[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] 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.
[0:19] So, we'll now proceed to number two on our agenda which is disclosure, pecuniary, interest, or general nature thereof.
[0:30] Is there anyone with a pecuniary interest?
[0:35] Seeing none. Thank you.
[0:38] To our discussion items.
[0:40] 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.
[1:06] Victoria Groen or Heritage Planner will provide a five-minute presentation and then we
[1:13] have some delegations.
[1:17] Victoria.
[1:21] Thank you Madam Chair. Before I begin this item I did want
[1:25] to just take a very brief moment to introduce our student planner, Luke Marlet, who is sitting
[1:31] next to me here. Luke will be presenting one of the items later on on this agenda but I just
[1:37] to introduce them to the committee before we begin.
[1:40] Thank you.
[1:44] So the Development Services Department is in receipt of a Heritage
[1:48] Permit application, HPA-2026, IV-021 for the property
[1:54] municipally addressed as 16 to 20 Queen Street North.
[1:58] This property is designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act
[2:02] through designating by law, 2022-077.
[2:07] This property is subject to an active site plan application which contemplates retention of the
[2:13] front facade and portion of the side returns as part of the construction of a multi-story residential tower.
[2:20] A Heritage Permit application received conditional approval in 2022 for the partial demolition of the existing building and the construction of a tower.
[2:29] 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.
[2:54] The Heritage Attributes, as identified in the designation by law, include exterior attributes
[3:01] that are primarily located on the front or east facade of the building.
[3:06] The brick with flimish bonding is also found on the side south return.
[3:11] So I've included an excerpt from the designating by law on this slide here for the committee's
[3:19] review and information of the exterior heritage attributes that have been identified on this
[3:24] property.
[3:29] As noted, the property is subject to an active site plan application, which has received
[3:33] conditional approval, as well as a heritage permit application, which has received conditional
[3:38] approval back in 2022. Since that time, an amendment application was received in 2025 to reduce
[3:45] the conditionally approved 34 story tower to 21 stories and as part of that amendment, there
[3:52] were no changes to the heritage facades contemplated. In July of this year, an amendment
[3:58] application was received to further reduce or to request further changes to the site plan
[4:05] application including a reduction in building height from 34 to 19 stories, reducing the community
[4:12] benefit space on the ground floor, introducing two commercial units on the ground floor facing
[4:18] Gaudi's lane, alternate existing window opening on the front facade to provide a second
[4:24] story balcony access and reducing the excavation required to preserve the portions of the
[4:30] existing building being retained. In order to facilitate these site plan changes, a portion
[4:36] of the south side return is proposed to be removed.
[4:39] And the slide shows what was conditionally approved
[4:42] in the portions of this facade to be retained
[4:45] as part of the original site plan submission
[4:47] as shown on the left.
[4:50] And then what is now proposed on the right.
[5:00] The images on the slide for the demonstrate
[5:03] what is proposed with respect to the reduction
[5:06] in the south side return.
[5:08] The top elevation drawings show what was conditionally approved and the lower elevation drawings shows what is now proposed in terms of facade retention on the south side.
[5:20] And the image on the right shows what the existing south facade looks like.
[5:33] As noted, a window on the second story of the front facade is now proposed to be altered to accommodate a door opening for access to the balcony.
[5:41] And the image on this screen notes where this change is proposed.
[5:51] In reviewing the merits of the application heritage planning staff note the following,
[5:55] the majority of the identified heritage attributes are located on the front east facade,
[6:01] which is proposed to be conserved in its entirety.
[6:04] The proposed alteration of a secondary window opening to a door will not adversely impact
[6:09] the cultural heritage value of the building.
[6:12] A portion of the side, including the brickwork, will remain to maintain the legibility of the historic structure and the proposal facilitates redevelopment while preserving the building's character defining elements as identified within the designating by law.
[6:32] 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.
[6:44] 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.
[6:57] that an updated conservation plan, the submitted and approved, and that the final building
[7:03] permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided.
[7:07] I also want to note that the conditions as outlined in the previous heritage permit application
[7:14] from 2022, which facilitates the demolition of the building and construction of the
[7:20] new tower are still applicable to this as well.
[7:24] And that concludes my presentation on this item.
[7:28] Thank you.
[7:32] 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.
[7:46] So,
[7:52] we have,
[7:57] sorry,
[8:03] my note says Dan Curry and Brock Boehler,
[8:10] who,
[8:14] 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.
[8:30] And I'm also joined by Brian Prudeham, who is the partner of with momentum developments.
[8:40] Okay.
[8:40] Thank you.
[8:41] Go ahead.
[8:45] Is there a...
[8:52] Prepared a short presentation today that just describes some of the changes in a little more detail.
[8:57] And I'm also available to answer questions.
[8:59] And if there's anything I can't answer, hopefully Brian will be able to answer as well.
[9:04] So this is for...
[9:08] Um, I think we're having difficulty, um, hearing. Definitely. Sorry. Is this a little better?
[9:16] Yes. I'm sorry. I'm assuming that you can up the volume.
[9:21] Pologies. I'm a soft spoken person. I'll try to project a little more. Right. Thank you.
[9:26] Is that better for committee? You can hear better. Okay. Thank you.
[9:33] 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.
[9:47] There have been changes to the property, which we will describe in a little more detail in this presentation.
[9:54] since the approval of the previous heritage permit application,
[10:02] the apologies, the changes that we're going to go over,
[10:07] include a reduction in height of 34 to 19 stories,
[10:11] addition of two commercial units at the ground floor,
[10:13] as Victoria mentioned, a reduction in the retained existing
[10:18] south facade of the current building. A reduction in the excavation required to preserve the existing
[10:27] portions of the building, so this includes micropiles on the exterior steel structure, as
[10:33] well as excavation under the existing facade, and also the window opening that is proposed to
[10:40] be altered into a door to allow for balcony access.
[10:47] So the reduction in height, as we
[10:50] to a mentioned does not alter the heritage attributes of the building, and it is not as part
[10:56] of this, no changes are proposed to the heritage facade.
[11:02] The ground floor has undergone some changes through the site plan process.
[11:07] This includes the addition of two commercial units.
[11:10] It also includes the reduction in size of the community benefit space.
[11:15] This space is proposed for commemoration, and that has not changed.
[11:19] 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.
[11:41] 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.
[11:53] It's also intended to permit Goaties Lane to the south to remain open for the duration
[12:03] of construction activities.
[12:06] As I mentioned, the installation of the micro piles and the steel structure on the exterior
[12:11] would have required the closure of Goaties Lane during the retention and construction.
[12:20] And it also decreases the risk to the existing building as it no long requires excavation
[12:26] to happen underneath that facade.
[12:34] So as I mentioned in the graphic, you can see the reduction in excavation requirements,
[12:40] the area that was required by the engineers to excavate beneath the facade, do the retention
[12:51] on the exterior. That has now been reduced to the portion which you can see on the right.
[13:01] The window opening on the second story balcony of the front facade is proposed to be altered
[13:07] into a doorway to permit access to that balcony. We're proposing to retain bricks from the existing
[13:14] opening so that it can be returned to its original state at a later date. Those will be stored
[13:19] on site, so that impact to the heritage aspect of the building is minimal.
[13:27] And just to conclude, the overall impacts in addition to what we're previously identified
[13:35] are minor negative impacts, resulting from the removal of a slightly larger portion of
[13:40] the south facade, negligible impacts related to the window opening, and a beneficial impact
[13:47] resulting from the change in the structural short requirements,
[13:54] and that the recommendations
[13:56] of the previous HAA remain applicable, and those are what we are recommending here as well.
[14:08] All right.
[14:08] Questions for the delegation?
[14:17] Peter, please.
[14:21] Yeah.
[14:22] Some technical questions.
[14:24] First about the window.
[14:26] In the front of the saw,
[14:31] what if you have any more information about a couple of aspects of it?
[14:36] One is is that the relationship between the residential unit on the inside and its floor level and the floor level of the balcony.
[14:46] 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.
[15:01] To be honest, I'm not sure if there's a change in floor elevation between the interior of the building as it's proposed and the balcony. Is that something 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?
[15:18] Okay. So yeah, we will have to...
[15:21] I'm sorry, did not hear that.
[15:23] 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.
[15:28] Okay. So in order to make a door out of window, you're going to have to remove a portion of the
[15:33] facade, which is below the window. Yes, that's correct. That's correct. So there's no information
[15:40] on what that opening looks like after you're done in this package.
[15:51] I believe it's shown on the elevations of the current building, the east elevations.
[15:57] If you could point me to that in the application, that would be great.
[16:04] I'm going to, I will have to take a look at that and get back to you.
[16:10] I mean, I'm not sure that we currently have available beyond what is in the elevations
[16:14] for though.
[16:17] So this new balcony is a change of use from the existing.
[16:22] Therefore, it would have to meet current codes
[16:25] and would not be grandfathered in under the existing.
[16:31] 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.
[16:42] 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.
[16:50] existing, it shows the concrete or the stone-crant-layed atop, and it shows something different
[16:59] on the new. There is no other information on what the changes that you are suggesting to
[17:05] that front protocol because of that requirement. Is that correct? That is correct.
[17:14] The current
[17:15] existing detailing is proposed to remain the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
[17:21] granulated balcony rail. Um, but beyond that, I'm not aware of other
[17:27] changes that are proposed to the balcony as a result of. So we don't know
[17:30] what that will look like now at this point. It's, it's proposed to, um,
[17:37] Sorry, perhaps you could
[17:40] That railing is is part of the
[17:45] Historic designation of the front. Yeah, you were proposing a change to that railing, but we are not being shown what that changes
[17:51] No changes are proposed to the railing.
[18:01] Okay, let's
[18:04] Some questions vote the change to the building facade on gaudling
[18:12] There are two arguments that you bring forth in the report of why this facade should be shortened.
[18:23] So the first one is, it is a reduction, this is called from a reduction of risk of accidental damage to the existing.
[18:32] There is no accompanying structural report with this application.
[18:42] And in the application itself, there's an area that says to be determined after structural investigation.
[18:50] Without a structural report, how do we assess what that risk of accidental damage is and whether it is a significant risk.
[19:01] And how, without a structural report, how do we know that shortening this facade is actually
[19:09] necessary in order to remediate that risk?
[19:15] So, we are, we are the stabilization plan is currently being prepared by the project engineers.
[19:24] I don't think that the argument is specifically that it's necessary to prevent it, however,
[19:32] that the reduction in excavation and shoring requirements will ultimately result in that being the case.
