached one story garage.

941
01:36:58,770 --> 01:37:07,010
The proposed dwelling is 3,760 square feet and is cited to be 2.5 meters closer to the

942
01:37:07,010 --> 01:37:12,470
street than the existing dwelling to account for updated zoning regulations and setback requirements.

943
01:37:13,490 --> 01:37:19,730
Grading challenges have been identified which also contribute to the reciting of the proposed dwelling on the property.

944
01:37:21,750 --> 01:37:25,730
The height of the proposed dwelling is 29 feet six inches at the front elevation.

945
01:37:25,730 --> 01:37:27,090
there is a sick...

946
01:37:30,000 --> 01:37:35,940
With the most noticeable impact on the west facade where the building appears to be three stories in height.

947
01:37:36,740 --> 01:37:45,740
The proposed cladding is primarily red brick with stucco and wood accents on the front facade, and the ground story at the rear of the dwelling is proposed to be clad in stone.

948
01:37:46,560 --> 01:37:56,760
Two trees are proposed to be removed on-site, and the applicant has indicated that there will be replacement of those trees.

949
01:38:00,410 --> 01:38:07,650
In reviewing the merits of the application heritage planning staff, the following, the existing

950
01:38:07,650 --> 01:38:12,090
dwelling is identified as a non-historic building and does not contain significant historic

951
01:38:12,090 --> 01:38:13,090
architectural features.

952
01:38:14,090 --> 01:38:18,570
The proposal is generally compliant with the upper-dune heritage conservation district policies,

953
01:38:18,630 --> 01:38:22,910
regarding the form, the roof, windows, materials, and sighting.

954
01:38:23,150 --> 01:38:28,270
And the size of the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the size of the dwelling that exists.

955
01:38:28,270 --> 01:38:34,150
It is the opinion of heritage planning staff that the proposed demolition and new construction

956
01:38:34,150 --> 01:38:42,010
is not anticipated to adversely impact the Dunebook streetscape or the upper Dune heritage

957
01:38:42,010 --> 01:38:43,210
conservation district.

958
01:38:44,830 --> 01:38:50,810
And so heritage planning staff recommend approval of the application subject to the following

959
01:38:50,810 --> 01:38:55,650
condition that the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided

960
01:38:55,650 --> 01:39:01,090
by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit and that concludes my presentation

961
01:39:01,090 --> 01:39:08,470
on this item. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria.

962
01:39:11,010 --> 01:39:25,630
Do we have anyone here for the

963
01:39:25,630 --> 01:39:27,590
staff or the delegation?

964
01:39:29,310 --> 01:39:29,370
Yes.

965
01:39:29,830 --> 01:39:30,370
Can I also chat?

966
01:39:30,830 --> 01:39:30,970
Yeah.

967
01:39:31,430 --> 01:39:35,650
I just wanted to thank Magdeff for bringing this to our attention.

968
01:39:36,630 --> 01:39:43,730
I'm looking at the official plan, 251, and I can't get through it all in this time that

969
01:39:43,730 --> 01:39:44,310
we have here.

970
01:39:44,930 --> 01:39:50,570
But one of the clauses that I just came across was referring to the circular economy, right,

971
01:39:50,650 --> 01:39:55,330
which would require, it says, the city can establish standards to ensure at least

972
01:39:55,330 --> 01:40:03,550
75% of buildings of a building's demolish demolition material is diverted from landfills.

973
01:40:04,390 --> 01:40:09,770
So I guess I'd like staff to speak to that and I know we've already passed the one application,

974
01:40:10,270 --> 01:40:14,250
but maybe you could speak to it in regard to this application.

975
01:40:17,650 --> 01:40:27,770
Through Madam Chair, so Kitchen 251 has been approved by Council and was still in front of the

976
01:40:27,770 --> 01:40:30,670
Councillor Chapman is referring to the waste of resources.

977
01:40:31,490 --> 01:40:37,470
What that chapter calls out is that there's a driving need to divert material from land

978
01:40:37,470 --> 01:40:42,550
fills into reduce the need for new raw materials in energy and it talks about a circular

979
01:40:42,550 --> 01:40:46,850
economy where we repair, reuse, recover, and recycle things.

980
01:40:47,370 --> 01:40:51,470
This is different than the current approach where most things are made used and disposed of.

981
01:40:51,510 --> 01:40:55,470
Change is the natural system energy systems and trade and partners all lead us to a more circular

982
01:40:55,470 --> 01:40:56,010
economy.

983
01:40:56,010 --> 01:41:22,050
So that is the overall objective between now and 251, and there are policies, there are three policies in this section which talk about creating the circular economy strategy for development for waste management and that buildings demolished for development should divert usable materials term landfill for reuse or recycling and then the city may establish standards to ensure at least 75% of a building demolition material is diverted from landfill.

984
01:41:22,050 --> 01:41:41,430
So, these are the objectives between now and 251 that we've set for ourselves in order to ensure that in this particular case, building materials from construction ways, are either retained or not become waste and where they do become waste and ensure that 75% of the materials are diverter from landfill.

985
01:41:41,850 --> 01:41:52,030
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 we're possible the city would support regional initiatives to encourage

986
01:41:52,030 --> 01:41:55,570
and enhanced existing recycling material programs.

