Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
HK - 2018-08-14 - Item 3 - Heritage Impact Assessment - 242-262 Queen Street South
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESS - 242 -262 Queen Stref City of Kitchener Date: August 2018 Prepared for: Vive Development Corp. Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Brittc 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drivf Kitchener, ON N213 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 Our File:']5213Y Heritage Impact Assessment Report 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Table of Contents ProjectPersonnel........................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Glossaryof Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................................................1 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Noteof Limitations....................................................................................................................................................................................................2 ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................................................................................3 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................7 1.1 Location.....................................................................................................................................................................................................7 1.2 Heritage Status and Adjacent Heritage Properties.........................................................................................................8 2.0 Policy Context...........................................................................................................................................................................................10 2.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement 2014..........................................................................................10 2.2 The Ontario Heritage Act.............................................................................................................................................................12 2.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan..............................................................................................................................................12 2.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan.....................................................................................................................................................12 2.5 Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan..............................................................................................17 2.5.1 Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan Policies (Conservation, New Building, Demolition)......................................................................................................................................................................................................17 2.6 Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor............................................................................................................................21 2.7 Terms of Reference..........................................................................................................................................................................23 3.0 Historical Overview................................................................................................................................................................................24 3.1 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Township...........................................................................................................................24 3.2 City of Berlin (now Kitchener)....................................................................................................................................................25 3.3 Victoria Park Neighbourhood....................................................................................................................................................29 3.4 242 Queen Street South (Formerly 112 Queen Street South)...............................................................................30 3.5 254 Queen Street South (formerly 76 Queen Street South and 116 Queen Street South).................31 3.6 262 Queen Street South (formerly 78 Queen Street South, formerly 118 Queen Street South) .....35 4.0 Description of Site and Surrounding Features...............................................................................................................................40 4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................................40 4.2 Description of Setting and Context.......................................................................................................................................40 4.3 Description of Built Features......................................................................................................................................................42 August, 2078 Heritage Impact Assessment Report 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 4.3.1 254 Queen Street South (Exterior)....................................................................................................................................42 4.3.2 254 Queen Street South (Interior).....................................................................................................................................49 4.3.3 262 Queen Street South (Exterior)....................................................................................................................................53 4.3.4 262 Queen Street South (Interior).....................................................................................................................................61 4.3.5 242 Queen Street South (Exterior)....................................................................................................................................66 5.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources.......................................................................................................................................67 5.1 Introduction and Evaluation Criteria.....................................................................................................................................67 5.2 254 Queen Street South...............................................................................................................................................................68 5.2.1 Design/Physical Value..............................................................................................................................................................68 5.2.2 Historical/Associative Value..................................................................................................................................................68 5.2.3 Contextual Value..........................................................................................................................................................................69 5.2.4 List of Identified Heritage Attributes...............................................................................................................................69 5.3 Evaluation of 262 Queen Street South.................................................................................................................................70 5.3.1 Design/Physical Value..............................................................................................................................................................70 5.3.2 Historical/Associative Value..................................................................................................................................................70 5.3.3 Contextual Value..........................................................................................................................................................................72 5.3.4 List of Identified Heritage Attributes...............................................................................................................................72 5.4 242 Queen Street South...............................................................................................................................................................73 5.4.1 Design/Physical Value..............................................................................................................................................................73 5.4.2 Historical/Associative Value..................................................................................................................................................73 5.4.3 Contextual Value..........................................................................................................................................................................73 5.4.4 List of Identified Heritage