[19:47] We certainly are planning to share this stabilization plan when it's available,
[19:52] but the information in this report was also discussed in conversation with the projects engineers,
[20:00] and so that's what they have stated.
[20:01] Okay, sorry for taking much time. One last question. The second argument that you
[20:06] put forward for the reduction of the length of the sod is that it is required in order
[20:14] to accommodate the new commercial units which will face on to Gaudy's name. Can you help
[20:21] me understand what it is about changing the use to commercial along Gaudy's lane, which prohibits
[20:30] the retention of that section of the building?
[20:35] Certainly, so I think it's probably not fair to say prohibits, but there are certain
[20:44] requirements that certainly make it desirable for commercial units to have their own entrances
[20:49] to have a more activated streetscape to have a high level of glazing, for example, and
[20:55] those requirements are part of what was being accommodated in order to allow for those
[20:59] commercially units. Could those items be met by retaining the existing facade and making alterations
[21:06] to it as opposed to demolishing the entire thing?
[21:13] I think it's certainly possible but it would
[21:18] be more of a challenge to accommodate the needs of those commercially units and it would still
[21:23] require the the full closure of of Gaudi's Lane.
[21:27] Thank
[21:30] you. Thank you, Peter.
[21:32] Councillor Mishol, you have a question.
[21:35] Thank you. Yes, go ahead.
[21:37] Thanks to your presentation. I'm a little a
[21:39] stuck a little on the community benefit space. This was quite an important piece.
[21:46] As we initially went through this process of designating this building
[21:50] and then allowing it to grow into a more space or an apartment or a high rise.
[21:57] So you're cutting the community space back to almost half of the space you have.
[22:02] And that was one of the, I thought that I recall, that was one of the big important kind of
[22:06] stickers that we had to keep this as a performance community space.
[22:11] So I'm curious as to why that's changed.
[22:18] So that was kind of a commitment that was made, I recall.
[22:21] I'm a little bit worried about the background on that, so I think I'm going to put this chair.
[22:36] Hi, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Heather Price. I'm the planning consultant on this file.
[22:42] I thought I would just scoot down here and explain that the community benefit space is a direct correlation
[22:48] for the amount of flory area in the building that's being proposed. So under the zoning framework that applies to this land,
[22:56] 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.
[23:13] And so with the reduction in height, the amount of community benefits basis been scaled down accordingly.
[23:19] And that's in part of financial decision, which is not my area of expertise, and perhaps
[23:24] there, when we might tap in the third person on the team here to speak to that, but it certainly
[23:29] is a financial consideration and providing the right amount of amenity and community benefit,
[23:38] including the retention of the heritage to offset the amount of density that's being sawed.
[23:45] Okay, thank you.
[23:46] Thank you.
[23:49] Councilman show, you had your answer, thank you.
[23:56] Councillor Chaplin.
[23:58] Yeah, thank you.
[24:00] So it sounds like this is a third iteration of this proposal.
[24:06] In order to save that south side, what height would you need?
[24:12] Can we go back to an earlier iteration where we've got to bring in more housing
[24:15] And we keep the facade the way it was originally planned and, you know, we work with, I mean, I think some of us are quite disappointed that the original building was being demolished at all, right?
[24:29] 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.
[24:44] to understand how I can justify it, right?
[24:46] From a heritage perspective.
[24:55] I'm not sure if there's that type of
[24:56] interest between two or three of us.
[24:58] Yeah, I'll jump back.
[24:59] Could you just speak in to the book like
[25:02] a little bit better, please?
[25:03] Got a team of whispers here, sorry about that.
[25:07] That's okay.
[25:09] So from a zoning perspective, what's proposed
[25:12] complies?
[25:14] To answer the question on how many floors
[25:16] we need to be added in order to
[25:18] to justify the retention of the suddenly facade or how many bonus floors could be added
[25:27] if they were to do that. It's not the only thing that I don't have readily at my disposal
[25:33] today.
[25:34] It's already complied right?
[25:36] They complied today.
[25:37] They complied from the very beginning.
[25:39] They complied with the changes and now we're here again, wanting further changes.
[25:44] And so I don't think there's a question of complying.
[25:47] It's more a question of, you know, where does heritage fit into this?
[25:52] And where did the previous commitments fall into what's being proposed here?
[26:07] Was that a question?
[26:08] Was that a question?
[26:10] Well, I'll ask you to clarify what my question was, I guess.
[26:13] I think Councillor Chaplin, you've asked a legitimate question, and it's clear.
[26:19] And what is the delegation have to say about it?
[26:24] Help what you're answered?
[26:27] Through you, Madam Chair, I, from my perspective, and again, I'm the land use planner on this file.
[26:32] Her priority is looking to official plan, conformity, and zoning compliance.
[26:37] And the plan, as, as before you today, does comply.
[26:41] It does attempt to, while it is a scaling down of the community benefits,
[26:46] it nevertheless does still contain community benefits.
[26:50] It is up to the committee to determine whether the amount
[26:56] is justified based on the merits that have
[27:01] been presented to you this evening.
[27:05] I would just add that on a balance of competing priorities,
[27:11] the attempt is sort of to provide a number of different benefits. For example, a more
[27:21] activated street scape along Cody's Lane, which those commercial units will provide,
[27:28] while still offering some community benefits space. The retention of as much of the existing
[27:34] facade as is feasible while still allowing both of those items to coexist. So it's an attempt
[27:45] to weigh all the priorities and come out with a positive outcome.
[27:55] Councillor Chaplin, do you any further? No, I might have something later, but I know there's
[28:00] questions. Thank you. Other questions? Yes. Preston. Thank you. I guess this to my mind
[28:12] this speaks to kind of two different planning requirements. On one hand we have the argument
[28:20] that the community benefits basis in ratio to density per the zoning requirements. But we are
[28:29] community-wide and that designation speaks to community benefit across the entire city.
[28:36] So, I guess that brings it back to the Heritage Impact Assessment to my mind.
[28:41] Was there any consideration given to the contextual value in the impacts of these changes?
[28:46] We know that the streetscape is a public facing one.
[28:50] We have open spaces at the market square across the way.
[28:53] We have the Lainway itself acting as a public space with the lighting, the entrance signage,
[29:02] the street art, all of those things.
[29:05] But I don't recall any discussion of the contextual value and the community benefit of maintaining those spaces in the HIA.
[29:13] So I'm wondering if there was any consideration given what we're talking about community benefits to the benefits of more retention,
[29:21] as well as kind of tying that back into that argument about the community benefits
[29:27] based within the building itself. Just putting that into a wider contextual
[29:32] discussion under if you have any thing you can add on that.
[29:37] Certainly, three of you Madam Chair. So within the the HRA
[29:44] We do express that from a purely a heritage perspective,
[29:50] retention of a greater portion of the south facade would be a more positive outcome for the cultural heritage resource.
[30:00] 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.
[30:10] And so, you know, this is ultimately a weighing and balancing of those priorities.
[30:21] And from a heritage perspective, we think that it is a justified change, but it does constitute
[30:31] an additional minor negative impact from what was previously proposed on a purely heritage level
[30:38] of consideration.
[30:46] Preston, you have your answer?
[30:49] I do.
[30:53] Are there any other questions for the delegation?
[30:57] Yes.
[30:58] Magda.
[31:00] Thank you.
[31:02] 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.
[31:13] So regarding the balcony,
[31:17] 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.
[31:29] That
[31:34] is something that I would have to liaison with the project architects with and get back to you.
[31:42] But as far as the drawings of the front facade that we have received,
[31:49] that railing is not proposed to be altered.
[31:54] Okay, but we don't know that.
[31:56] We don't know whether there's anything going behind or on top of the railing potentially.
[32:04] I might just add and perhaps redirect to staff, but as yet in the site plan approval process,
[32:13] we haven't received comments to my knowledge that identify that the railing has to be increased
[32:20] to conform to current building code standards. So as far as I know, there's not a requirement for that,
[32:26] but happy to have that confirmed by staff who are in attendance.
[32:30] Okay, yeah, I imagine that's not something that would be a discussion at site plan approval,
[32:35] but it's something that we're, well, many of us, I think are interested in this.
[32:40] Currently, as our media, I mean, to be clear, we want to make sure it's safe as well
[32:45] and building code compliance is really getting to the heart of safety with really high rates.
[32:51] So it's a great question that's been raised.
[32:54] Building department is circulated on our site plans and building permit applications.
[32:59] So we would have expected it to be flagged if it were an issue, but perhaps that's something that can be taken back and staff could comment on.
[33:07] So also if this current like presentation to the committee, would this be assuming there's no further changes to the project?
[33:18] Would this be the last time that the Heritage Committee has a chance to ask questions and discuss?
[33:24] three
[33:28] -year Madam Chair, it's certainly our client's intention to develop as proposed.
[33:35] Here, it is regrettable for all parties that the market has not been what everyone had hoped
[33:40] to realize the full density of your original plan.
[33:44] So it is partly those conditions that have caused us to have to keep pausing and restarting
[33:50] and pausing and restarting.
[33:52] And that said, very excited to get going with this version of the plan, if there is support
[33:58] here, of course, from Heritage Committee and staff through the site plan approval process.
[34:06] I'm not sure that answers my question,
[34:14] if I can answer it.
[34:17] I was just curious if this is approved from a Heritage Perspective, if this is the last time
[34:25] see this because I feel like there's a lot that information that's missing and so I
[34:30] yeah I was just wondering if it would come around again or if this is the the final
[34:35] stop assuming everything goes forward from this point on.
[34:39] Do you read Madam Chair sorry if I misunderstood the question yes I think this would be the
[34:44] the final say with respect to the applications that are before. Okay. Thank you. Okay so
[34:51] And I do want to go back to the, of course, the south facade, so this statement of cultural heritage value
[34:58] or interest that was included as part of the application materials for this agenda.
[35:06] Describes the contextual value of the property as including its functional and historical links to its surroundings,
[35:11] including specifically Gaudi's Lane.
[35:15] So considering that most of the existing elevation facing Gaudi's Lane is now proposed to be demolished
[35:19] would this be considered a negative impact to the contextual value of the property and if so
[35:26] is that documented anywhere because I don't believe that was mentioned in anything I read.
[35:33] Through you, Madam Chair, yes, the reduction in the south facade is considered an additional
[35:39] minor negative impact from what was previously proposed, which was the retention of the larger portion
[35:45] of the south facade to the heritage attributes of the building, which includes the context.
[35:52] The portion of the facade that is proposed to be retained, the intention is that a sufficient
[35:59] portion of the building is being retained, which allows for the legibility of the structure
[36:04] to still be read on Gaudi's lane, and it's similar to what is being retained on the north side
[36:09] of the structure as well.