987
01:41:55,930 --> 01:41:57,250
There are some in place now.

988
01:41:57,270 --> 01:42:00,410
I know that building materials are some of them are sorted,

989
01:42:00,590 --> 01:42:03,370
some of them are reused, some building materials actually

990
01:42:03,370 --> 01:42:08,110
are reused at the landfill, but that is a growing body of work

991
01:42:08,110 --> 01:42:10,690
and it's something that this policy supports over the

992
01:42:10,690 --> 01:42:13,090
fullness of time of our kitchen in 251 plan.

993
01:42:14,030 --> 01:42:19,530
But if we were to be more restrictive on demolition

994
01:42:19,530 --> 01:42:27,710
and look at retrofitting and working within the existing structures, we wouldn't have the landfill

995
01:42:27,710 --> 01:42:34,210
problem. I mean, bringing it back to us as a city, what tools do we have to ensure that we're

996
01:42:34,210 --> 01:42:43,830
being environmentally proper? And like I said, I just pulled that out of the official plan.

997
01:42:48,710 --> 01:42:48,830
I'm

998
01:42:48,830 --> 01:42:52,490
speak more specifically to demolition?

999
01:42:54,480 --> 01:43:00,460
Yes, and through the chair, so certainly that's within the energy conservation section.

1000
01:43:00,740 --> 01:43:06,300
There are also cultural heritage sections, including the retention and designating and retaining

1001
01:43:06,300 --> 01:43:11,840
of building, so it's something that I think this committee rightfully points out that an existing

1002
01:43:11,840 --> 01:43:16,460
building is the greenest building and we've been working hard through our missile heritage

1003
01:43:16,460 --> 01:43:23,340
review to designate properties to ensure that they will be retained over time, so it's not

1004
01:43:23,340 --> 01:43:26,960
something that's lost on us, but it's something that's part of our objectives between

1005
01:43:26,960 --> 01:43:27,640
now in 2050.

1006
01:43:30,560 --> 01:43:37,480
And if another application of the start were to come forward, would staff be in a position to

1007
01:43:37,480 --> 01:43:39,200
reject it before it comes to heritage?

1008
01:43:41,650 --> 01:43:42,270
Through the chairs.

1009
01:43:43,470 --> 01:43:50,150
So, in terms of, I won't hypothesize about future applications, but I will say, there

1010
01:43:50,150 --> 01:43:56,490
our residential demolition considerations within the Planning Act, and then there's retention

1011
01:43:56,490 --> 01:43:59,490
and building material recycling programs.

1012
01:44:00,390 --> 01:44:05,630
I think there wouldn't be the legislative ability necessarily to prevent something just for the

1013
01:44:05,630 --> 01:44:09,610
retention and non-reuse of buildings, but where I think we can probably have the biggest

1014
01:44:09,610 --> 01:44:14,070
movement as on the recycling of materials over time in partnership with the region.

1015
01:44:20,060 --> 01:44:25,730
Thank you, Councillor Chattman, any other questions?

1016
01:44:25,730 --> 01:44:27,450
Yes, Peter.

1017
01:44:29,570 --> 01:44:31,670
Yeah, I have a question.

1018
01:44:33,750 --> 01:44:40,210
I remember when I first joined the committee many years ago that there was more development

1019
01:44:40,210 --> 01:44:43,410
that was going on, redevelopment that was going on in the dunia area.

1020
01:44:44,370 --> 01:44:55,710
And there was a lot of frankly anger and a lot of negative feedback from the residents

1021
01:44:55,710 --> 01:44:56,990
It's a Dune 4.

1022
01:45:00,000 --> 01:45:11,300
Committee as approving large buildings that were inappropriate in scale and inappropriate in style for the, for the due neighborhood.

1023
01:45:12,540 --> 01:45:22,700
Since there hasn't been any development substantially since 2014, we haven't had to experience that.

1024
01:45:22,700 --> 01:45:28,660
So, my question is, even though this building is,

1025
01:45:28,740 --> 01:45:33,580
front goes from 3,600 square feet to 3,760 square feet,

1026
01:45:33,900 --> 01:45:39,140
as a building footprint, it appears at the gross floor area of the building

1027
01:45:39,140 --> 01:45:41,740
is substantially larger than the building that is there.

1028
01:45:42,000 --> 01:45:45,400
So, this building is three stories from the back, two stories from the front.

1029
01:45:45,400 --> 01:45:53,920
So, in terms of the total mass of the building, it looks much larger than the building

1030
01:45:53,920 --> 01:45:54,380
is there.

1031
01:45:54,540 --> 01:45:59,980
So my question is, have the neighbors been consulted over this proposal?

1032
01:46:04,590 --> 01:46:11,170
Through the chair, through the heritage permitting process for applications, residents in this

1033
01:46:11,170 --> 01:46:17,630
area have not been explicitly notified or consulted with respect to this application.

1034
01:46:17,630 --> 01:46:24,790
I can't speak to whether the property owner has done their own consultation or not, but

1035
01:46:24,790 --> 01:46:28,590
through city process that has not happened.

1036
01:46:30,830 --> 01:46:32,370
Thank you.