Attributes...............................................................................................................................73 5.5 Integrity and Physical Condition.............................................................................................................................................74 5.5.1 254 Queen Street South..........................................................................................................................................................75 5.5.2 262 Queen Street South..........................................................................................................................................................75 5.6 Summary of Evaluation.................................................................................................................................................................76 6.0 Description of Proposed Development.............................................................................................................................................77 7.0 Impact Analysis..................................................................................................................................................................................................79 7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 7.2 Classifications of Impacts.............................................................................................................................................................79 7.3 Impacts of Demolition within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District ............................80 7.3.1 254 Queen Street South..........................................................................................................................................................82 August, 2078 Heritage Impact Assessment Report 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 7.3.2 262 Queen Street South..........................................................................................................................................................83 7.3.3 242 Queen Street South..........................................................................................................................................................84 7.3.4 Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor......................................................................................................................84 7.3.5 Summary..........................................................................................................................................................................................85 7.4 Impacts of New Building within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and the QueenStreet South Mixed Use Corridor.............................................................................................................................................87 7.4.1 Conformity to the VPAHCD Policies regarding New Building.........................................................................87 8.0 Alternative Development Approaches...............................................................................................................................................90 8.1 Alternative Development Approaches................................................................................................................................90 9.0 Mitigation Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................................92 9.1 Demolition of All Three Buildings and Intensification of Site (Proposed Development).....................92 9.2 Retention of 254 & 262 Queen Street South and Intensification of the Site................................................93 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................................................................94 11.0 Bibliography......................................................................................................................................................................................................96 Appendix A: Floor Plans and Elevations (next page).........................................................................................................................97 Appendix B: Terms of Reference (next page).........................................................................................................................................98 Appendix C: Structural Condition Report (next page)......................................................................................................................99 Appendix D: Curriculum Vitae (next page)..........................................................................................................................................100 Appendix E: Alternative Development Concepts (next page).................................................................................................101 Appendix F: Geotechncial Analysis (next page)................................................................................................................................102 August, 2078 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Julie Welch, MSc Rachel Martin, BES Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Heritage Planner Planner Planner Glossary of Abbreviations CHER MHBC MTCS OHA OHTK O -REG 9/06 PPS 2014 Project Manager Historic Research, Author Research Assistant Research Assistant Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritage Toolkit Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining cultural heritage significance Provincial Policy Statement (2014) August2018 MHBC I 1 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Acknowledgements Please note that the City of Kitchener Public Library does not permit the publishing of Fire Insurance Plans for any purposes other than personal research. As such, this report provides written descriptions and references to Fire Insurance Plans only. Note of Limitations It should be noted that while this report may make statements regarding the condition of buildings, these are limited to obvious deficiencies without invasive analysis or testing and is not related to the structural condition of the building. Any comments related to the structural condition of the building reference the recommendations of the Structural Condition Report attached to this report. It should also be noted that this Heritage Impact Assessment report acknowledges that there may be additional historical information related to the context of the subject lands. For example, information which may be held under private collection and is not available to the public has not been consulted. However, it is the opinion of the authors of this report that adequate resources have been consulted in order to provide a sufficient and defensible evaluation as per the criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06. Should any information become available in the future which provides further understanding of the cultural heritage significance of the property be made available in the future, it is recommended that this be added to the historic record at that time. August2078 MHBC 12 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Executive Summary Vive Development Corp. retained MHBC to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the subject lands located at 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener. The subject lands consist of three properties; 242 Queen Street South, 254 Queen Street South, and 262 Queen Street South. The subject lands are located east of Victoria Park between Courtland Avenue and Joseph Street, surrounded by mixed development including medium to high density, high-rise residential development along the Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor. The subject lands include three single -detached buildings. The properties located at 254 Queen Street South and 262 Queen Street South were constructed in the late 19th century. Both buildings have been altered over time and retain some, but not all, of their attributes. Both buildings were originally single family homes but have now been converted to businesses. The building located at 242 Queen Street South is currently the'oneROOF' Youth Services facility and was constructed in 2007. The subject lands are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD). The subject lands are located in the area identified by the Heritage Conservation District plan as the Queen Street South corridor. The Queen Street South corridor has specific policies that differ from the policies that apply to the rest of the VPAHCD. Specifically the HCD plan identifies that the Queen Street South corridor is an area undergoing change and considers that the demolition of existing buildings in this area may occur. The proposed development includes the demolition of the three existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to an 8 storey mixed-use development that includes 125 residential units and underground parking. The proposed development complies with the existing zoning. The building requires