[36:10] 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
[36:25] And so the
[36:28] 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?
[36:39] with the new construction and what that connection is going to be like.
[36:49] So as I mentioned, we're still waiting on the final stabilization plan from the project engineers.
[36:56] So that's something that we will be providing more detail when it's available.
[37:01] But currently, the existing portions of the facade are proposed to be retained in place with a steel support skeleton.
[37:14] That will be along the front facade of the building.
[37:19] And the return that is being retained along the south facade does not require that.
[37:30] Because there's not going to be the underground exclamation in place, so.
[37:36] Thank you. And the regarding the salvage plan, so we heard about how the the bricks from removed from the
[37:48] from beneath the window opening, that's proposed to be turned into a door will be kept on sight.
[37:53] But obviously there's a whole lot more material being demolished.
[37:58] And so what proportion of the like physical material will be salvaged and what proportion will go to landfill and of the materials that are salvaged what will happen to them after deconstruction.
[38:17] So the intent is to salvage as many features which include decorative detail which is characteristic of the building as possible.
[38:28] However, that's something that is going to have to be determined at the time of demolition by the demolition contractor because the condition of a lot of those features is not known.
[38:39] And so, sometimes in the over the course of demolition it will turn out that features are in a lot worse condition than anticipated.
[38:47] it. So that's not something that it's really possible to provide a specific percentage in advance
[38:54] because that's something that is going to have to be determined based on the conditions
[38:58] on site at the time of demolition.
[39:01] Okay, thank you.
[39:04] Thank you, Magda. Your answers. Sorry, I did think of one question that
[39:11] I was came to me during the previous discussion regarding the commercial space. You know,
[39:19] 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.
[39:35] 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.
[39:53] 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.
[40:04] that's empty, it's not then the scale for me tips even further to, well, that doesn't seem
[40:12] like it's worth it. So I guess I'm wondering what have there been any studies done on the
[40:17] viability of commercial spaces on that section of Goaties Lane.
[40:26] In relation to downtown
[40:29] trends here in the country.
[40:38] Three of them shared.
[40:40] Our short answer collectively is no.
[40:43] Perhaps our client might be able to
[40:44] comment on their level of confidence for
[40:47] leasing a space in that environment.
[40:50] But that's side of our expertise and
[40:52] knowledge through this process.
[41:02] Yes, would slightly more than a
[41:03] wing in a prayer.
[41:04] A lot of the retail that you're referring to on
[41:06] King Street is.
[41:08] not great sizes, right?
[41:10] You're seeing sort of 2000 plus square foot retail spaces
[41:13] that are struggling to lease or sell within a condo.
[41:17] But these are designed just over 600 square feet.
[41:20] I think it's just under 800 as the secondary one.
[41:24] So we like that size.
[41:27] We like the probability of those
[41:29] leasing up to different users.
[41:37] Magda, you have your answer.
[41:40] Thank you.
[41:40] Councillor Mishol. I have more questions. I just have comments, so I can wait if you want to
[41:45] grant.
[41:48] I was not sure you can ask us more. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to ask us a more
[41:51] question. What do you envision in terms of tenants for these spaces? I was also somewhat concerned
[41:58] although it's the developers' prerogative as they think that they can tenant the space to provide
[42:03] commercial, but my understanding is that developers aren't too keen to be providing ground floor
[42:08] commercial where they absolutely have to, so what kind of tenants might occupy these spaces?
[42:16] So, with the community benefit space in the middle, it does make things slightly more difficult.
[42:27] 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.
[42:35] 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.
[42:46] But again, you know, 700 square feet at 20 bucks a square foot. There's users, there's users in that world.
[42:54] It's just when you start getting into the 1500 plus you start limiting your options.
[43:02] And one more quick question if I may.
[43:05] I'm just curious who's ideal was it to reduce the south facade?
[43:08] Was this something that development team project team came up with?
[43:13] As a preference to reduce shoreing and excavation?
[43:15] Or was this the result of a comment coming from the side point process?
[43:21] I can feel that.
[43:25] It's a complicated question.
[43:28] And it's a risen out of a number of reasons.
[43:31] It wasn't at the recommendation of staff, that was one of the items that you listed there.
[43:37] It is largely driven by the reduction in floors and the market conditions that we're in right now.
[43:43] So the scaling back of the overall development.
[43:47] It affects the ability to deliver on some of these atypical and more costly measures to deliver community benefits.
[43:57] So that you are seeing the scaling down of the community space, but also the reduction of the return coming towards Queen Street.
[44:08] 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.
[44:17] 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
[44:26] not really important goodies lane that has informed the ultimate recommendation before
[44:32] you today.
[44:35] Yeah, thank you for that.
[44:36] That's helpful for that context.
[44:37] I am wondering though, with the proposal that's before us, would retaining that portion?
[44:43] I certainly appreciate there's already been a bit of a haircut on this project as it is.
[44:50] Would it prohibit the development algorithm, or would there be any limitations going forward
[44:54] on seeing this come to fruition if that returns.
[45:00] The full length of this episode.
[45:04] 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.
[45:15] So, the scaling back that's happening goes hand in hand with the reduction of the heritage facade.
[45:22] 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,
[45:30] any of the costs, Delta that would resolve from keeping that?
[45:41] The project itself is financially struggles at 19 stories as opposed to where it was at 34
[45:49] stories.
[45:50] We're looking for any design a break that we can come up with to help get it over the
[46:00] online. The one thing that we didn't really talk about here though, I think is the the urban design
[46:05] component of it. So my office is actually at the backside of a big queen. And as you come down
[46:11] that lane, you have a 30, maybe 40 foot entry off of queen street where you have dead wall versus
[46:17] dead wall. And it, you know, my, my findings through the last three to four years in having work
[46:23] 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.
[46:41] wasn't your question but
[46:45] yeah I mean that wasn't and I was just wondering if maybe
[46:48] there's a dollar value to that. I keep being that aspect. I don't have a specific dollar
[46:54] value. That's fair. Thank you. That's everything. Thank you Grant.
[47:01] are there? Yes, not only. Just a wondering to the proposed stories originally went from
[47:12] 34 to 19 other than financial reasons, was there any other reason for the significant
[47:20] reduction in that? Absolutely not. It was designed as a plan economy, many people, and
[47:29] Okay, and then just a follow-up question with that as well. So I know it was mentioned,
[47:34] the reduction in excavation prior with the presentation there and not honestly kind of
[47:40] appreciate with today's like time and place, it can be very, very expensive. But other than the
[47:46] closure of Gaudi's lane temporarily, while the construction is happening, is there any other heritage
[47:51] impact specifically? Because I'm not really convinced that there's any sort of impact to the actual building
[47:57] in the structure or anything like that other than the financial and then the closure, but
[48:03] heritage-speaking is there any other reason why we cannot save that portion?
[48:11] So from a purely heritage perspective, there's not a reason that is based in heritage that
[48:20] there wouldn't be possible to retain that portion.
[48:27] Thank you, Natalie.
[48:28] Are there any other questions for the delegation?
[48:32] Thank you.
[48:35] We'll now have our questions for staff.
[48:40] Councillor Mishodhi wanted to make a comment now or wait till after the questions was stopped.
[48:47] All right.
[48:49] Questions then for staff?
[49:00] Yes, Natalie.
[49:03] Sorry, I just wanted to ask to follow up on what Peter had mentioned at the beginning as well as
[49:09] 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
[49:17] becoming a balcony that is in use now.
[49:22] Through the chair, it has not been noted to date that there is a change to the balcony proposed.
[49:30] As a result of the change from going from a window to a door, however, if a change to the guard is identified as
[49:40] being a requirement to to meet building code. Then that is something that would have to be for the
[49:46] redress through a heritage permit application which would come back to this committee because it would be a
[49:50] change to that identified heritage attribute.
[49:56] Thank you Natalie. Any other questions or comments to
[50:04] Thank you. Councillor Chaplin. Yeah, I guess I'd like you to comment on the, one of the
[50:12] question I think it was for me, Peter, about the floor, whether it's the same height,
[50:19] the floor in the interior to the floor in the balcony. Is there a Japanese information on that?
[50:27] I don't at this time.
[50:31] Also, as far as the heritage attributes in the interior, the building, how impacted do you?
[50:40] Like what specifically will the impact be of what was already approved?
[50:44] Like we knew there were going to be impacts, but this sounds to me like there would be further impacts.
[50:52] Through the chair, there were not.
[50:55] into your features identified as a heritage attributes of the building specifically, but coming
[51:02] out of the commemorative plan and the memorization and interpretive plan, those resources
[51:13] were being identified through that process and those reports have not yet been finalized.
[51:19] So the impact of what can be retained and incorporated into this development is still not fully
[51:27] known at this time.
[51:28] We would be working through that through this site plan process to confirm what can be salvaged
[51:33] and where those features would be identified within the building.
[51:39] Thank you.
[51:42] Thank you, Councillor Chapman, any other comments here?
[51:49] I suppose this brings us to a motion.
[51:55] One of the observations I had from the report,
[52:00] can conclude 70 minor negative impact,
[52:07] but the proposal will be,
[52:09] and I find it very difficult to accept that
[52:13] from in the in the report. I'm hearing concerns and also I would say that each of you have
[52:26] Thanks for watching!
[52:30] Yeager, a report, not necessarily a report, but a concern expressing that the community benefit space is being reduced.
[52:47] 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.
[53:08] And to think that now we're going to have to have or even consider reducing the community
[53:16] benefit, it's really difficult to deal with.
[53:23] I think there's a good point, commercial space, and why and whether in fact it will attract
[53:31] and mag the raises of very good point, if you go up and down King Street, you see all kinds
[53:37] of commercial space available, sitting empty.
[53:45] I think there are many concerns with this.
[53:49] Another one that comes to my mind, and I think of this person who was over on Park Street,
[53:57] who recently wanted to open his door, the upper door, onto the balcony, and they had an
[54:05] balcony. And so they had to modify that balcony. And I look at this
[54:13] pornicale and I think this is what's left on the building, the probably the
[54:20] main feature. And to me I'm wondering is this all that's going to be left of
[54:28] 1620 Queen Street North after we get through all of the building and so on? How
[54:34] we keep it safe, and so we have the particle. So we have this balcony, the balustrad, the railing,
[54:43] and to not know if we open up a door these days, and according to that person over on park
[54:52] street, they had to put in an extra railing to make it safe. And so I find it lacking and really
[55:02] disappointing that many of these details aren't here. Peter has raised many good points about
[55:10] how things are to should be in front of us and knowing engineering reports. Anyway, I find it very
[55:20] interesting to have this report in front of us and the motion. But I suppose, Mariah, we need to
[55:29] the motion, and I'm sorry. Yes?