1037
01:46:32,370 --> 01:46:33,330
Thank you, Peter.

1038
01:46:35,530 --> 01:46:39,310
In the audience, do we have a delegation who would like to speak?

1039
01:46:46,070 --> 01:46:46,470
Good evening.

1040
01:46:46,790 --> 01:46:50,930
I'm the owner of the 51-Dunbrook, so I have a...

1041
01:46:50,930 --> 01:46:51,350
Sorry.

1042
01:46:52,730 --> 01:46:58,890
Okay, I'm the only thing you want to do in the book, so regarding the size of the building currently is one and a half story building

1043
01:46:58,890 --> 01:47:06,030
So there is a second floor, but it's not completed it's attic, so it's smaller width, but if you can see from the pictures

1044
01:47:06,030 --> 01:47:12,390
There are windows in the second floor, so we are just taking the floor and explaining the walls to be a complete floor

1045
01:47:12,390 --> 01:47:18,710
Not done just an attic. Otherwise the footprint of the building stays the same as because of that expansion of the second floor

1046
01:47:18,710 --> 01:47:21,090
the total levels for footage is increasing.

1047
01:47:21,590 --> 01:47:23,350
And also partially by taking some space

1048
01:47:23,350 --> 01:47:25,730
from the garage and converting to the four year.

1049
01:47:26,090 --> 01:47:29,150
That's why there is an appearance of increased

1050
01:47:29,150 --> 01:47:31,310
footage, but actually the footprint of the building

1051
01:47:31,310 --> 01:47:33,370
remains the same in the second story.

1052
01:47:33,770 --> 01:47:36,330
The total height does not increase substantially

1053
01:47:36,330 --> 01:47:38,810
because of expanding the second floor.

1054
01:47:39,050 --> 01:47:40,890
Regarding the neighbors, there are five houses

1055
01:47:40,890 --> 01:47:41,810
in the Dunbrook village.

1056
01:47:42,030 --> 01:47:44,710
And in the Dunbrook place, we've been living there

1057
01:47:44,710 --> 01:47:45,610
for the five years.

1058
01:47:45,950 --> 01:47:48,230
We are all friends there with the pretty much all the neighbors.

1059
01:47:48,230 --> 01:47:53,350
we get together regularly so we've been informing them about the plans and show them designs

1060
01:47:53,350 --> 01:47:58,150
of the buildings that call a renderings as far as like two years ago we've been discussing

1061
01:47:58,150 --> 01:48:01,950
that with them. So that's what I have to say on that.

1062
01:48:05,380 --> 01:48:06,000
Yes Peter.

1063
01:48:08,080 --> 01:48:10,880
The member of the Heritage

1064
01:48:10,880 --> 01:48:18,840
Committee who is the representative for Dune, I wonder if I could solicit their opinion on the

1065
01:48:18,840 --> 01:48:25,180
necessity, whether there is necessity for neighborhood consultation of which has already been done.

1066
01:48:33,240 --> 01:48:53,720
Yes. I'm in the initial meeting. That was a question and I understand that the owners have asked the other neighbors about their

1067
01:48:53,720 --> 01:49:00,780
proposal and presented it. But I think it is, it is very important.

1068
01:49:04,160 --> 01:49:06,280
I have concerns

1069
01:49:06,280 --> 01:49:15,200
about the back end and how it is going to fare with all the buildings, the bungalows

1070
01:49:15,200 --> 01:49:19,020
that are immediate to the right and left of this property.

1071
01:49:21,040 --> 01:49:24,060
any other questions of the delegation?

1072
01:49:26,700 --> 01:49:29,180
Peter, do you have any more? Thank you.

1073
01:49:32,740 --> 01:49:33,620
Thank you.

1074
01:49:35,940 --> 01:49:35,980
Oh,

1075
01:49:39,160 --> 01:49:45,100
Magda. I just wondered, what is the actual exterior clotting proposed?

1076
01:49:45,160 --> 01:49:52,540
Because we in the report we see, it says brick in the rendering it looks like Stockholm or something.

1077
01:49:52,540 --> 01:50:00,620
and in the drawing, it looks like a stone, so would you be able to clarify what the exterior

1078
01:50:00,620 --> 01:50:07,000
clotting will be? Yes, the upper two levels are going to be red brick, as closely

1079
01:50:07,000 --> 01:50:11,900
I remember in the existing brick, so we've selected the brick with a very similar texture

1080
01:50:11,900 --> 01:50:19,300
and a very similar color and the lower level, which is only visible from the left side and from

1081
01:50:19,300 --> 01:50:25,380
the back is going to be a gray stone and Stockholm accents are going to be only where the

1082
01:50:26,540 --> 01:50:27,480
cables are.

1083
01:50:29,740 --> 01:50:35,400
So we tried to go for the farmhouse style so I didn't have a front porch

1084
01:50:35,400 --> 01:50:41,280
with a roof over the porch that makes the building appear a small and height and then it would

1085
01:50:41,280 --> 01:50:45,960
been I, but I was just flat to story. It's all building with a flat facade.

1086
01:50:51,270 --> 01:50:58,180
Thank you, Magda. Any other seeing none. Thank you very much.