site plan approval but does not require a Zoning by-law Amendment. The purpose of this HIA is to provide an evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the subject lands as per the policies and guidelines of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District as well as Ontario Regulation 9/06. This HIA also identifies impacts as a result of the proposed development on cultural heritage resources and provides mitigation recommendations, where necessary. An assessment of alternative development scenarios is also included. August2078 MHBC 13 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener This HIA concludes that: • The property located at 254 Queen Street South has design/physical value as it includes a building representative of the Italianate architectural style. The property has modest contextual value as part of the Victoria Park Area HCD. • The property located at 262 Queen Street South has design/physical value as a representative example of a building constructed in the Queen Anne architectural style. A review of fire insurance plans and historical photographs of the building demonstrate that the building has been subject to considerable alterations which has resulted in the loss of significant heritage attributes at the front (east) elevation. The property has historical/associative value for its associations with C. A. Ahrens (senior and junior). The property has modest contextual value as part of the overall Victoria Park Area HCD. • The property located at 242 Queen Street South includes a building which was constructed in 2007 and does not demonstrate significant cultural heritage value. However, the property itself demonstrates modest contextual heritage value for its location within the boundary of the VPAHCD. In addition to the proposed development, two other development options were assessed: • Development of the site while retaining the buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South • Development of the site while retaining all three buildings (the Do Nothing Option). The buildings are located in the Queen Street South corridor which is undergoing change. Many of the original single detached buildings have been replaced by higher density apartment buildings. Those that remain have been modified and/or converted to other uses. The City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law recognize the area with policies and regulations that permit mixed use development at densities greater than in the balance of the District. The maximum permitted height is 24 metres (approximately 8 stories) and the maximum density is 4.0 FSR. The VPAHCD Plan recognizes that change has occurred in the Queen Street South corridor and designates this area with special policies. The Plan states "Economically the District consists of two parts — the stable, relatively unchanging residential area around Victoria Park and the changing dynamic Queen Street South corridor. The economic goals are to respond to these areas by the following goals: • Conserving the heritage character and human scale of the residential areas while encouraging compatible infill and intensification. • Promoting the history of Queen Street South as a basis for economic development" (VPAHCD Plan, pg 5). August2078 MHBC 14 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener The Plan also states: "In the Queen Street South corridor, zoning permits and encourages new high rise, high density development. Major new building may be expected. This plan recognizes and supports the rights and privileges of property owners to redevelop in compliance with the Municipal Plan. This is not necessarily contrary to heritage conservation.... To achieve higher densities, however, the loss of some earlier low density single-family residences may occur. While this would be regrettable as the integration of old buildings into new development is encouraged, a main goal is to ensure that new development enhance the historic and civic character of Queen Street South." (VPAHCD Plan, p 67) The proposed demolition of the buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South is will result in a minor adverse impact. The subject buildings are not part of a significant grouping of buildings which results in heritage value beyond the merits of any single building. Given that the buildings are a) located in the Queen Street corridor, b) are isolated from the low density residential neighbourhood that forms the majority of the Heritage Conservation District and c) are of an architectural style and age that is well represented in the HCD, the impacts of the removal of the subject buildings is relatively minimal. The VPAHCD Plan discourages demolition of heritage resources, but notes that the Queen Street Corridor will evolve, resulting in the loss of earlier lower -density single family development where zoning permits significantly higher density than presently exists. While the loss of cultural heritage resources is discouraged, heritage conservation needs to be weighed and considered against other applicable policies. The proposed development is consistent with policies for increasing density along the Queen Street South Mixed Use corridor in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. Alternative development scenarios were also considered. The alternative option of redevelopment at the rear of the properties and retaining all three existing buildings is essentially the Do Nothing Alternative. Given the lot sizes, the location of the existing buildings and the zoning requirements for parking, significant intensification of the site is not likely feasible. Redevelopment and retaining the two buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South has also been considered. This alternative would have less impact on heritage resources since the two buildings would remain. This option would result in achievement of a lower density development, primarily because of the difficulty in providing sufficient parking. As the proposed development includes the demolition of the existing buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South the following mitigation measures are recommended: August2078 MHBC 15 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener • That a cultural heritage documentation and salvage report be prepared for the existing buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South which includes: o Photograph documentation of the interior and exterior of the buildings; o Measured architectural drawings of the exterior of the buildings at all elevations; and o Recommendations for identifying and salvaging heritage fabric as opposed to being discarded as landfill, including a) materials which may be considered for salvage and incorporation with the proposed building, and August2078 MHBC 16 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 1.O Introduction Vive Development Corp. retained MHBC to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the subject lands located at 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener. The subject lands are situated on the north side of Queen Street, between Courtland Avenue West and Joseph Street. The purpose of this HIA is to provide an evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the subject lands as per the policies and guidelines of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District as well as Ontario Regulation 9/06 and identify heritage attributes. This HIA also identifies impacts as a result of the proposed development on cultural heritage resources and provides mitigation recommendations, where necessary. 1.1 Location The subject lands are situated south-east of Victoria Park, between Courtland Avenue West and Joseph Street, surrounded by a mix of medium and high density and high rise residential development along the Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor. The subject lands include three single -detached buildings. The properties located at 254-262 Queen Street South are both used for private businesses. The property located at 242 Queen Street South is the 'oneROOF' Youth Services facility. August2078 MHBC 17 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener U'I -.Centre "°; ` i �• out 3P 7m L! key^ � '�'; �O �,�. � '�'$ _f� .. 3d7m t • i - Hall n. f K h er-w eri� R 1 HisPtal[d4MrlG an"d R r` a4Pm ;. Gm _ 't :.r Heiii°r1 Y"d �r 1 434�/ J 335 ,✓ coM tond- { IGt cenerWo /= 327 % 75 - ad8m �. 357m �'`� � 33fm � j • �. /jyJy�� E . J V3nn` v HcePi�l 1 3 +1 c ,,a � • arY � f -�. 35 ♦ a. i i�' f �N:15m_ � /Jr SErr 1 P 9 I `Arena 34am A— h °-Freep '1 �� •a,}% 32Am, Y i 328m d ii c t Hill �,,- ♦ � Figure 1: Topographic Map noting approximate Location of Subject Lands (Source: National Resources Canada, 2017). Figure 2: Aerial Image noting approximate location of subject lands (Source: Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2015). 