[55:37] Sorry. Okay.
[55:41] Oh, I'm sorry.
[55:44] Chair, if I may, I just wanted to offer a point of clarification before the committee
[55:47] does make their decision with regard to the community benefits. There has been some discussion.
[55:53] I just want to clarify that the community benefits is not currently before this committee
[55:59] for consideration. I just want everyone to be aware that the proposal to reduce the overall height
[56:05] and density of the site leads to an automatic reduction in the community benefits as
[56:11] per the registered community benefits agreement that is registered on title. So they received
[56:16] additional height and density for providing residential units downtown within the former downtown
[56:22] geography that was identified in our official plan as well as the retention of the heritage
[56:28] which we have now since designated and it is a designated facade as well as the provision
[56:37] for an amenity area.
[56:39] As the number of units has decreased and the requested increase and density has decreased,
[56:45] the size of the amenity area is then proportional.
[56:48] So, committee can certainly make the decision on the return of the facade.
[56:54] That's what is in front of the committee, but I think it is important to note that
[56:57] regardless of the outcome of a decision today and ultimately by council.
[57:01] They have under legislation and changes the legislation, the ability to reduce community
[57:06] benefits that is not altered at all with respect to the facade of the south.
[57:15] Thank you, Garrett.
[57:17] So we have the motion before us, but Peter before I go to the motion question.
[57:25] I would just like to make one comment for which is kind of summarized what I see before
[57:32] before us.
[57:35] So the committee is being asked to decide on the validity of two things.
[57:42] What is the addition of the door and the other is the reduction in the facade.
[57:48] So we look at the information that is, so regarding the door, I look at the information that we are presented with, and I do not believe that it is adequate.
[57:59] There is not enough information there for the committee to make an informed decision on that aspect.
[58:07] Regarding the reduction of the sod, there are two arguments that are put forward of why this
[58:14] sod has to be reduced.
[58:16] The first of all is that there is a risk of accidental damage to the existing building
[58:20] if it is not.
[58:22] There is no evidence accompanying this report to substantiate that claim.
[58:29] So, I do not think that there is adequate information in order to accept that assertion.
[58:38] The second is that the thought has to be reduced in order to accommodate the commercial
[58:46] use along the lane.
[58:49] Again, I don't think that has been adequately demonstrated within the information that is before us,
[58:55] and that the proponent has also said that he has that it may be possible that is retained
[59:03] if there are some modifications to it. And I think if the proponent came back with modifications
[59:08] suggested to that facade that the committee would be amenable to looking at them. But overall
[59:15] I think there is inadequate information in this. And so I ask sort of who's been equivalent
[59:24] Well, who benefits from this change, from the changes in front of us?
[59:29] And the only beneficiary that I can really see is the developer who benefits by what must
[59:37] be a fairly significant reduction in the construction cost by eliminating the requirement
[59:42] to have that building sod during the corner and have two pieces of the sod that are retained
[59:47] as opposed to one. Who does not benefit from this? Everyone else.
[1:00:00] I do not believe that this is a minor change to what is left here that it is a fairly substantial change.
[1:00:08] 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.
[1:00:20] 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,
[1:00:28] is important for the future understanding of what that building shape is and how it sits
[1:00:33] and how it interacts with the street. And to remove that, I think further diminishes the heritage
[1:00:41] value of reducing the part of the building that this retained is to simply a front facade,
[1:00:48] which is applied to the front of a new modern condo tower. So, given that, I can support
[1:00:59] Nothing that is being asked in this proposal.
[1:01:07] Thank you, Peter. Good summary.
[1:01:11] Any other further comments?
[1:01:15] Well, we do have a motion before us.
[1:01:20] And I will read it.
[1:01:23] pursuant to Section 33 of Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HBA-2026-4-021
[1:01:33] be approved to permit the removal of a portion of the site, so-th return, and the alteration
[1:01:40] of an existing window opening into a door on the second floor of the front facade on the
[1:01:47] property, municipality addresses 16-20 Queen Street North subject to the following conditions
[1:01:54] that the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum dated July 23, 2026 in prepare by MHBC,
[1:02:04] the approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance
[1:02:09] of the Heritage Burmett, that an updated conservation plan be submitted and approved
[1:02:15] by the director of development and housing approvals prior to the issuance of a heritage
[1:02:20] permit. And that the final building permit drawings be reviewed in a heritage clearance
[1:02:27] provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Do I have
[1:02:34] anyone that will move it? Madam Chair, can I ask a quick question before we vote on this?
[1:02:40] I'm just wondering maybe to staff and there's an advantage or possibility to deferring what's
[1:02:47] before us here, as opposed to I think I'm seeing where this might be going and I'm wondering if
[1:02:51] there's an advantage to the proponent to defer it or refer it to staff, maybe avoiding additional
[1:02:56] fees down the road. Could speak to that.
[1:03:01] Through the chair with a deferral, there are some timing
[1:03:06] implications that would come into play under statutory requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act.
[1:03:12] Based on when the application was deemed complete, a decision on the application is required within
[1:03:19] 90 days of that notice, and because there is no heritage, kitchen or committee meeting in October,
[1:03:28] or a council meeting in October, the deferral would move past that 90 day timeframe.
[1:03:38] Would you still have an opportunity in that time frame even if it's past the statutory
[1:03:41] the statutory timeline there to work with the proponent?
[1:03:45] Even when this committee is not sitting I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity to work on this
[1:03:50] Rather than just reject and send it back to the drawing board because I think we've made clear what what the issues are
[1:03:55] I'm just wondering there's way to keep it alive
[1:04:00] Through the chair. I don't have exact wording under the Ontario Heritage Act
[1:04:05] But I believe that there is a mechanism to extend the timing of one an application can be considered if there's agreement between the proponent and the municipality.
[1:04:18] If this application is rejected by this committee, would they have to submit a new application heritage permit application and pay the fee and ride the ride again?
[1:04:30] Through the chair, if this application is rejected here in through Council, then yes, a new
[1:04:37] app heard it from an application would be required.
[1:04:46] Any comments on that?
[1:04:50] Grant?
[1:04:51] Yeah, I just found, like sort of adding to what you're saying, I guess I'd ask the proponent.
[1:04:56] Would you be willing to come back if we did vote on a deferral with and respond to some of the questions
[1:05:02] that are being left on answered here?
[1:05:12] and I appreciate that it's a terrible time given that there's a municipal election in a month
[1:05:18] to defer something that is.
[1:05:24] They're not alone.
[1:05:33] For me to answer, yeah, yeah. Yeah, certainly we'd look at, uh,
[1:05:37] I'd be preferred to furl the rejection. Yes.
[1:05:42] So you'd be willing to work with staff to address some of these concerns that have been
[1:05:47] brought up here. Yeah, absolutely. And then it would come back to, I guess it would come back in
[1:05:51] November, if I'm correct.
[1:05:56] Through the chair, yes, the next scheduled Heritage Kitchener committee meeting is November.
[1:06:02] I just want to confirm what the Ontario Heritage Act says with respect to, like, working with applicants if the, if there is a deferral and it extends beyond that 90 day time frame,
[1:06:18] because I do know that the act says that if a decision is not rendered within those 90 days
[1:06:25] and it becomes an automatic approval of an application.
[1:06:30] So I just want to confirm what the act says with respect to you working with the applicant
[1:06:35] to extend that timeline if we're able to do that.
[1:06:41] So you're saying it, can I still speak?
[1:06:45] You're saying if it was deferred it would be an automatic approval after the 90 days.
[1:06:50] So no opportunity to, to examine this further.
[1:06:56] Based on my understanding of the Ontario Heritage Act, that's correct.
[1:07:00] Okay, thank you.
[1:07:07] Peter, you're looking this way.
[1:07:10] You have no comments.
[1:07:13] All right.
[1:07:15] Thank you very much.
[1:07:19] Staff, what is your recommendation here?
[1:07:22] So, Madam Chair, I would just confirm for you that any decision would have...
[1:07:30] Subtomber 28, decision on December 28 by Kitchener Council is within the 90-day consideration window.
[1:07:37] I know we only have two Councillors on our committee, but I might suggest that if we are worried about the 90-day window,
[1:07:44] and there's additional information that's needed prior to Councilmaking decision.
[1:07:49] That we endeavor to regroup with the two Councillors that are on Heritage Kitchener, and see if we can provide the information self-standing,
[1:07:56] and then Council will at least have an opportunity to review that additional information before
[1:08:01] a final decision is rendered on September 28th.
[1:08:07] So what we're suggesting here is to defer this application based on Council's decision.
[1:08:20] Perhaps staff, you can come up with what it is that we can vote on.
[1:08:26] So Madam Chair, I'd just to clarify this agenda, the entire agenda package from this evening
[1:08:32] will be proceeding to September 28th Council and ultimately Council, make a decision.
[1:08:38] Council will have regard for the decision that's made by Heritage Kitchener, but the final
[1:08:42] decision is made by Kitchener Council on these matters.
[1:08:46] What I'm suggesting to you today is whatever the committee decides, I think we've heard
[1:08:50] that there's some additional information that's needed and we've heard a commitment from
[1:08:53] the developer to provide that.
[1:08:55] I'm suggesting that there could be further dialogue with the two board counselors that are on
[1:09:00] heritage kitchen every now and September 28 and then we can potentially continue the discussion
[1:09:05] on September 28 and council will have that additional information before final decision is made.
[1:09:12] Thank you.
[1:09:14] So, yes, yes. I mean, I hear what you're saying, Garrett, regardless if we vote against this today,
[1:09:24] if the Heritage Committee were to reject this, it would still, there's that opportunity still exists,
[1:09:30] right?
[1:09:31] So just to clarify.
[1:09:37] So, are we suggesting to go ahead with this, well, I'm just saying that even if we were to
[1:09:42] reject it as a committee, it would still have to go back to Council, the end of September,
[1:09:49] but then the vote would be recorded as a, if that were the case, as a rejection, it doesn't
[1:09:56] I mean, the council couldn't then approve it.
[1:09:59] And we could still do the work with the developer
[1:10:01] as was suggested by Garrett, between now and then.
[1:10:05] So I guess what I'm saying is we could still
[1:10:09] reject this without anything really changing.
[1:10:16] All right, is there someone who can move the motion?
[1:10:23] All right, what does that mean?