1087
01:51:00,810 --> 01:51:02,630
All right, we have a motion

1088
01:51:02,630 --> 01:51:10,990
before us, pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act Heritage Permanent

1089
01:51:10,990 --> 01:51:19,930
application HPA 2026 v-019 be approved to permit a demolition of an existing single detached

1090
01:51:19,930 --> 01:51:25,870
dwelling and the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the property, municipally

1091
01:51:25,870 --> 01:51:31,530
addressed his 51 Dune Brookplace in accordance with the supplementary information submitted

1092
01:51:31,530 --> 01:51:37,450
with this application and subject to the following condition that the found building permit drawings

1093
01:51:37,450 --> 01:51:42,790
be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the

1094
01:51:42,790 --> 01:51:52,030
issues of a building permit. Who will move this? Grant will move it. Any further

1095
01:51:52,030 --> 01:51:54,410
questions? All those in favour?

1096
01:51:57,440 --> 01:52:00,960
A one abstention. Thank you.

1097
01:52:07,100 --> 01:52:08,920
And I neglected to say that

1098
01:52:08,920 --> 01:52:17,900
Item 4.2 and 4.3 will go to Council September 28, 2026.

1099
01:52:18,900 --> 01:52:26,460
Now we have Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026V-02421 St.

1100
01:52:30,000 --> 01:52:37,120
DST 2020-26318, Victoria groan, aye, our teacher planner will present. Thank

1101
01:52:40,380 --> 01:52:40,960
you.

1102
01:52:41,020 --> 01:52:44,680
Through you, Madam Chair, I will be presenting this report. So bear with me.

1103
01:52:51,470 --> 01:52:55,170
We're out of order. Here's this bear with me. There we go.

1104
01:52:57,840 --> 01:53:06,640
So the application before us is 21 St. Ledger Street located between the south side of St. Ledger Street, between the and between Victoria Street, north.

1105
01:53:06,640 --> 01:53:13,200
It is designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act through its location within the Civic Center,

1106
01:53:13,240 --> 01:53:18,820
a neighborhood heritage conservation district. It contains a two-story Berlin vernacular brick dwelling

1107
01:53:18,820 --> 01:53:26,000
constructed around 1920. The proposal is to replace an existing porch with a new side yard addition,

1108
01:53:26,760 --> 01:53:31,700
retain the original brickwork and openings, relocate entrance steps within the new addition

1109
01:53:31,700 --> 01:53:36,400
and use contemporary materials complementary to the historic dwelling.

1110
01:53:38,910 --> 01:53:43,350
This is a slide showing in planned view to the left,

1111
01:53:44,030 --> 01:53:47,470
the proposed addition and then an elevation, a hand sketch

1112
01:53:47,470 --> 01:53:51,870
elevation of the proposed addition to the right.

1113
01:53:56,800 --> 01:53:59,740
This is the existing condition, so you can see there's already

1114
01:53:59,740 --> 01:54:07,460
an existing addition off the side of the house with a portion situated in front of the

1115
01:54:07,460 --> 01:54:13,280
entry and then the window located directly adjacent to the porch so that this is the

1116
01:54:13,280 --> 01:54:14,480
existing condition current.

1117
01:54:19,080 --> 01:54:21,160
So the merits of this application that proposed edition

1118
01:54:21,160 --> 01:54:26,540
is subordinate to the original 1910 Berlin vernacular dwelling, allowing the historical

1119
01:54:26,540 --> 01:54:31,000
building to remain the prominent feature on the property. The addition is complimentary

1120
01:54:31,000 --> 01:54:35,880
in form, massing, and roof design, while remaining distinguishable from the original construction

1121
01:54:35,880 --> 01:54:37,580
through the user contemporary materials.

1122
01:54:38,340 --> 01:54:41,880
The proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the Civic Center Neighborhood

1123
01:54:41,880 --> 01:54:46,660
Heritage Conservation District Plan, and is compatible with the guidelines for subordinate

1124
01:54:46,660 --> 01:54:48,780
distinguishable and complementary additions.

1125
01:54:57,880 --> 01:55:02,640
So, Sandro, that's the report, fine.

1126
01:55:04,660 --> 01:55:08,080
Are there any questions about this proposal?

1127
01:55:09,960 --> 01:55:10,800
Yes, Magda.

1128
01:55:12,140 --> 01:55:17,560
I just wondered the owner's application indicates that this is the second request for this project,

1129
01:55:17,560 --> 01:55:20,380
and I was just wondering what happened with the first.

1130
01:55:20,400 --> 01:55:24,400
Did it just Peter out or was there an issue?

1131
01:55:29,170 --> 01:55:30,230
Can you hear me?

1132
01:55:30,650 --> 01:55:33,150
I am the homeowner of 21 St. Letters Street.

1133
01:55:33,790 --> 01:55:46,610
Um, we drew a proposal for this addition along with our front porch proposal last year and it was deemed at the time that that was just too much to work through.

1134
01:55:47,990 --> 01:55:53,950
Um, so in order to proceed on our front porch, we had to put a big X through our drawing for the side porch.

1135
01:55:53,950 --> 01:56:07,610
So, I have had it drawn up by a just building designer already, and then that was determined to be to not subordinate to our house.