1.2 Heritage Status and Adjacent Heritage Properties The subject lands are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) as per By-law no. 96-91. August2078 MHBC 18 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener The subject lands are located adjacent to cultural heritage resources as the subject lands are located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD). Specifically, the subject lands are located contiguous to the properties located at 226 Queen Street South (to the north) which is known as the 'Daring Residential Home' special care facility. The subject lands are also located adjacent to the properties located at 31-43/25 David Street (to the west), and 290 Queen Street South (to the south). c h 1e6, n_ sr�u r h rn �r � �.'ti .. vY ,�' �y r > '"cry 2 s"�iern, rral sT iy sT i 1rrl, �'�''''y�x Jdvx 'r..'y Y ya'�� � y a p Th; , ra'; a .r :r :y r �y "Y �✓ .�:.�i,? �'iJ �, I cn n Oii i TI v �. I SLt Terni N y-�sy ��''Y ✓ 2' -.,�� .?'i''y.. AL��(.(}FE �i4 ormanvmwrsi �� ,ITY OMMERLI / Jy� ✓ Yy c I r ] Y�y iy S'y., ✓y r �,?•�y,Y a,,% OS y>S,I I tll WI, IY , . F_,ii II �h„i��. • Y Y / r • p :'y'Y�'�,; � ' � y °�r;!y✓?yy '�" ,y ' � p, �� � S�, S� y' �''yy'� ,:>� h, j� �✓y yy,�y y � �',r �'ry wpm P rti yy��'� Y� �-A, II III Y VICTORIA'P0.RK �� Y O CEDAR HILL �+'`VlRoila Perk, y� MOO, .��,� n> ,y j✓ y y y s�M ✓q .,4.,�.�'./� er EyVyy H nry ..t, rn rr.ana�a; y �y' ,%yy,/ y ''' '' y✓yy. �'y'��%'' Z j 4+ Qw �����, i�✓ ����� i ra��.,'�'� � ,vnomloe PAF.K � � j / 4L Figure 3: Map noting approximate location of subject lands and heritage status, located roughly south east of the Victoria Park Area HCD. Location of subject property denoted with red outline (Source: Kitchener Interactive Map, 2017). August2078 MHBC 19 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 2.OPolicy Context 2.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement 2014 The Planning Act makes a number of provisions respecting cultural heritage, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2, the Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. One of the intentions of The Planning Act is to "encourage the co-operation and co-ordination among the various interests". Regarding cultural heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that: The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters ofprovinciol interest such as,... (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; The Planning Act therefore provides for the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the land use planning process. In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS). The PPS is "intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation". This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Significant: e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, on event, or a people. August2078 MHBC 110 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including on Aboriginal community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers. Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, moinstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, troilwoys, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance, and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g. a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site). Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. Protected Heritage Property: means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The subject lands located at 254-262 Queen Street South are considered to be a protected heritage property under the consideration of the PPS as they are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. August2078 MHBC 11 1 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 2.2 The Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains the guiding legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. This Heritage Impact Assessment has been guided by the criteria provided with Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The regulation sets forth categories of criteria and several sub -criteria. 2.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.G of the Regional Official Plan provides policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources which are related to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment. This includes policies which identify that cultural heritage is considered a resource which provides a sense of place, community identity and enhances the quality of life. The Regional Official Plan identifies that municipalities within the Region will establish policies regarding the requirement of Heritage Impact Assessments as it relates to development which includes or is adjacent to listed and/or designated heritage properties. Properties which include resources of Regional interest are circulated to the Region for review and comment. The Regional Official Plan specifies that heritage resources are encouraged to be retained intact by incorporating them into a proposed development and protecting them against unsympathetic alterations, vandalism and deterioration. Where heritage resources cannot be retained, the Region specifies that the adaptive re -use of heritage resources in encouraged as opposed to demolition. 2.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan The City of Kitchener provides policies and guidelines as it relates to the proposed development. This includes policies related to heritage resources and Heritage Conservation Districts (HCDs) within the context of the subject lands. City of Kitchener Official Plan The City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) provides the following policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources as it relates to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment. The City of Kitchener Official Plan recognizes the conservation of cultural heritage resources is an objective which aims to protect, identify, and manage resources in such a way that their cultural heritage value is retained. This management is conducted under the authority of the Ontario August2078 MHBC 112 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act, and the Municipal Act. The City of Kitchener Official Plan provides general policies as it relates to the identification, designation, and management of Heritage Conservation Districts. Here, Heritage Conservation Districts are identified as per the following criteria as per Section 12.C.1.13 of the Official Plan: a) the area contains a concentration of cultural heritage resources such as buildings, structures or landscapes, which reflect an aspect of the history of the community by nature of their location and the historical significance of the setting in which they are located; b) the area contains a concentration of cultural heritage resources that are of a particular style of architecture or a method of construction which is historically significant or architecturally significant to the community, Region, or Province; c) the area may contain other important physical, archaeological, environmental, cultural or aesthetic characteristics that individually do not constitute sufficient grounds for the designation of a district, but when considered together with other cultural heritage resources collectively support the reason for designation; or, d) the area has a special association that is distinctive within the community and, as a result, contributes to the character of the entire community. The City of Kitchener Official Plan provides policies regarding the appropriate conservation of heritage resources within a designated Heritage Conservation District, which includes the adoption of a by-law and Heritage Conservation District Plan. Further, the City of Kitchener provides policies regarding the requirement of Heritage Impact Assessments, which includes properties located within a designated Heritage Conservation District. The following provides a list of requirements of a Heritage Impact Assessment as per Section 12.C.1.26 of the Official Plan: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impact orpotentiol adverse impacts,- e) mpacts, e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; August2078 MHBC 113 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 0 implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. The City of Kitchener Official Plan identifies that where heritage resources are proposed for demolition, mitigation recommendations must be provided. This includes the requirement for documentation in support of demolition, as follows: 72.C.1.32. Where a cultural heritage resource is proposed to be demolished, the City may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. 72.C.1.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the owner/applicant will be required to prepare and submit a thorough archival documentation, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of an approval and/or permit. 72.C.1.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource, such documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and must include the following: a) architectural measured drawings; b) a land use history; and, c) photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. Archival documentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. The City of Kitchener Official Plan also includes policies related to the Urban Growth Centre (including land designation), and the Queen Street Corridor as follows: Section 3 3.C. 2 Urban Structure Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) 3.02.12. The Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) is the primary Urban Structure Component and Intensification Area. The planned function of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) is to accommodate a significant share of the region's and city's future population and employment growth. 