[1:10:26] I do not see anyone.
[1:10:27] Yes, Peter.
[1:10:31] Oh, Peter, thank you.
[1:10:33] All right.
[1:10:33] All right, Peter will move this motion and so all those in favor of remember I will take in favor and non-in favor.
[1:10:50] Okay, all those in favor of the motion.
[1:11:04] So that will go to Council, September 28th.
[1:11:31] All right.
[1:11:31] Our next item is Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026v-016-1292 Village Road.
[1:11:42] Demolition and construction of single detached dwelling, DSD-2026-286.
[1:11:49] Victoria Grown heritage planner will present and do we have some delegations here on this?
[1:12:01] Okay, all right, Victoria.
[1:12:07] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:12:09] The development services department is in receipt of a heritage permit application for the property
[1:12:23] five of the Ontario Heritage Act.
[1:12:25] The subject property contains a single detached dwelling constructed in 1965.
[1:12:32] I also wanted to note that the properties of 1290 and 1296 do in village road have merged
[1:12:39] on title, which is why there are two building shown on this property, but the one in question
[1:12:45] is the one that is circled up on this screen.
[1:12:50] The application proposal contemplates the demolition
[1:12:53] of the existing single detached dwelling
[1:12:55] and the construction of a new single detached dwelling
[1:12:59] in its place.
[1:13:05] The existing single detached dwelling is identified
[1:13:07] as a non-herited building within the upper-dune heritage
[1:13:10] conservation district plan.
[1:13:12] Through heritage planning staff's review of the property,
[1:13:14] there are no heritage attributes that have been identified
[1:13:17] to be retained as part of the redevelopment
[1:13:22] on the property.
[1:13:26] So the proposal contemplates the construction of a new two-story single-detached
[1:13:30] dwelling with an attached one-and-a-half story garage with a loft on the property.
[1:13:37] The image above shows the location of the existing dwelling in red and an overlay of the location
[1:13:44] of the proposed new dwelling in green. The subject property has a lot size of 1.75 hectare
[1:13:52] or 4.33 acres.
[1:13:55] The location of the proposed new dwelling
[1:13:57] is generally in the same location as the existing.
[1:14:00] However, the orientation of the footprint
[1:14:02] of the building is slightly rotated.
[1:14:05] The new dwelling is proposed to be set back approximately
[1:14:08] 6.27 meters or 20.57 feet further
[1:14:14] than the existing dwelling, maintaining limited to no impact
[1:14:18] on the Dune Village Road Streetscape.
[1:14:25] Based on the size of the existing lot, in noting that tree removals would be required to facilitate
[1:14:33] this development, Heritage Planning made the requirement of the submission and approval of a tree
[1:14:39] management plan and arborist report, a condition of a Heritage Permit application approval.
[1:14:46] Since the preparation of the staff report, that was included in the agenda package for this evening,
[1:14:52] Heritage Planning staff have since received the Tree Management Plan and Arborist Report and work.
[1:15:00] So, for the committee's information, staff have provided the following image, depicting the location of both the existing and proposed dwellings, so the existing shown in yellow and the blue is the proposed location of the new dwelling, as well as the trees that are proposed to be removed and those are marked with excess on that drawing.
[1:15:28] So there are 12 trees proposed to be removed,
[1:15:32] aid of which are within the boundary to facilitate the construction.
[1:15:38] The trees outside of the construction boundary that are proposed to be removed
[1:15:43] are dead or dying and are proposed for removal for general maintenance on the property.
[1:15:50] In general, the removals recommended are not anticipated to have
[1:15:55] is significant impact on views to the property from, from Dune Village Road.
[1:16:02] The size of the existing dwelling on the property is approximately 5,100 square feet,
[1:16:08] 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.
[1:16:20] Due to existing grades on-site and working within these existing grades,
[1:16:25] The height of the proposed dwelling varies ranging from 8.65 meters to 10.6 meters, but the
[1:16:34] significant setback of this dwelling will assist to visually reduce the perception of the
[1:16:41] building height, and the new dwelling is proposed to be clad in brick and stone, in color
[1:16:47] tones that are shown on this slide.
[1:16:54] In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following.
[1:17:00] The existing dwelling is identified as a non-historic building, and does not contain significant
[1:17:05] architectural or historical features.
[1:17:08] And the proposal is generally in keeping with the policies contained within the upper-doin
[1:17:12] Heritage Conservation District Plan, as it relates to the form height roof windows, materials,
[1:17:19] and setbacks.
[1:17:19] Heritage planning staff do note that historically the size of proposed new dwellings within
[1:17:25] this district has been a concern. However, the policies in the district plan do not
[1:17:31] specifically refer to size and given current zoning requirements. The context of this particular
[1:17:39] site as it relates to the location of the proposed dwelling on the subject lock and the general
[1:17:45] of the subject lot. It is the opinion of heritage planning staff that the demolition of the existing dwelling
[1:17:51] in the construction of the proposed new dwelling. We will not adversely impact the heritage conservation
[1:17:57] district or the the Dune Village Road streetscape. So based on on the above heritage planning
[1:18:06] staff are recommending approval of the heritage permit application subject to the following conditions.
[1:18:13] The first one being that the Tree Management Plan and Arbor's report be approved prior to the issuance of a heritage permit.
[1:18:22] 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.
[1:18:32] And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you.
[1:18:36] Thank you, Victoria. Are there questions for, oh I'm sorry, perhaps, delegation, do we have anyone here?
[1:18:51] Through the chair, no, there's no one for this particular application.
[1:18:55] Thank you. Questions for staff on this? Yes, Natalie.
[1:19:01] Just a question regarding the trees. So in the staff report, I know you mentioned there was just a bit of information
[1:19:07] still missing from the tree removal. In the staff report it says two trees were being removed.
[1:19:12] Now it's eight on the property for off the property correct.
[1:19:18] Through the chair for this
[1:19:20] application there are 12 removals proposed in total on this property. Eight of the removals are
[1:19:27] within direct relation to the development that's proposed. So where they're located is going to be
[1:19:38] the extension of the driveway. That's proposed. The remaining four trees that are proposed to be removed are either dead or dying.
[1:19:48] So it's been recommended that they be removed just for general maintenance on the property.
[1:19:52] 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.
[1:20:00] is the applicant now willing to replace all eight trees on the property.
[1:20:10] Through the chair, one of the recommendations coming out of the the Arborist report
[1:20:16] that's been prepared is that there may be a requirement for
[1:20:22] replacements on for trees on the property.
[1:20:25] That's something that staff are still reviewing and would work through with the applicant directly.
[1:20:30] Okay, yeah, I think I would be a little bit more comfortable just knowing a little bit more information regarding that as
[1:20:36] Even though trees maybe not in our scope, it is still a heritage value that deeply contributes to the area of dunes.
[1:20:42] So thank you so much.
[1:20:45] Thank you, Natalie.
[1:20:47] Council captain, did you have any?
[1:20:50] Yes, I had a similar question about the trees, but my other question has to do with the
[1:20:59] 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
[1:21:07] 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.
[1:21:14] So I'm just wondering,
[1:21:17] is that more, is that in keeping with the heritage district itself, or is it a bit of a deep departure?
[1:21:23] through
[1:21:30] the chair, so I'm just pulling up the staff report here,
[1:21:39] so through the policies
[1:21:42] that are identified within the upper-do and heritage conservation district plan with respect
[1:21:47] to colors, it speaks to materials and colors being historically sympathetic colors that
[1:21:55] quiet subtle and natural or neutral shades. So the materials that are proposed to you
[1:22:02] that the colors of them I would say are in keeping with that policy with respect to being
[1:22:06] quiet subtle and neutral. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Chapman, other questions.
[1:22:15] Yes, Magda.
[1:22:19] So there hasn't been any demolition or new construction in the district since 2014.
[1:22:30] And one was the existing building that's proposed to me, demolish one was it built?
[1:22:38] Based on records, I believe it was around circa 1965.
[1:22:45] Okay. Yeah, I was going to also ask about the trees, but we got a response to that.
[1:22:51] And I have a few other comments, but maybe I'll wait till everyone has had a chance to ask questions. Thank you.
[1:22:59] Any other question?
[1:23:03] I wonder if you Victoria could bring up that picture of the tree from the road,
[1:23:18] that one.
[1:23:19] Okay, so this is a rather large proposal of a house.
[1:23:25] The orientation will not be with a facade or the front facing the creek as it is now,
[1:23:35] and so it's going to stand up and out up on the hill.
[1:23:42] However, if this role of trees is maintained,
[1:23:48] And it will, shall we say, diminish the impact of this particular house.
[1:23:55] The house in being proposed is similar in size to that which exists.
[1:24:05] And over the years, the former owner did add on and add on, because he loved to look
[1:24:11] out at the birds and the wildlife down on the creek.
[1:24:16] But anyway, this, the trees have been mentioned several times here.
[1:24:23] And I have concerns about the Arborist Report.
[1:24:30] And I would like to see on the finished project that these trees are planted,
[1:24:39] And so that we diminish the impact of this house on the road.
[1:24:50] As you can see, by having this corridor of trees up the lane, which is about, oh maybe,
[1:24:58] 75 feet, you can hardly see that large house that was shown, the one that exists there.
[1:25:11] Amag, do you have something to say about this?
[1:25:17] 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
[1:25:30] Heritage District, they're kind of similar age and they're proposed to be demolished and replaced. So I just wanted to
[1:25:41] Yeah, just bring up a couple ideas and and perhaps the question at the end of this will be what is
[1:25:51] Whether the city is is working on
[1:25:54] Anything related to to what I'm about to say
[1:25:57] So of course the buildings in question are not considered historic buildings within the parameters of the HCD
[1:26:05] But as I mentioned I've concerns about the fact that would appear to be too fairly large functional dwellings
[1:26:11] are proposed to be demolished and presumably thrown in the landfill.
[1:26:16] So this application, for 1290 June Village Road,
[1:26:19] in fact specifically mentions that the existing house
[1:26:21] needs to be demolished because the owners wish
[1:26:23] to build a quote, durable energy efficient long-term
[1:26:26] residents and quote.
[1:26:29] And so aside from the by now conventional wisdom,
[1:26:33] the greenest building is the one that's already exists.
[1:26:37] There are also numerous studies that show the environmental
[1:26:40] economic and social benefits of retrofit and reuse over demolition, demolition and new construction.
[1:26:48] So I'll just cite two, for instance, 2016 report by the National Trust for Historic Preservation
[1:26:54] in the U.S., found that, quote, it takes between 10 and 80 years for a new building that is 30% more
[1:27:01] efficient than an average performing existing building to overcome through efficient operations.