1136
01:56:08,210 --> 01:56:10,210
So, we've drawn it up again.

1137
01:56:11,690 --> 01:56:12,810
Thank you.

1138
01:56:16,300 --> 01:56:18,700
Are there any other questions for the delegation?

1139
01:56:20,400 --> 01:56:21,440
Councillor Chaplin.

1140
01:56:21,640 --> 01:56:21,680
Yeah.

1141
01:56:22,380 --> 01:56:26,760
What is this setback from the adjacent property of this edition?

1142
01:56:27,240 --> 01:56:29,180
There should be at least four feet.

1143
01:56:29,480 --> 01:56:30,100
Like it's within.

1144
01:56:30,560 --> 01:56:32,900
I figured it would be by as his curious to know what it is.

1145
01:56:32,900 --> 01:56:34,320
So it's about four feet.

1146
01:56:35,580 --> 01:56:36,660
Thank you.

1147
01:56:38,790 --> 01:56:39,330
Thank you.

1148
01:56:39,570 --> 01:56:39,990
Councillor Chaplin.

1149
01:56:40,150 --> 01:56:41,050
Any other questions?

1150
01:56:41,230 --> 01:56:41,490
Yes, Peter?

1151
01:56:44,060 --> 01:56:44,240
Yeah.

1152
01:56:46,480 --> 01:56:51,860
In, we see a lot of additions that come up on heritage buildings and they heritage

1153
01:56:51,860 --> 01:57:03,240
district and for the most part it's if it is not visible from the street from the public realm

1154
01:57:03,240 --> 01:57:11,620
right and personally it's like how about it right you know it's like it's it's it's just really

1155
01:57:11,620 --> 01:57:17,060
of no concern to to the public about what happens in the parts of the building that that are not visible

1156
01:57:17,700 --> 01:57:22,680
but in this one there's this one thing that is visible from the street that is that I find

1157
01:57:24,000 --> 01:57:30,540
inconsistent. And that is the shape of that window on the on the front of it. And it has

1158
01:57:30,540 --> 01:57:39,100
that angled. It has a top that angles up to match the line of the line of the roof.

1159
01:57:39,600 --> 01:57:46,400
Well, we need to I want to leave the two windows that are on that side aspect of the house as they are. So it has to be

1160
01:57:46,400 --> 01:57:58,040
Sorry, could you speak with us at the machine? Sure. So we need to take in the window as well as the door in order so it's high there to cover the window, which is actually high.

1161
01:57:58,660 --> 01:58:07,320
The windows that are currently on that wall are going to remain intact. One of them will be inside the mud room and the other one will be outside the mud room.

1162
01:58:08,100 --> 01:58:11,600
Right. So it's just the one elevation at the front facing the very front.

1163
01:58:12,020 --> 01:58:12,400
Right.

1164
01:58:12,900 --> 01:58:13,560
That's nice.

1165
01:58:13,800 --> 01:58:14,320
Like to it.

1166
01:58:14,360 --> 01:58:15,920
Can we look at it?

1167
01:58:16,740 --> 01:58:17,780
So I know which one you mean.

1168
01:58:18,280 --> 01:58:18,960
I don't know.

1169
01:58:19,800 --> 01:58:25,160
So it's the one where I'm taking in the one window, because it has to cover the window

1170
01:58:25,160 --> 01:58:26,860
and the door.

1171
01:58:27,160 --> 01:58:28,300
Do you mean?

1172
01:58:28,960 --> 01:58:30,280
Three of you men, I'm sure.

1173
01:58:30,580 --> 01:58:33,800
Watch me struggle with this for a minute, but I'm going to get to where we need to.

1174
01:58:33,800 --> 01:58:34,380
That one.

1175
01:58:34,600 --> 01:58:34,980
That's the one.

1176
01:58:35,480 --> 01:58:36,960
The window is at the right of the door.

1177
01:58:37,660 --> 01:58:39,080
Why is the top of the window sloped?

1178
01:58:39,080 --> 01:58:46,860
Oh, that was just to make best use of the space. It could easily be a rectangular window.

1179
01:58:47,380 --> 01:58:51,260
That's what I'm asking you to consider because I find that.

1180
01:58:51,260 --> 01:58:51,500
Absolutely.

1181
01:58:51,820 --> 01:58:56,880
Shape of that window is inconsistent with the language of the rest of the building that faces the street.

1182
01:58:57,140 --> 01:58:59,040
Sure. I'm happy to change that.

1183
01:58:59,180 --> 01:59:00,440
That's my...

1184
01:59:00,440 --> 01:59:01,860
Good notes. Thank you.

1185
01:59:02,080 --> 01:59:02,540
Thank you.

1186
01:59:07,860 --> 01:59:08,480
Thank you Peter.

1187
01:59:08,680 --> 01:59:10,820
Any other questions for the delegation?

1188
01:59:16,560 --> 01:59:28,520
So I'm assuming then that your comment will be included, Victoria, you're taking note of what Peter is said.