3.02.13. The Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) is planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum density of 225 residents and jobs combined August2078 MHBC 114 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener per hectare and assist in achieving the minimum residential intensification target identified in Policy 3.C. 7.6. 3.02.14. The Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) is planned to be a vibrant regional and citywide focal point and destination and is intended to be the city's primary focal point for residential intensification as well as for investment in institutional and region -wide public services, commercial, office, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses. 3.02.15. Depending on the intended design character, range of uses and densities deemed appropriate for achieving the overall planned function of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) as shown on Maps 1, 2 and 4, the applicable land use designations as detailed in Section 15.D.2 will include the City Centre District, Civic District, Innovation District, Market District, and Mixed Use. Section 15 15.D.2 Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) Policies 15.D.2.1. The Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), as shown on Map 3 and Map 4, and also known as the City of Kitchener Downtown, will be the primary focus area in the city for intensification. 15.D.2.2. The Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) must achieve by 2031 or earlier, a minimum gross density target of 225 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The City will monitor and encourage a balance of residents and jobs per hectare to support the downtown as a desirable place to live and a major location of employment. 15.D.2.3. The Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) will be planned: a) as a focal area for investment in institutional and region -wide public services, as well as commercial recreational, cultural and entertainment uses; b) to accommodate and support major transit infrastructure; August2078 MHBC 115 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener c) to serve as a high density major employment location that will attract provincially, nationally or internationally significant employment uses; d) to accommodate a significant share of the city's population and employment growth; and, e) to provide services and amenities to attract population growth. 15.D.2.4. The Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) will be planned for continued commercial viability and all other land use designations allowing commercial development will have regard for and in no way compromise this planned function of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown). General Uses 15.D.2.5. The City will direct new major office and major institutional developments to locate within the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), particularly within the Innovation District. 15.D.2.6. The City will discourage the development or retention of some uses within or in close proximity to the Downtown which would conflict with the planned function of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown). 15.D.2.7. The City will encourage the development and retention of food stores within the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown). 15.D.2.8. The City will encourage the development and retention of institutional uses and cultural facilities within the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown). 15.D.2.9. The City will encourage and support affordable live -work developments, such as those which include studio or office spaces within a self-contained multiple residential unit, through flexible zoning provisions and consideration of incentives. Therefore, the subject lands are located in an area which has a minimum density target and is planned to be the'primary focus area' for intensification in the City of Kitchener. August2078 MHBC 116 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 2.5 Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan The Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) is bounded by Joseph Street, Victoria Street, Benton Street and the Canadian Pacific Railway and includes Victoria Park. The VPAHCD was established in 1997 with the primary goal to conserve the architectural and historic character of the Victoria Park neighbourhood. The VPAHCD Plan provides conservation guidelines, as well as policies for new buildings, additions, conversions and demolition. In the VPAHCD Plan, 254 Queen Street South is cited as an example of responsible building conversion due to its 'conservation of the character and architectural style of the original building' resulting in 'compatible integration and signage.' (VPAHCD Plan, 1996). 2.5.1 Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan Policies (Conservation, New Building, Demolition) The VPAHCD Plan provides a different set of policies for different areas of the HCD. For example, policies regarding change management are different for Victoria Park, main streets, and residential areas. A central goal for new buildings in the VPAHCD is to ensure that new developments enhance the historic and civic character of Queen Street South. Appropriate urban design which takes into consideration building style, profile, massing and materials that complement the special historic character of the area is required. Queen Street South Corridor The VPAHCD Plan recognizes that the Queen Street South corridor has a different character and different planned function than the rest of the Heritage District. As such there are specific policies and guidelines that apply to the Queen Street corridor. Conservation and Design 2.7 Introduction Queen Street South Corridor The Study found the Queen Street South corridor to be both the oldest part of the Victoria Park Area and under significant redevelopment pressure because of its close proximity to the downtown business area. Prevailing zoning allows for high density. For new building, additions, conversions and demolitions, owners will be required to follow the Building Conservation Policies for such work and apply to the LACAC. The reason for this is that major work can have a significant impact on the historic August2078 MHBC 117 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener character of the Area and a monitoring process of review and approval is considered necessary and appropriate. 2. New Building, Additions, Conversions & Demolition For major work including new building, additions, conversions and demolitions in the Area, Conservation Policies will be followed and application shall be made to LACAC, following due process prescribed under the Ontario Heritage Act. Such activity will also have regard to the Guidelines. New Building Policies Queen Street South, north and slightly south of Courtland Avenue, is designated for higher density development than now exists. In time, new buildings may be expected. It is important that new building conserve and enhance the historic character of the Area. With innovative design, a compatible and exciting integration of new and old can be achieved. New Building Introduction In the Queen Street South corridor, zoning permits and encourages new high rise, high density development. Major new buildings may be expected. This plan recognizes and supports the rights and privileges of property owners to redevelop in compliance with the Municipal Plan. This is not necessarily considered contrary to heritage conservation. New high density, high rise building can be the heritage of tomorrow. The 1928 7 -storey York Apartment Building is an example of an early high rise building that is now part of the Queen Street South heritage. To achieve higher densities, however, the loss of some earlier low density single-family residences may occur. While this would be regrettable as the integration of old buildings into new development is encouraged, a main goal is to ensure that new development enhance the historic and civic character of Queen Street South. This will be achieved in large part through appropriate urban design such that the building style, profile, massing and materials complement the special historic character of Queen Street South. The contemporary addition to the Bread and Roses Housing Coop is an excellent example of the achievement of this goal - a blend of old and new. This situation reflects the diversity of the Heritage Conservation District the stable and largely unchanging residential areas and the dynamic and unchanging Queen Street South corridor. It is considered a healthy challenge to heritage conservation - accommodating change and contemporary redevelopment, which will become the heritage of tomorrow. August2078 MHBC 118 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener POLICIES Public Realm New buildings shall contribute to the public realm of Queen Street South, which is perceived as an historic, gracious and tree -lined thoroughfare. Pedestrian Scale New building shall emphasize a human scale that creates a comfortable, safe and livable streetscape. Ground floor uses which can animate and enliven the public street are encouraged. Design Contemporary design of a high quality shall be achieved that is complementary to the historic character of the Area in terms of massing, materials and scale. Location New building shall be located to create streetscape continuity and pedestrian scale. Density Every effort shall be made to blend new high rise building with neighboring low rise residences. This could include varied building heights and elevations and the breaking up of the building mass. Height Design treatments to lessen the perception of height in new high rise development shall be considered, such as facade setbacks, mansard roofs, gables and varying building finishes and textures. Materials Materials typical of the historic Area, such as brick, shall be used. Roofs Roofs shall be designed to create an attractive skyline and screen roof equipment. Windows The appearance, placement and proportion of windows shall be complementary to historic windows in the Area, ifpossible. Verandahs Verandahs shall be incorporated, wherever possible, to continue a historic tradition in the Area. August2078 MHBC 119 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Colours Colours of paint and materials shall be complementary to the historic character of the Area. Conservation Where historic buildings are integrated into new building developments, the following approaches are encouraged in order of preference: Preservation/Conservation - maintaining historic buildings with little alteration. Adaptive Reuse - reusing historic buildings with restoration and/or rehabilitation. Incorporation - adaptive reuse that typically requires significant alteration Landscaping Landscaping should enhance new building and the Queen Street South Streetscope. Landscaping should create continuity in the streetscape between adjacent properties where possible. Plant material, where appropriate, should be used to soften building size, mass, and edges to maintain a human scale for pedestrians. Landscaping should screen and buffer service areas, parking, open storage and other unsightly areas where required. Landscaping should buffer high density buildings from low density buildings where required. Demolition Conservation and integration of historic buildings into new development is encouraged. Where removal of on historic building to accommodate higher density is contemplated, moving the buildings onto a new site shall be considered. Where removal of historic building is not feasible, the careful salvage of the key historic building fabric shall be undertaken so as to be used in the restoration of other similar style buildings. Application for demolition or removal shall be to the LACAC. The VPAHCD Plan provides policies and guidelines regarding the demolition of buildings. Here, the VPAHCD Plan discourages demolition, but notes that the Queen Street Corridor streetscape is anticipated to evolve, resulting in the loss of earlier lower -density single family development. The HCD Plan states the following policies (selected based on relevance to this HIA): August2078 MHBC 120 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Building Demolition Introduction The Victoria Park Area is remarkably intact with few vacant lots as a result of demolition. The exception is Queen Street South, where a number of fine historic residences were demolished for new development which did not materialize. The empty sites diminish the stature and integrity of the remaining streetscope. The intent of the Plan is to discourage demolition in the residential areas. In the Queen Street South corridor, demolition is acknowledged as a possibility where zoning permits significantly higher density that presently exists. POLICIES Presumption There shall be a presumption against demolition. The conservation of historic buildings in the Area is a primary goal. Property owners are encouraged to work with existing buildings, altering, adding to and integrating them into new development rather than demolishing. Moving Where removal of an historic building is contemplated, moving the building onto a newsite shall be considered. Salvage Where removal is not feasible, the careful salvage of key historic building fabric shall be undertaken so that it can be used in the restoration of other similar style buildings. Act Where demolition is applied for, the procedures of the Ontario Heritage Act shall be followed. Features The retrieval of architectural features from demolished buildings and their inclusion in a new building is encouraged. 2.6 Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor In 2001, the City of Kitchener Council approved Official Plan Amendment No. 36 to implement a new commercial policy structure. This introduced the 'Mixed Use Corridor' land use designation to seven corridors located on or near major transit routes in the inner City. In 2005, Council August2078 MHBC 121 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener approved the urban design brief for the Mixed Use Corridors and in 2008 Council approved a zone change that introduced three new Mixed Use Corridor zones. The Queen Street South mixed-use corridor was rezoned from various classifications to mixed-use corridor MU -1, MU -2 and MU -3 zones with and without special provisions (See Figure 5). The subject lands are zoned MU -2 which permits a maximum height of 24.0 metres and a maximum density of 4.0 FSR. The subject lands are zoned MU -2 which permits a maximum building height of 24.0 metres and a maximum Floor Space Radio of 4.0. SUBJECT47. AREA., , ------- Figure LL Figure 4: Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. (Source: City of Kitchener, Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor Planning Report, 2010) August2078 MHBC 122 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 'a us R _ ✓�: 2 a ,3Q 109 II I9 � R-3Is (F(� P_2 1 m 178 188 149 'i 31--V25 0 188 �4 QP 179 €:214 513R 16 2. 22u q �yG .Sn7 '•y i l'7L 2242a S JGBIItF St .i.1 2i1 .52: T� F �a22 513R 22 h1- fi 22'I �. 4J •IR-EG "i54T.1 M •50.1=8 ?�1 CG S� 251 P3 i 1q RAU-3 '125R S. 253 C r MIM -2 }1SR 92;135• � k ` 31 ��T` 79 R IR t8 21/� 85 �r�O . 12 •� 17 L 8 Fr71: Y77 13 5'3hi 34G co 121 � a s 93 5 31 R, 514R �'9tia 1 2 4 187 3T2 €r1U ? 5 i0R C" 2 �SrY - .._ Est r274Ur 460R 9;; l - Figure 5: Zoning Map. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2017) 2.7 Terms of Reference This HIA has been guided by the Terms of Reference provided by City of Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff (See Appendix Q. The preparation of this report has been guided by the Ontario Ministry of Culture (now the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) InfoSheet #I Built Heritage Resources, part of the 2006 Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process document as well as the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan (1996). A site visit of the subject lands was undertaken on October 16, 2017. The site visit included a visual assessment and photographic record of the subject lands and surrounding context. August2078 MHBC 123 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 3.O Historical Overview This section of the report focuses on historical development and the arrival of Euro -Canadian settlers, and does not discuss pre -contact aboriginal history or archaeology, as this report is primarily concerned with the impacts of the proposed development on the existing built cultural heritage resources of the 19th and 20th centuries. 