[1:27:07] the negative climate change impacts related to the construction process.
[1:27:12] And number two, more recently this past February, the Canadian Association of Heritage
[1:27:16] Professionals or CAP published a report called unlocking the value of existing buildings
[1:27:21] and you approach to codes for carbon culture and cost, and among the findings of that report
[1:27:27] are that, quote, reusing existing buildings through retrofits emerges as one of the most
[1:27:31] effective strategies for reducing carbon emissions,
[1:27:34] development costs, and construction timelines.
[1:27:37] This approach minimizes embodied carbon
[1:27:39] and avoids the environmental and financial burdens
[1:27:42] of demolition, excavation, and new material production.
[1:27:45] Retrofit and addition scenarios consistently
[1:27:48] demonstrate the best balance of cost performance and emissions
[1:27:52] reduction across all case studies.
[1:27:55] So these and other studies point to something
[1:27:57] that is increasingly coming up in discussions
[1:28:00] about heritage conservation, which is that heritage buildings in addition to their cultural heritage
[1:28:06] value have inherent environmental benefits. And conversely, this culture of conservation
[1:28:11] can be expanded to non-designated buildings, non-designated existing buildings by recognizing
[1:28:18] their material and environmental value and figuring out how to creatively repair retrofit
[1:28:24] and adopt them for evolving needs. So the rationale for demolition provided in this application
[1:28:30] and the one that follows on the agenda include the statements that the existing buildings are
[1:28:35] quote an outdated or quote just old which struck me as funny reading that considering they are
[1:28:43] located within heritage conservation districts. And I think that these applications represent
[1:28:49] lost opportunities to adopt buildings from newer areas of construction in ways that are more
[1:28:54] sensitive to their surroundings and more environmentally conscious. And I realize that these are not
[1:28:59] You know, part of the buildings that are recognized within those parameters of the HCD,
[1:29:06] but I feel strongly that there should be more impetus to not taking an entire existing building,
[1:29:15] because it's 50 or 60 years old throwing it in the garbage and starting from scratch.
[1:29:22] I think that is still disruptive to the continuity of the area.
[1:29:27] So I just wanted to bring that up, just, yeah, I just wanted to share that because I feel very
[1:29:34] passionately about that, and I realized I might be yelling into the void, there's nobody
[1:29:41] here to delegate for this, but it wasn't necessarily named, you know, aimed specifically
[1:29:47] at the applicants for this application.
[1:29:49] It was just kind of a general comment, general encouragement to for us to think more about
[1:29:56] Yeah.
[1:30:00] Intersex with climate change and environmental issues.
[1:30:05] 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,
[1:30:26] but encouraging the kind of retrofit addition, kind of, you know, not just taking a whole building
[1:30:33] and throwing it in landfill. Thank you. Thank you, Magda, stuff.
[1:30:43] Through the chair, I believe
[1:30:45] that there was some discussion of having these types of policies incorporated into the new
[1:30:52] official plan. I don't know where that landed or what the policies are. I don't have them in
[1:31:00] front of me but I can certainly appreciate the comments that you've made and definitely something
[1:31:05] for us to consider as we back continue working on any sort of policy development projects that
[1:31:15] come up.
[1:31:19] Thank you very much.
[1:31:22] Any other questions, comments? Yes, Laura.
[1:31:28] Thank you.
[1:31:30] I had write some discussion and concern about the large scale replacement homes and I just
[1:31:38] wondered if this this application suggests that the city needs clear policies on dwelling size
[1:31:46] and massing an upper-dune or the staff feel that the policies are sufficient.
[1:31:58] Through the chair, as I mentioned, the upper-dune heritage conservation district plan does
[1:32:03] not mention size of dwellings specifically, so when we are reviewing applications for new
[1:32:12] construction within the district, we look at other existing dwellings that are located
[1:32:19] within the area, but also consider context of those properties as well with respect to, you know,
[1:32:33] potentially reviewing the policies of the upper-do and heritage conservation district plan.
[1:32:39] That's not something that's been identified on on heritage planning staff's work plan in the future.
[1:32:46] But yeah, each application is reviewed based on its own own merit.
[1:32:54] So,
[1:32:56] thank you.
[1:33:00] Thank you, Laura.
[1:33:05] I think in the report, if you look in the report, which Victoria presented, there is
[1:33:13] quite a bit of discussion as to what happened following 2014 and the discussion.
[1:33:21] And it is of concern because of the heritage buildings and houses that are of much smaller.
[1:33:37] And most of them that exist are 3,000 square feet in less.
[1:33:43] Thank you.
[1:33:44] All right, I will go to the motion,
[1:33:49] then, that pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage
[1:33:53] Act Heritage Permit Application,
[1:33:59] HPA-2026V-016V approved to permit the demolition of an existing
[1:34:05] single detached dwelling and the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the
[1:34:11] Union Assembly addressed as 1290 doom village road in accordance with the supplementary information,
[1:34:18] submit it with this application and subject to the following conditions.
[1:34:23] One, that a tree management plan in Arborist report be submitted and approved prior to the
[1:34:30] issuance of a heritage permit and further, too, that the final building permit drawings be reviewed,
[1:34:36] Heritage Clarence provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
[1:34:44] So, um, who would move this one?
[1:34:50] The Council must show, uh, any questions?
[1:34:54] All those in favor?
[1:34:58] Opposed?
[1:35:01] Being?
[1:35:03] No.
[1:35:03] So, one abstin.
[1:35:06] All right, um, moving on then?
[1:35:09] 4.3 Heritage Permit Application, HPA 2026, V-019-51, Dunbrook Place, Demolition and Construction,
[1:35:21] a single detached dwellings, DSD 2026305, Victoria Grown, will present.
[1:35:33] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:35:35] The Development Services Department is in receipt of a Heritage Permit Application for the
[1:35:42] The property is located within the upper-dune heritage conservation district and designated
[1:35:47] under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act.
[1:35:50] Dune brick place is located in the western limits of the upper-dune heritage conservation district.
[1:35:57] The subject heritage permit application contemplates the demolition of the existing single detached dwelling
[1:36:02] and the construction of a new single detached dwelling in its place.
[1:36:07] The existing dwelling is identified in the upper-do and heritage conservation district plan as a non-historic building.
[1:36:14] The dwelling was constructed circa 1968, and the attached garage was added in 2006.
[1:36:20] The existing dwelling is approximately 3,600 square feet and set back approximately 10 meters from the street at the closest point.
[1:36:28] No heritage attributes have been identified to be retained.
[1:36:32] The
[1:36:36] new dwelling is proposed to be located in the general location of the existing as shown on the slide.
[1:36:43] So the yellow is where the existing building footprint is located and the blue outline is the proposed new building footprint.
[1:36:53] The new dwelling is proposed to be two stories in height with an attached one story garage.
[1:36:58] The proposed dwelling is 3,760 square feet and is cited to be 2.5 meters closer to the
[1:37:07] street than the existing dwelling to account for updated zoning regulations and setback requirements.
[1:37:13] Grading challenges have been identified which also contribute to the reciting of the proposed dwelling on the property.
[1:37:21] The height of the proposed dwelling is 29 feet six inches at the front elevation.
[1:37:25] there is a sick...
[1:37:30] With the most noticeable impact on the west facade where the building appears to be three stories in height.
[1:37:36] The proposed cladding is primarily red brick with stucco and wood accents on the front facade, and the ground story at the rear of the dwelling is proposed to be clad in stone.
[1:37:46] Two trees are proposed to be removed on-site, and the applicant has indicated that there will be replacement of those trees.
[1:38:00] In reviewing the merits of the application heritage planning staff, the following, the existing
[1:38:07] dwelling is identified as a non-historic building and does not contain significant historic
[1:38:12] architectural features.
[1:38:14] The proposal is generally compliant with the upper-dune heritage conservation district policies,
[1:38:18] regarding the form, the roof, windows, materials, and sighting.
[1:38:23] And the size of the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the size of the dwelling that exists.
[1:38:28] It is the opinion of heritage planning staff that the proposed demolition and new construction
[1:38:34] is not anticipated to adversely impact the Dunebook streetscape or the upper Dune heritage
[1:38:42] conservation district.
[1:38:44] And so heritage planning staff recommend approval of the application subject to the following
[1:38:50] condition that the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided
[1:38:55] by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit and that concludes my presentation
[1:39:01] on this item. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria.
[1:39:11] Do we have anyone here for the
[1:39:25] staff or the delegation?
[1:39:29] Yes.
[1:39:29] Can I also chat?
[1:39:30] Yeah.
[1:39:31] I just wanted to thank Magdeff for bringing this to our attention.
[1:39:36] I'm looking at the official plan, 251, and I can't get through it all in this time that
[1:39:43] we have here.
[1:39:44] But one of the clauses that I just came across was referring to the circular economy, right,
[1:39:50] which would require, it says, the city can establish standards to ensure at least
[1:39:55] 75% of buildings of a building's demolish demolition material is diverted from landfills.
[1:40:04] So I guess I'd like staff to speak to that and I know we've already passed the one application,
[1:40:10] but maybe you could speak to it in regard to this application.
[1:40:17] Through Madam Chair, so Kitchen 251 has been approved by Council and was still in front of the
[1:40:27] Councillor Chapman is referring to the waste of resources.
[1:40:31] What that chapter calls out is that there's a driving need to divert material from land
[1:40:37] fills into reduce the need for new raw materials in energy and it talks about a circular
[1:40:42] economy where we repair, reuse, recover, and recycle things.
[1:40:47] This is different than the current approach where most things are made used and disposed of.
[1:40:51] Change is the natural system energy systems and trade and partners all lead us to a more circular
[1:40:55] economy.
[1:40:56] 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.
[1:41:22] 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.
[1:41:41] So, this is something we'll have to partner with the region of Waterloo as our waste provider and landfill operator in the coming years to ensure that we're possible the city would support regional initiatives to encourage
[1:41:52] and enhanced existing recycling material programs.
[1:41:55] There are some in place now.
[1:41:57] I know that building materials are some of them are sorted,
[1:42:00] some of them are reused, some building materials actually
[1:42:03] are reused at the landfill, but that is a growing body of work
[1:42:08] and it's something that this policy supports over the
[1:42:10] fullness of time of our kitchen in 251 plan.
[1:42:14] But if we were to be more restrictive on demolition
[1:42:19] and look at retrofitting and working within the existing structures, we wouldn't have the landfill
[1:42:27] problem. I mean, bringing it back to us as a city, what tools do we have to ensure that we're
[1:42:34] being environmentally proper? And like I said, I just pulled that out of the official plan.