1189
01:59:28,520 --> 01:59:40,020
Okay. All right. We'll move them to the motion, pursuant to Section 42 of the Interior Heritage Act Heritage Permit Application

1190
01:59:40,020 --> 01:59:56,660
HPA 2026v-024 be approved to permit a construction of a side yard addition to the property municipal address as 21 ledger street in accordance with a supplementary information

1191
02:00:00,000 --> 02:00:13,080
To the following tradition that the following building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

1192
02:00:13,160 --> 02:00:19,420
Who will move it? Laura Will, all those in favor.

1193
02:00:21,020 --> 02:00:30,020
Thank you. We're now on to 17-Norfolk Crescent Construction of Rear Edition and will this be Victoria or

1194
02:00:31,440 --> 02:00:32,840
Sandra Victoria.

1195
02:00:33,860 --> 02:00:37,060
Through the chair actually our student planner Luke is going to present this one.

1196
02:00:37,300 --> 02:00:38,160
Thank you.

1197
02:00:38,280 --> 02:00:38,800
Very good.

1198
02:00:57,720 --> 02:01:04,420
Thank you Madam Chair. The development services department is in receipt of the heritage application for the property

1199
02:01:04,420 --> 02:01:07,320
municipally address as 17-Norfolk Crescent.

1200
02:01:09,360 --> 02:01:12,220
The property is located on the north side of

1201
02:01:12,220 --> 02:01:17,280
Norfolk Crescent, west of St. Claire Avenue. It is designated under Part 5 of the Ontario

1202
02:01:17,280 --> 02:01:21,600
Heritage Act through its location within the St. Mary's Heritage Conservation District,

1203
02:01:22,380 --> 02:01:27,880
and it contains a 1.5-story residential dwelling representative of the traditional residential

1204
02:01:27,880 --> 02:01:29,500
character found throughout the district.

1205
02:01:32,140 --> 02:01:34,580
What is being proposed in this application is the

1206
02:01:34,580 --> 02:01:39,940
instruction of a one-story rear addition to the existing dwelling, as illustrated in this

1207
02:01:39,940 --> 02:01:44,920
drawing from the side of the dwelling. The addition will contain wood-siding that complements

1208
02:01:44,920 --> 02:01:51,000
the existing dwelling, as is labeled on the drawing. It is also labeled above that the rear

1209
02:01:51,000 --> 02:01:53,920
roof line will be extended to make the addition possible.

1210
02:01:57,400 --> 02:01:58,980
The purpose of this application is to

1211
02:01:58,980 --> 02:02:03,800
spend the existing bathroom at the back of the dwelling, which is circled in red on the second

1212
02:02:03,800 --> 02:02:06,420
drawing showing the layout of the dwelling.

1213
02:02:07,220 --> 02:02:11,820
Since the addition is completely in the rear of the dwelling, this proposal will maintain limited

1214
02:02:11,820 --> 02:02:14,000
visibility from the public streetscape.

1215
02:02:16,680 --> 02:02:21,100
In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff have determined that the

1216
02:02:21,100 --> 02:02:26,480
application remains consistent with the policies in the St. Mary Heritage Conservation District

1217
02:02:26,480 --> 02:02:30,800
Plan, which do encourage rear additions that are subordinate to the original building.

1218
02:02:30,800 --> 02:02:37,000
With respect to policies which support a small scale and mass, the addition is small, which

1219
02:02:37,000 --> 02:02:40,900
will ensure that the existing dwelling remains the dominant architectural feature.

1220
02:02:41,620 --> 02:02:46,480
The small scale means that the design of the addition follows Heritage Conservation District

1221
02:02:46,480 --> 02:02:52,160
policies, which specified that additions are a sympathetic and distinguishable from the original

1222
02:02:52,160 --> 02:02:52,720
house.

1223
02:02:53,560 --> 02:02:58,340
Further guidelines for residential additions which recommend, against expanding the buildings

1224
02:02:58,340 --> 02:03:01,780
with are met since the addition only extends towards the rear.

1225
02:03:02,740 --> 02:03:06,820
As a result, the addition will not be visible from the public right of way and is not

1226
02:03:06,820 --> 02:03:10,400
anticipated to negatively impact the heritage character of the district.

1227
02:03:12,760 --> 02:03:18,020
And so Heritage Planning staff recommend approval of the application subject to the condition

1228
02:03:18,020 --> 02:03:23,000
that final building permit drawings be reviewed and that heritage clearance be provided

1229
02:03:23,000 --> 02:03:27,060
by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

1230
02:03:27,060 --> 02:03:32,120
and that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you.

1231
02:03:32,180 --> 02:03:36,160
Thank you, Luke. Any questions to Luke?

1232
02:03:37,560 --> 02:03:38,260
Yes, Magda.

1233
02:03:39,840 --> 02:03:40,320
Thank you.

1234
02:03:41,020 --> 02:03:45,840
I just noticed that the staff report says that according to the HCD plan,

1235
02:03:46,380 --> 02:03:50,240
additions at the rear should always be slightly lower than the existing roof ridge line,

1236
02:03:50,380 --> 02:03:53,420
which is the case and stepped in at the sides.

1237
02:03:54,680 --> 02:04:00,720
So, this is a small detail, but this addition to me does not look like it's stepped in.

1238
02:04:01,760 --> 02:04:03,620
It goes right to the edge of the building.

1239
02:04:04,340 --> 02:04:12,760
So, 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.