3.1 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Township The subject lands were originally located in Waterloo Township where pioneer settlement commenced in the late eighteenth century. In 1784, General Haldimand, then Governor of Quebec, acquired six miles of land on each side of the Grand River from the Mississauga Indians (Bloomfield 19, 2006). A tract of land 12 miles wide along the course of the Grand River were granted to the Six Nations Indians by the British in recognition of their support during the American Revolution. The land was later divided into four blocks; Block 2 later became Waterloo Township. Brant and the Six Nations drew up a deed for sale of Block 2 in November 1796. The deed was recorded at Newark (Niagara on the Lake) and in February 1798 the title was registered and a Crown Grant was drawn for this block (McLaughlin, 21 2007). The buyer was Colonel Richard Beasley, a Loyalist from New York, who had arrived in Canada in 1777. Beasley bought the 93160 acres of land along with his business partners, James Wilson and Jean -Baptiste Rousseaux (Bloomfield 20, 2006). The land was then surveyed by Richard Cockrell who divided the township into upper and lower blocks (Hayes 3, 1997). At this time, German Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania were scouting out farmland in the area. Several of them went back to Pennsylvania and returned with their families the following year to buy and settle the land (Hayes 5, 1997). Block 2 was divided into an 'upper', 'middle', and 'lower' parts which were surveyed by Richard Cockerell. Beasley began selling lots in the lower block, part of which became Biehns Tract (6,750 acres) purchased by a group of Pennsylvania Mennonite families in the mid. 19th century. The first settlers came from several Pennsylvania counties, including Lancaster County. The Biehns and Bechtels were the first settlers to register title to land. Biehn's Tract (BT) was settled by John Biehn one mile west of the Grand River, and sold portions to his family. Settlement increased when 'the communication road' was constructed across southern Waterloo Township to connect Guelph with the Huron Tract in the 1850s (Bloomfield, 2006). August2078 MHBC 124 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figure 6: Map of Waterloo Township in 1831 showing settled and cultivated land. (Source: Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries.) Approximate location of subject lands denoted by arrow. 3.2 City of Berlin (now Kitchener) The subject lands are located in the former City of Berlin (now the City of Kitchener), which was settled in 1807 by Joseph Schneider, who constructed a log cabin on Lot 17 on the east side of what is now Queen Street (formerly known as Schneider Road). Other early settlers of Waterloo Township included Benjamin Eby, Samuel Eby, and John Brubacher. The first gristmill was constructed in Preston by John Erb in 1807. The first saw mill was constructed by Abraham Erb in Waterloo in 1816. August2078 MHBC 125 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener wNE-mm,immom .. ..�. '�c'ry�iir"�,i" -riY�rlBi� r��r rare'--�'�`�,�• �s � ,� �+ iMY r 91 "1 "1 ,- Y 4 A Figure 7: Map of Berlin 1853-1854. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. Victoria Park and surrounding lands were originally part of the farmstead purchased by Joseph Schneider in 1807, which was comprised of 448 acres of land. In 1816 Joseph Schneider erected a farmhouse (which exists today as the Schneider Haus museum located at 466 Queen Street South) as well as a saw mill utilizing the power of the creek running through his lands. The main streets of this early settlement consisted of what are now Queen Street and King Street. Schneider began to sell off lots near present day King Street and Queen Street for commercial development (Victoria Park Area HCD Study, 1995). �e F ' ww� } �1 it .Rq � ■ ` 7�,"' "P.'"�`w�— � .tea.; l Figure 8: Tremaine Map of Waterloo County, 1861. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. August2078 MHBC 126 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figure 9: 1875 Bird's Eye View Map of Berlin. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. (Source: Kitchener Public Library) According to the 1875 Bird's Eye View map of Berlin, the subject lands were undeveloped (See Figure 9). Here, the subject lands were located west of Schneider Road (now Queen Street), and south of John Street (now Joseph Street). By 1879 the subject lands had been sub -divided. The subject lands are located on property owned by Emil Vogelsang and Reverend F. W. Tuerk (See Figure 10). Emil Vogelsang was a prominent businessman in the local community and constructed a button manufacturing factory at what is now 307 Queen Street South, known as the Bread and Roses Co-operative Homes. According to records retrieved from the City of Kitchener Land Registry Office, the lands were subdivided again as per B. Eby and J.E. Schneider's Survey (Plan 393). There is no record of Plan 393 at the Land Registry Office. However, abstracts begin referring to J.E. Schneider's Survey after 1881. Therefore, J.E. Schneider's survey is dated c. 1881. The subject lands, including the properties located at what are now 242, 254 and 262 Queen Street South, became part of'Lot 57' of Plan 393. Further information related to the title search and ownership history are built into Sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of this report as it relates to the individual properties located on the subject lands. August2078 MHBC 127 Heritage ImpoctAssessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 14 k y n � n k tt1 QL kgF Figure10: 1879 Bird's Eye View Map of Berlin. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. (Source: Kitchener Public Library) According to the 1892 Bird's Eye View map, several buildings are located on the west side of what is now Queen Street South. The existing buildings located on the subject lands do not appear to be noted on this map. The buildings are small and their architectural details are understood as being artists' interpretations. It is possible that the buildings are depicted, but do not include the same features as what are existing (See Figure 11). August2018 MHBC 128 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener f .; � ' f w 1 Pi + e ep } 1 rrff � �r F f�r Figure11: 1892 Bird's Eye View Map of Berlin. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. (Source: Kitchener Public Library) 3.3 Victoria Park Neighbourhood The majority of what are now residential lands surrounding Victoria Park were formerly part of the Schneider farm. These lands remained agricultural until residential development began in the 1890s when the farmland was subdivided. The majority of residential lots on Water Street South were developed after 1898 and parcels of land measuring 50 feet by 176 feet were offered for sale by the turn -of -the -century. Victoria Park was created as the City of Berlin Council was inspired by the City Beautiful movement. In 1894 Council purchased 28 acres of the Schneider property and an additional 5 acres of land from the Athletic Association. The marshy un -landscaped area was transformed by landscape engineer George Ricker, who created a 5 -acre lake with three islands linked by bridges in a romantic landscaped style park. The park officially opened in 1896. Residential streets surrounding Victoria Park (including Queen Street) became developed with primarily 1 1/2 storey brick homes and some industrial developments. High rise residential buildings became more frequent after the 1960s, particularly along Queen Street South. (Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Study, 1995) August2078 MHBC 129 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figure 12: Original Plan of Victoria Park (Mills, 1996) The Victoria Park neighbourhood was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act as a Heritage Conservation District in 1996 as per by By-law 96-91. The Victoria Park Area HCD includes late 19th to early 20th century residential architecture set around an historic urban park (Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Study, 1995). 3.4 242 Queen Street South (Formerly 112 Queen Street South) The property located at what is now 242 Queen Street South is legally described as part of Lot 57, Plan 393 (Joseph E. Schneider's Survey). The subject property remained undeveloped until the late 19th century as per a review of historic maps of Berlin. According to the 1879 Bird's Eye View map, the subject lands were vacant and owned by Rev. F (Frederick?) W. Tuerk (?) and Emil Vogelsang. According to the 1893 Berlin and Waterloo directory, Reverend F. W. Tuerk resided in a house (now demolished) at 68 Queen Street South, which is likely part of Lot 57 of Plan 393, historically located east of the subject lands. According to records available at the Kitchener Land Registry Office, Reverend Tuerk sold Lot 57 to Emil Vogelsang in 1881. According to the 1892 Bird's Eye View Map of the west side of Queen Street South, single detached houses have been constructed but it is difficult to identify which of the houses currently located on the subject lands are depicted. The subject lands are not included on the 1898 rev. 1904 Fire Insurance Plan. According to the 1904 rev. 1925 Fire Insurance Plan, a 2 storey brick single -detached dwelling is noted and addressed as 112 Queen Street South. The building is noted as being a 2 storey brick construction August2078 MHBC 130 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener single -detached dwelling with bay window at the front elevation and 1 1/2 storey brick addition to the rear. This building was destroyed by fire in 2005. Evidence of the fire and the remains of the building can be seen on the 2006 Aerial Photo (See Figure 13). The existing building was constructed between 2006 and 2007. Figure 13: Excerpt of the 2006 Aerial Photo and view of 242 Queen Street South and the remains of the building destroyed by fire. (City of Kitchener Interactive Map, 2018) 3.5 254 Queen Street South (formerly 76 Queen Street South and 116 Queen Street South) The property located at what is now 254 Queen Street South was formerly addressed as 76 Queen Street South prior to