[1:42:48] I'm
[1:42:48] speak more specifically to demolition?
[1:42:54] Yes, and through the chair, so certainly that's within the energy conservation section.
[1:43:00] There are also cultural heritage sections, including the retention and designating and retaining
[1:43:06] of building, so it's something that I think this committee rightfully points out that an existing
[1:43:11] building is the greenest building and we've been working hard through our missile heritage
[1:43:16] review to designate properties to ensure that they will be retained over time, so it's not
[1:43:23] something that's lost on us, but it's something that's part of our objectives between
[1:43:26] now in 2050.
[1:43:30] And if another application of the start were to come forward, would staff be in a position to
[1:43:37] reject it before it comes to heritage?
[1:43:41] Through the chairs.
[1:43:43] So, in terms of, I won't hypothesize about future applications, but I will say, there
[1:43:50] our residential demolition considerations within the Planning Act, and then there's retention
[1:43:56] and building material recycling programs.
[1:44:00] I think there wouldn't be the legislative ability necessarily to prevent something just for the
[1:44:05] retention and non-reuse of buildings, but where I think we can probably have the biggest
[1:44:09] movement as on the recycling of materials over time in partnership with the region.
[1:44:20] Thank you, Councillor Chattman, any other questions?
[1:44:25] Yes, Peter.
[1:44:29] Yeah, I have a question.
[1:44:33] I remember when I first joined the committee many years ago that there was more development
[1:44:40] that was going on, redevelopment that was going on in the dunia area.
[1:44:44] And there was a lot of frankly anger and a lot of negative feedback from the residents
[1:44:55] It's a Dune 4.
[1:45:00] Committee as approving large buildings that were inappropriate in scale and inappropriate in style for the, for the due neighborhood.
[1:45:12] Since there hasn't been any development substantially since 2014, we haven't had to experience that.
[1:45:22] So, my question is, even though this building is,
[1:45:28] front goes from 3,600 square feet to 3,760 square feet,
[1:45:33] as a building footprint, it appears at the gross floor area of the building
[1:45:39] is substantially larger than the building that is there.
[1:45:42] So, this building is three stories from the back, two stories from the front.
[1:45:45] So, in terms of the total mass of the building, it looks much larger than the building
[1:45:53] is there.
[1:45:54] So my question is, have the neighbors been consulted over this proposal?
[1:46:04] Through the chair, through the heritage permitting process for applications, residents in this
[1:46:11] area have not been explicitly notified or consulted with respect to this application.
[1:46:17] I can't speak to whether the property owner has done their own consultation or not, but
[1:46:24] through city process that has not happened.
[1:46:30] Thank you.
[1:46:32] Thank you, Peter.
[1:46:35] In the audience, do we have a delegation who would like to speak?
[1:46:46] Good evening.
[1:46:46] I'm the owner of the 51-Dunbrook, so I have a...
[1:46:50] Sorry.
[1:46:52] 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
[1:46:58] 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
[1:47:06] There are windows in the second floor, so we are just taking the floor and explaining the walls to be a complete floor
[1:47:12] Not done just an attic. Otherwise the footprint of the building stays the same as because of that expansion of the second floor
[1:47:18] the total levels for footage is increasing.
[1:47:21] And also partially by taking some space
[1:47:23] from the garage and converting to the four year.
[1:47:26] That's why there is an appearance of increased
[1:47:29] footage, but actually the footprint of the building
[1:47:31] remains the same in the second story.
[1:47:33] The total height does not increase substantially
[1:47:36] because of expanding the second floor.
[1:47:39] Regarding the neighbors, there are five houses
[1:47:40] in the Dunbrook village.
[1:47:42] And in the Dunbrook place, we've been living there
[1:47:44] for the five years.
[1:47:45] We are all friends there with the pretty much all the neighbors.
[1:47:48] we get together regularly so we've been informing them about the plans and show them designs
[1:47:53] of the buildings that call a renderings as far as like two years ago we've been discussing
[1:47:58] that with them. So that's what I have to say on that.
[1:48:05] Yes Peter.
[1:48:08] The member of the Heritage
[1:48:10] Committee who is the representative for Dune, I wonder if I could solicit their opinion on the
[1:48:18] necessity, whether there is necessity for neighborhood consultation of which has already been done.
[1:48:33] Yes. I'm in the initial meeting. That was a question and I understand that the owners have asked the other neighbors about their
[1:48:53] proposal and presented it. But I think it is, it is very important.
[1:49:04] I have concerns
[1:49:06] about the back end and how it is going to fare with all the buildings, the bungalows
[1:49:15] that are immediate to the right and left of this property.
[1:49:21] any other questions of the delegation?
[1:49:26] Peter, do you have any more? Thank you.
[1:49:32] Thank you.
[1:49:35] Oh,
[1:49:39] Magda. I just wondered, what is the actual exterior clotting proposed?
[1:49:45] Because we in the report we see, it says brick in the rendering it looks like Stockholm or something.
[1:49:52] and in the drawing, it looks like a stone, so would you be able to clarify what the exterior
[1:50:00] clotting will be? Yes, the upper two levels are going to be red brick, as closely
[1:50:07] I remember in the existing brick, so we've selected the brick with a very similar texture
[1:50:11] and a very similar color and the lower level, which is only visible from the left side and from
[1:50:19] the back is going to be a gray stone and Stockholm accents are going to be only where the
[1:50:26] cables are.
[1:50:29] So we tried to go for the farmhouse style so I didn't have a front porch
[1:50:35] with a roof over the porch that makes the building appear a small and height and then it would
[1:50:41] been I, but I was just flat to story. It's all building with a flat facade.
[1:50:51] Thank you, Magda. Any other seeing none. Thank you very much.
[1:51:00] All right, we have a motion
[1:51:02] before us, pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act Heritage Permanent
[1:51:10] application HPA 2026 v-019 be approved to permit a demolition of an existing single detached
[1:51:19] dwelling and the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the property, municipally
[1:51:25] addressed his 51 Dune Brookplace in accordance with the supplementary information submitted
[1:51:31] with this application and subject to the following condition that the found building permit drawings
[1:51:37] be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the
[1:51:42] issues of a building permit. Who will move this? Grant will move it. Any further
[1:51:52] questions? All those in favour?
[1:51:57] A one abstention. Thank you.
[1:52:07] And I neglected to say that
[1:52:08] Item 4.2 and 4.3 will go to Council September 28, 2026.
[1:52:18] Now we have Heritage Permit Application HPA-2026V-02421 St.
[1:52:30] DST 2020-26318, Victoria groan, aye, our teacher planner will present. Thank
[1:52:40] you.
[1:52:41] Through you, Madam Chair, I will be presenting this report. So bear with me.
[1:52:51] We're out of order. Here's this bear with me. There we go.
[1:52:57] 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.
[1:53:06] It is designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act through its location within the Civic Center,
[1:53:13] a neighborhood heritage conservation district. It contains a two-story Berlin vernacular brick dwelling
[1:53:18] constructed around 1920. The proposal is to replace an existing porch with a new side yard addition,
[1:53:26] retain the original brickwork and openings, relocate entrance steps within the new addition
[1:53:31] and use contemporary materials complementary to the historic dwelling.
[1:53:38] This is a slide showing in planned view to the left,
[1:53:44] the proposed addition and then an elevation, a hand sketch
[1:53:47] elevation of the proposed addition to the right.
[1:53:56] This is the existing condition, so you can see there's already
[1:53:59] an existing addition off the side of the house with a portion situated in front of the
[1:54:07] entry and then the window located directly adjacent to the porch so that this is the
[1:54:13] existing condition current.
[1:54:19] So the merits of this application that proposed edition
[1:54:21] is subordinate to the original 1910 Berlin vernacular dwelling, allowing the historical
[1:54:26] building to remain the prominent feature on the property. The addition is complimentary
[1:54:31] in form, massing, and roof design, while remaining distinguishable from the original construction
[1:54:35] through the user contemporary materials.
[1:54:38] The proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the Civic Center Neighborhood
[1:54:41] Heritage Conservation District Plan, and is compatible with the guidelines for subordinate
[1:54:46] distinguishable and complementary additions.
[1:54:57] So, Sandro, that's the report, fine.
[1:55:04] Are there any questions about this proposal?
[1:55:09] Yes, Magda.
[1:55:12] I just wondered the owner's application indicates that this is the second request for this project,
[1:55:17] and I was just wondering what happened with the first.
[1:55:20] Did it just Peter out or was there an issue?
[1:55:29] Can you hear me?
[1:55:30] I am the homeowner of 21 St. Letters Street.
[1:55:33] 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.
[1:55:47] Um, so in order to proceed on our front porch, we had to put a big X through our drawing for the side porch.
[1:55:53] 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.
[1:56:08] So, we've drawn it up again.
[1:56:11] Thank you.
[1:56:16] Are there any other questions for the delegation?
[1:56:20] Councillor Chaplin.
[1:56:21] Yeah.
[1:56:22] What is this setback from the adjacent property of this edition?
[1:56:27] There should be at least four feet.
[1:56:29] Like it's within.
[1:56:30] I figured it would be by as his curious to know what it is.
[1:56:32] So it's about four feet.
[1:56:35] Thank you.
[1:56:38] Thank you.
[1:56:39] Councillor Chaplin.
[1:56:40] Any other questions?
[1:56:41] Yes, Peter?
[1:56:44] Yeah.
[1:56:46] In, we see a lot of additions that come up on heritage buildings and they heritage
[1:56:51] district and for the most part it's if it is not visible from the street from the public realm
[1:57:03] right and personally it's like how about it right you know it's like it's it's it's just really
[1:57:11] of no concern to to the public about what happens in the parts of the building that that are not visible
[1:57:17] but in this one there's this one thing that is visible from the street that is that I find
[1:57:24] inconsistent. And that is the shape of that window on the on the front of it. And it has
[1:57:30] that angled. It has a top that angles up to match the line of the line of the roof.
[1:57:39] 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
[1:57:46] 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.
[1:57:58] 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.
[1:58:08] Right. So it's just the one elevation at the front facing the very front.
[1:58:12] Right.
[1:58:12] That's nice.
[1:58:13] Like to it.
[1:58:14] Can we look at it?
[1:58:16] So I know which one you mean.
[1:58:18] I don't know.
[1:58:19] So it's the one where I'm taking in the one window, because it has to cover the window
[1:58:25] and the door.
[1:58:27] Do you mean?