1240
02:04:19,710 --> 02:04:25,110
Through the chair noted, thank you.

1241
02:04:25,450 --> 02:04:32,970
Yeah, based on what's being proposed here and the location of the renovation.

1242
02:04:34,330 --> 02:04:44,590
Well, this isn't in direct compliance with what's provided within the Heritage Conservation District Plan with respect to that particular policy.

1243
02:04:44,590 --> 02:04:59,470
It was determined that this addition meets the overall intent with respect to additions being located at the rear and being subordinate to the primary dwelling on the property.

1244
02:05:03,280 --> 02:05:07,060
Thank you, Magda, your questions answered.

1245
02:05:07,920 --> 02:05:09,440
Any other questions?

1246
02:05:11,840 --> 02:05:12,720
All right, comments.

1247
02:05:14,020 --> 02:05:19,540
So, we'll have the motion that pursuant to Section 42 of the Interior Heritage Act Heritage

1248
02:05:19,540 --> 02:05:28,320
Permit Application HPA, 2026V-023, to permit the construction of a one-story rear addition

1249
02:05:28,320 --> 02:05:52,440
on the property in a display addressed as 17-Norfolk Cresson be approved and accordance with the supplementary information submitted with this application and subject to the following condition that final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

1250
02:05:52,440 --> 02:05:55,300
Who will move this?

1251
02:05:55,720 --> 02:05:56,780
Councillor Chapman.

1252
02:05:57,860 --> 02:05:58,680
Any comments?

1253
02:05:59,460 --> 02:06:00,780
All those in favor?

1254
02:06:01,640 --> 02:06:02,700
Carried unanimously?

1255
02:06:03,300 --> 02:06:04,660
I just want to say great, Chauffman.

1256
02:06:15,920 --> 02:06:17,880
And this will be delegated.

1257
02:06:18,320 --> 02:06:21,740
It will be carried under delegated approval authority.

1258
02:06:23,720 --> 02:06:24,080
All right.

1259
02:06:25,080 --> 02:06:30,500
Now we have notice of intention to designate 105117 onward Avenue,

1260
02:06:30,500 --> 02:06:33,880
under Part 4, the Ontario Heritage Act Victoria.

1261
02:06:37,990 --> 02:06:38,830
Thank you, Madam Chair.

1262
02:06:39,370 --> 02:06:43,870
Heritage Planning Staff is bringing forward a notice of intention to designate the property

1263
02:06:43,870 --> 02:06:49,570
municipally addressed as 105 to 117 onward Avenue. This property was previously considered

1264
02:06:49,570 --> 02:06:54,730
by the Heritage Kitchener Committee in May and based on an evaluation of the property

1265
02:06:54,730 --> 02:06:57,970
of the 6th of 9 criteria for designation.

1266
02:06:58,970 --> 02:07:03,790
The building on the subject property is representative of the Structuralist Architectural

1267
02:07:03,790 --> 02:07:08,970
Style characterized by its cubic-built form, rectilinear massing of modest proportions,

1268
02:07:09,890 --> 02:07:14,250
clear expression of interior functions on the exterior of the building and the flat roof.

1269
02:07:14,690 --> 02:07:19,510
The building features two H-plan modules connected by a rectangular module.

1270
02:07:23,600 --> 02:07:27,020
The Historical Associate of Value of the Property Relates.

1271
02:07:30,000 --> 02:07:35,940
I was in Boom in the original owner and builder Michael Krauss. The building illustrates the role of apartment

1272
02:07:35,940 --> 02:07:41,700
buildings in addressing post-war housing needs in Kitchener and this architectural style offered

1273
02:07:41,700 --> 02:07:46,520
a utilitarian and economical solution for government buildings, public schools, and apartment

1274
02:07:46,520 --> 02:07:53,020
complexes for the growing post-war population in Canada. The building at 105 to 117 onward Avenue

1275
02:07:53,020 --> 02:07:57,520
is part of a series of several apartment buildings constructed by different owners on a modified

1276
02:07:57,520 --> 02:07:59,440
plan around 1948.

1277
02:08:01,280 --> 02:08:03,860
And Michael Krause founded Krause Carpent Mills and

1278
02:08:03,860 --> 02:08:07,680
Studex fibers in the late 1950s and early 1970s,

1279
02:08:07,780 --> 02:08:08,080
respectively.

1280
02:08:09,040 --> 02:08:10,740
These businesses are still in operation.

1281
02:08:11,620 --> 02:08:13,100
Krause was also found to have

1282
02:08:13,100 --> 02:08:15,560
stand investments, a company owned by the new

1283
02:08:15,560 --> 02:08:17,720
Apostolic Church of Canada, which was involved in

1284
02:08:17,720 --> 02:08:19,580
apartment construction and land development.

1285
02:08:20,420 --> 02:08:23,500
He was either owner or builder of several other

1286
02:08:23,500 --> 02:08:25,740
similar apartment complexes across the city.

1287
02:08:27,530 --> 02:08:32,670
The contextual value resides in the properties contribution to maintaining and supporting the

1288
02:08:32,670 --> 02:08:35,550
character of the onward avenue and we were 3D streetscapes.

1289
02:08:36,070 --> 02:08:40,550
The building is in its original location, maintains its original use, and is located in

1290
02:08:40,550 --> 02:08:46,290
an area which was represented, which was represented of the limits of Kitcheners urban development.

1291
02:08:46,790 --> 02:08:51,330
There is a link between this building and the neighboring H plan apartment buildings at 265

1292
02:08:51,330 --> 02:08:56,550
University of East and 141 to 149 board an avenue north.

1293
02:08:59,740 --> 02:09:05,620
Based on the outlined information heritage planning staff is recommending the following

1294
02:09:05,620 --> 02:09:11,260
that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish

1295
02:09:11,260 --> 02:09:16,300
a notice of intention to designate the property, municipality addressed as 105 to 117 onward

1296
02:09:16,300 --> 02:09:21,140
avenue as being of cultural heritage value or interest, and that concludes my presentation

1297
02:09:21,140 --> 02:09:21,840
on this item.

1298
02:09:21,840 --> 02:09:24,020
Thank you.

1299
02:09:24,020 --> 02:09:27,640
Thank you, Victoria. Any questions on this one?

1300
02:09:30,180 --> 02:09:32,180
Seeing none, we'll move to the motion.

1301
02:09:33,640 --> 02:09:39,260
And if the motion, if the report receives approval from the Committee, I'll go to Council

1302
02:09:39,260 --> 02:09:47,160
for approval September 28th. So motion, pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act,

1303
02:09:47,400 --> 02:09:52,900
the clerk be directed to publish as notice of intention to designate the property,

1304
02:09:52,900 --> 02:10:01,940
The municipal address as 105-17 onward Avenue is being of cultural heritage value or interest.

1305
02:10:02,640 --> 02:10:04,280
Who will move it?

1306
02:10:04,660 --> 02:10:07,260
Councillor Michelle Wood, all those in favor.

1307
02:10:08,300 --> 02:10:08,860
Carried.

1308
02:10:09,240 --> 02:10:09,900
Thank you.

1309
02:10:10,640 --> 02:10:20,060
So we've had several of these buildings built by the same person and it's interesting if we

1310
02:10:20,060 --> 02:10:26,160
had a file on I find. So information items,

1311
02:10:28,620 --> 02:10:33,620
tracking, sheet, all right. I just wanted

1312
02:10:33,620 --> 02:10:40,160
to make a comment or two about those properties on Dune Village Road, or sorry, the heritage

1313
02:10:40,160 --> 02:10:47,920
conservation of Dune, and especially the 51 Dune Brook place. And we're finding, and there's

1314
02:10:47,920 --> 02:10:55,740
whole section of it, we say they're not historic buildings, however it's a type of building

1315
02:10:55,740 --> 02:11:05,140
and I don't know how we bring it in like in the 1960s, late 1960s, early 70s of the bungalow style.

1316
02:11:06,900 --> 02:11:12,540
And as I pointed out to staff, you know, sometimes these aren't the most

1317
02:11:12,540 --> 02:11:20,200
preferable buildings to keep or to even live in and we like the more modern ones and what

1318
02:11:20,200 --> 02:11:27,480
is up in the subdivision and so you know I'm wondering how we deal with this and we should be

1319
02:11:27,480 --> 02:11:37,280
thinking of this because these houses will be having a turnover and probably the next 10, 15 years

1320
02:11:37,280 --> 02:11:39,620
and then how to maintain them.

1321
02:11:40,520 --> 02:11:49,120
I think Magda, you have brought some very good information about reuse and how to reuse them

1322
02:11:49,120 --> 02:11:54,340
and make them fit according to the needs of today's society.

1323
02:11:54,860 --> 02:12:03,120
And we need to be thinking about that and perhaps staff can put that on its agenda of work

1324
02:12:03,120 --> 02:12:04,740
how we deal with it.

1325
02:12:04,740 --> 02:12:11,880
Two items of information doors open Waterloo Region is Saturday, September 19th.

1326
02:12:11,900 --> 02:12:16,940
If you go to the site, you'll see all the buildings listed that are open, the Waterloo County

1327
02:12:16,940 --> 02:12:18,700
Jail and Governor's House.

1328
02:12:18,900 --> 02:12:27,660
If I can put in a plug for whoever would like to help, monitor the doors and hand out

1329
02:12:27,660 --> 02:12:29,100
pamphlets would be welcome.

1330
02:12:29,100 --> 02:12:37,220
And then, lastly, the National Trust for Canada Conference, October 22, to the 25th,

1331
02:12:37,280 --> 02:12:45,380
2026, Waterloo Region, first time ever here, and it will be at the Crown Plaza and

1332
02:12:45,380 --> 02:12:47,240
also the Walper Hotel.

1333
02:12:47,760 --> 02:12:55,810
Good speakers, if you go on site on the site, you will see the speakers and also the

1334
02:12:55,810 --> 02:13:04,370
tours and Magda you're doing one tour of the Victoria Park district. So very good. It's in the

1335
02:13:04,370 --> 02:13:08,290
making. All right, who would like to adjourn the meeting?

1336
02:13:10,330 --> 02:13:13,490
Councillor Michelle. Thank you very much.

1337
02:13:15,330 --> 02:13:17,410
We'll see you in November.