[1:58:28] Three of you men, I'm sure.
[1:58:30] Watch me struggle with this for a minute, but I'm going to get to where we need to.
[1:58:33] That one.
[1:58:34] That's the one.
[1:58:35] The window is at the right of the door.
[1:58:37] Why is the top of the window sloped?
[1:58:39] Oh, that was just to make best use of the space. It could easily be a rectangular window.
[1:58:47] That's what I'm asking you to consider because I find that.
[1:58:51] Absolutely.
[1:58:51] Shape of that window is inconsistent with the language of the rest of the building that faces the street.
[1:58:57] Sure. I'm happy to change that.
[1:58:59] That's my...
[1:59:00] Good notes. Thank you.
[1:59:02] Thank you.
[1:59:07] Thank you Peter.
[1:59:08] Any other questions for the delegation?
[1:59:16] So I'm assuming then that your comment will be included, Victoria, you're taking note of what Peter is said.
[1:59:28] Okay. All right. We'll move them to the motion, pursuant to Section 42 of the Interior Heritage Act Heritage Permit Application
[1:59:40] 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
[2:00:00] 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.
[2:00:13] Who will move it? Laura Will, all those in favor.
[2:00:21] Thank you. We're now on to 17-Norfolk Crescent Construction of Rear Edition and will this be Victoria or
[2:00:31] Sandra Victoria.
[2:00:33] Through the chair actually our student planner Luke is going to present this one.
[2:00:37] Thank you.
[2:00:38] Very good.
[2:00:57] Thank you Madam Chair. The development services department is in receipt of the heritage application for the property
[2:01:04] municipally address as 17-Norfolk Crescent.
[2:01:09] The property is located on the north side of
[2:01:12] Norfolk Crescent, west of St. Claire Avenue. It is designated under Part 5 of the Ontario
[2:01:17] Heritage Act through its location within the St. Mary's Heritage Conservation District,
[2:01:22] and it contains a 1.5-story residential dwelling representative of the traditional residential
[2:01:27] character found throughout the district.
[2:01:32] What is being proposed in this application is the
[2:01:34] instruction of a one-story rear addition to the existing dwelling, as illustrated in this
[2:01:39] drawing from the side of the dwelling. The addition will contain wood-siding that complements
[2:01:44] the existing dwelling, as is labeled on the drawing. It is also labeled above that the rear
[2:01:51] roof line will be extended to make the addition possible.
[2:01:57] The purpose of this application is to
[2:01:58] spend the existing bathroom at the back of the dwelling, which is circled in red on the second
[2:02:03] drawing showing the layout of the dwelling.
[2:02:07] Since the addition is completely in the rear of the dwelling, this proposal will maintain limited
[2:02:11] visibility from the public streetscape.
[2:02:16] In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff have determined that the
[2:02:21] application remains consistent with the policies in the St. Mary Heritage Conservation District
[2:02:26] Plan, which do encourage rear additions that are subordinate to the original building.
[2:02:30] With respect to policies which support a small scale and mass, the addition is small, which
[2:02:37] will ensure that the existing dwelling remains the dominant architectural feature.
[2:02:41] The small scale means that the design of the addition follows Heritage Conservation District
[2:02:46] policies, which specified that additions are a sympathetic and distinguishable from the original
[2:02:52] house.
[2:02:53] Further guidelines for residential additions which recommend, against expanding the buildings
[2:02:58] with are met since the addition only extends towards the rear.
[2:03:02] As a result, the addition will not be visible from the public right of way and is not
[2:03:06] anticipated to negatively impact the heritage character of the district.
[2:03:12] And so Heritage Planning staff recommend approval of the application subject to the condition
[2:03:18] that final building permit drawings be reviewed and that heritage clearance be provided
[2:03:23] by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
[2:03:27] and that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you.
[2:03:32] Thank you, Luke. Any questions to Luke?
[2:03:37] Yes, Magda.
[2:03:39] Thank you.
[2:03:41] I just noticed that the staff report says that according to the HCD plan,
[2:03:46] additions at the rear should always be slightly lower than the existing roof ridge line,
[2:03:50] which is the case and stepped in at the sides.
[2:03:54] So, this is a small detail, but this addition to me does not look like it's stepped in.
[2:04:01] It goes right to the edge of the building.
[2:04:04] 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.
[2:04:19] Through the chair noted, thank you.
[2:04:25] Yeah, based on what's being proposed here and the location of the renovation.
[2:04:34] Well, this isn't in direct compliance with what's provided within the Heritage Conservation District Plan with respect to that particular policy.
[2:04:44] 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.
[2:05:03] Thank you, Magda, your questions answered.
[2:05:07] Any other questions?
[2:05:11] All right, comments.
[2:05:14] So, we'll have the motion that pursuant to Section 42 of the Interior Heritage Act Heritage
[2:05:19] Permit Application HPA, 2026V-023, to permit the construction of a one-story rear addition
[2:05:28] 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.
[2:05:52] Who will move this?
[2:05:55] Councillor Chapman.
[2:05:57] Any comments?
[2:05:59] All those in favor?
[2:06:01] Carried unanimously?
[2:06:03] I just want to say great, Chauffman.
[2:06:15] And this will be delegated.
[2:06:18] It will be carried under delegated approval authority.
[2:06:23] All right.
[2:06:25] Now we have notice of intention to designate 105117 onward Avenue,
[2:06:30] under Part 4, the Ontario Heritage Act Victoria.
[2:06:37] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[2:06:39] Heritage Planning Staff is bringing forward a notice of intention to designate the property
[2:06:43] municipally addressed as 105 to 117 onward Avenue. This property was previously considered
[2:06:49] by the Heritage Kitchener Committee in May and based on an evaluation of the property
[2:06:54] of the 6th of 9 criteria for designation.
[2:06:58] The building on the subject property is representative of the Structuralist Architectural
[2:07:03] Style characterized by its cubic-built form, rectilinear massing of modest proportions,
[2:07:09] clear expression of interior functions on the exterior of the building and the flat roof.
[2:07:14] The building features two H-plan modules connected by a rectangular module.
[2:07:23] The Historical Associate of Value of the Property Relates.
[2:07:30] I was in Boom in the original owner and builder Michael Krauss. The building illustrates the role of apartment
[2:07:35] buildings in addressing post-war housing needs in Kitchener and this architectural style offered
[2:07:41] a utilitarian and economical solution for government buildings, public schools, and apartment
[2:07:46] complexes for the growing post-war population in Canada. The building at 105 to 117 onward Avenue
[2:07:53] is part of a series of several apartment buildings constructed by different owners on a modified
[2:07:57] plan around 1948.
[2:08:01] And Michael Krause founded Krause Carpent Mills and
[2:08:03] Studex fibers in the late 1950s and early 1970s,
[2:08:07] respectively.
[2:08:09] These businesses are still in operation.
[2:08:11] Krause was also found to have
[2:08:13] stand investments, a company owned by the new
[2:08:15] Apostolic Church of Canada, which was involved in
[2:08:17] apartment construction and land development.
[2:08:20] He was either owner or builder of several other
[2:08:23] similar apartment complexes across the city.
[2:08:27] The contextual value resides in the properties contribution to maintaining and supporting the
[2:08:32] character of the onward avenue and we were 3D streetscapes.
[2:08:36] The building is in its original location, maintains its original use, and is located in
[2:08:40] an area which was represented, which was represented of the limits of Kitcheners urban development.
[2:08:46] There is a link between this building and the neighboring H plan apartment buildings at 265
[2:08:51] University of East and 141 to 149 board an avenue north.
[2:08:59] Based on the outlined information heritage planning staff is recommending the following
[2:09:05] that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish
[2:09:11] a notice of intention to designate the property, municipality addressed as 105 to 117 onward
[2:09:16] avenue as being of cultural heritage value or interest, and that concludes my presentation
[2:09:21] on this item.
[2:09:21] Thank you.
[2:09:24] Thank you, Victoria. Any questions on this one?
[2:09:30] Seeing none, we'll move to the motion.
[2:09:33] And if the motion, if the report receives approval from the Committee, I'll go to Council
[2:09:39] for approval September 28th. So motion, pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act,
[2:09:47] the clerk be directed to publish as notice of intention to designate the property,
[2:09:52] The municipal address as 105-17 onward Avenue is being of cultural heritage value or interest.
[2:10:02] Who will move it?
[2:10:04] Councillor Michelle Wood, all those in favor.
[2:10:08] Carried.
[2:10:09] Thank you.
[2:10:10] So we've had several of these buildings built by the same person and it's interesting if we
[2:10:20] had a file on I find. So information items,
[2:10:28] tracking, sheet, all right. I just wanted
[2:10:33] to make a comment or two about those properties on Dune Village Road, or sorry, the heritage
[2:10:40] conservation of Dune, and especially the 51 Dune Brook place. And we're finding, and there's
[2:10:47] whole section of it, we say they're not historic buildings, however it's a type of building
[2:10:55] and I don't know how we bring it in like in the 1960s, late 1960s, early 70s of the bungalow style.
[2:11:06] And as I pointed out to staff, you know, sometimes these aren't the most
[2:11:12] preferable buildings to keep or to even live in and we like the more modern ones and what
[2:11:20] is up in the subdivision and so you know I'm wondering how we deal with this and we should be
[2:11:27] thinking of this because these houses will be having a turnover and probably the next 10, 15 years
[2:11:37] and then how to maintain them.
[2:11:40] I think Magda, you have brought some very good information about reuse and how to reuse them
[2:11:49] and make them fit according to the needs of today's society.
[2:11:54] And we need to be thinking about that and perhaps staff can put that on its agenda of work
[2:12:03] how we deal with it.
[2:12:04] Two items of information doors open Waterloo Region is Saturday, September 19th.
[2:12:11] If you go to the site, you'll see all the buildings listed that are open, the Waterloo County
[2:12:16] Jail and Governor's House.
[2:12:18] If I can put in a plug for whoever would like to help, monitor the doors and hand out
[2:12:27] pamphlets would be welcome.
[2:12:29] And then, lastly, the National Trust for Canada Conference, October 22, to the 25th,
[2:12:37] 2026, Waterloo Region, first time ever here, and it will be at the Crown Plaza and
[2:12:45] also the Walper Hotel.
[2:12:47] Good speakers, if you go on site on the site, you will see the speakers and also the
[2:12:55] tours and Magda you're doing one tour of the Victoria Park district. So very good. It's in the
[2:13:04] making. All right, who would like to adjourn the meeting?
[2:13:10] Councillor Michelle. Thank you very much.
[2:13:15] We'll see you in November.