the turn -of -the -century as per a review of Directories for the subject lands (See Figure 14). The property was subsequently re -addressed as 116 Queen Street until the mid. 20th century when it was re -addressed again as 254 Queen Street South. August2078 MHBC 131 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener According to a review of archival data for the subject lands, the property located at what is now 254 Queen Street South was part of Block 2 of Waterloo Township granted from the Crown to Richard Beasley in the late 18th century. The lands were then granted to Joseph Schneider. Joseph Schneider granted lands to Charles F. Brown, who in turn granted 1.36 acres to Emil Vogelsang in December 1876 (Part of Lot 17, Block 2). E. Vogelsang was a prominent businessman of the Town of Berlin and a button manufacturer. He constructed a button manufacturing business at what is now 307 Queen Street South. There is no evidence in the historic record to suggest that E. Vogelsang resided in the existing dwelling located on the property at 254 Queen Street South. The Vogelsang residence was located on Queen Street South across from his button factory at what is now 307 Queen Street South and was demolished in 1963 (Waterloo Historical Society, 1958). According to records retrieved from the land registry office, the subject lands became part of the Joseph E. Schneider Survey. The subject lands became part of 'Lot 57' of the Schneider Survey. The Land Registry Office does not provide a date, record, or plan of the Schneider Survey. However, judging by the land abstracts for the subject lands, the Schneider Survey was registered at some point between 1876 and 1884. The lands were subdivided again, and were granted to C. Knipfel in 1884 (0.48 acres). It is likely that the existing building on the subject lands was constructed by C. Knipfel. According to the 1901-1903 Directory for the Town of Berlin, Mrs. C. Knippel (also spelled Knipfel) resided on the subject lands at 76 Queen Street. According to the 1907 Directory for the Town of Berlin, the property was re -addressed as 116 Queen Street South (west side), and was the residence of Mrs M. Hallman, E. Weis, N. Heipel, A. Stahle, F. Swahlm, and A. Rickert, who were likely boarders. August2078 MHBC 132 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 80 H M Andrews 82 M rs E H Moyer 84 Rev J W German 86 Richard Reid Courtland ave crosses Figurel4: 1901-1903 Directory, Town of Berlin (Source: Kitchener Public Library) Records retrieved from the land registry office indicates that the subject lands were granted from C. Knipfel (widow) to Emma Hallman in 1903 for $3,000.00 The price of the land at this time suggests that a house was located on the subject lands. Figurel5: 1911 Census, Annie Hallman, 116 Queen Street South (Source: Ancestry.ca) According to the 1911 census for the Town of Berlin, Anne and Mananda Hallman is confirmed as the resident at 116 Queen Street South (See Figure 15). Members of the Hallman family continued to reside at 116 Queen Street South as per the 1921 Census for the Town of Berlin (See Figure 1 verend. 6). The 1925-1926 Directory for the Town of Waterloo identifies Orlando Hallman as a re August2078 MHBC 33 3V W�yl►'! John herryrs 58 A Vanderhart 64 J H Landwrath 56 J 8 Hoffman 68 Mrs F W-I`«erk W A Greene 74 Henry Aletter 80 H M Andrews 82 M rs E H Moyer 84 Rev J W German 86 Richard Reid Courtland ave crosses Figurel4: 1901-1903 Directory, Town of Berlin (Source: Kitchener Public Library) Records retrieved from the land registry office indicates that the subject lands were granted from C. Knipfel (widow) to Emma Hallman in 1903 for $3,000.00 The price of the land at this time suggests that a house was located on the subject lands. Figurel5: 1911 Census, Annie Hallman, 116 Queen Street South (Source: Ancestry.ca) According to the 1911 census for the Town of Berlin, Anne and Mananda Hallman is confirmed as the resident at 116 Queen Street South (See Figure 15). Members of the Hallman family continued to reside at 116 Queen Street South as per the 1921 Census for the Town of Berlin (See Figure 1 verend. 6). The 1925-1926 Directory for the Town of Waterloo identifies Orlando Hallman as a re August2078 MHBC 33 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figurel6: 1921 Census, Orlando Hallman, 116 Queen Street South (Source: Ancestry.ca) The 1908 rev. 1925 Fire Insurance Plan for the subject property confirms that the existing building located on the subject lands is a 2 storey single -detached residence of brick construction. The building appears to include two additions towards the west being 1 1/2 and 1 storey. According to the 1925 rev. 1947 Fire Insurance Plan, the building remained largely unchanged with the exception of a small single storey addition added to the north elevation of the existing single storey addition. The property remained owned by the Hallman family until 1942 when 0.48 acres were granted to Edythe C. & William MacDonald. This is confirmed by the 1940 Voters List which indicates the residents of 254 Queen Street South as Mr. and Mrs. MacDonald and their maid Miss Niebergal (See Figure 17). August2078 MHBC 134 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 214 Apt 74. Cray. Mrs. W W 214 Apt 75. Juhn*)w lxre m. srah,%man 214 Apt 75, Johnson. Mrs. LA-wtta -- 226 {t alien, Waller: bus driver 22d Moon. Wt. W - - ZN Htafts. M1-% I. M. wad+►+w 326 litatlax. Roy. mairtallrr 226 HttLlos, Hoax. mana af-r 242 rr:uwr. Dr J W. d`wtt,r 242 Fraser. MrA J W -- FaMir Wm- 4 ekWh NWDMVAK Dr. tilt,; +Q,« t =4 Niebeglak 141 ► M., maid; etirrUNW , [ opt k—w 11 Pipe". Min Hilda, maid M Boom Her" A., rtireman M i mem.. Mrs. H. A. - - = Peoree. Mrs. 1'_. hrmewwife Schwritxer. Miss E. steni►nrapher 11M !Smith. Clarence. sale-cman 2N 5m t h. M rs. C ?U M-%rr. Miss Alier.. hottru•keeper al+t S14pyer, Mum Marv. laxly 80 I av* R. Mt.. rada+► servity 2% J.,miesm Karl K-, clerk 2N Jamtrnm Mr& Millicent, widow 1OA Apt- A. HaIlK Wm.. shipper OKA Apt. A. "kqL Mrs. wm - - A Apt A. Rrick. Mrs. Curl, widow :NA A14. IL Mausbers, S. G. tmana mer 29NU ApL L Mausberl. Mm S. 0. -- wis Ami V Atlr Yrs V _ reicher Figure17:1940 Voters Lists for the City of Kitchener (Source: Ancestry.ca) 3.6 262 Queen Street South (formerly 78 Queen Street South, formerly 118 Queen Street South) Prior to the turn -of -the -century, the property located at what is now 262 Queen Street South was formerly addressed as 78 Queen Street South as per a review of Directories for the Town of Berlin (See Figure 14). The property was subsequently re -addressed as 118 Queen Street until the mid. 20th century when it was re -addressed again as 262 Queen Street South. According to a review of archival data for the subject lands, the property located at 262 Queen Street South was part of Block 2 of Waterloo Township granted from the Crown to Richard Beasley in the late 18' century. The lands were then granted to Joseph Schneider. Joseph Schneider granted lands to Charles F. Brown, who in turn granted 1.36 acres to Emil Vogelsang in December 1876 (Part of Lot 17, Block 2). There is no evidence in the historic record to suggest that E. Vogelsang resided in the existing dwelling located on the property at 254 Queen Street South. August2078 MHBC 135 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener According to records retrieved from the land registry office, the property located at 254 Queen Street South became part of Lot 57 of the Joseph E. Schneider Survey c. 1881. According to records retrieved from the Kitchener Land Registry Office, the subject lands were granted from Emil Vogelsang to Caroline Knipfel (also spelled Knippel), who sub -divided the subject lands into a 0.236 acre lot (similar to the size of the lot as existing). Caroline Knipfel (maiden name Weaver) sold 0.236 acres to Charles A. Ahrens in 1891. The Ahrens family likely constructed the existing building located on the subject lands at this time. Historic photographs of the building taken shortly after its construction provide information related to the alteration of the building throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries (See Figures 18 & 19). Figure18: Photograph of 262 Queen Street South (formerly 118 Queen Street South) (no date — likely late 19' century) (Source: Busy Berlin, 1897) August2078 MHBC 136 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figure 19: Photograph of 262 Queen Street South (formerly 118 Queen Street South), east elevation (no date — likely early 20' century) (Source: OurOntario.ca) The 1901-1903 Directory for the Town of Berlin confirms C. A. Ahrens as the resident of the existing building on the subject lands (See Figure 20). The 1911 and 1921 census for the Town of Berlin lists C. A. Ahrens as the resident of 118 Queen Street South with his wife Emma and two children. Ahrens is listed as a manufacturer (See Figure 21). Charles Ahrens (senior) built a shoe factory on Queen Street South in 1885. Charles Ahrens died in 1903 and his business was passed to his son Charles (junior). Charles August Ahrens (junior) resided on the subject lands and died in 1937. The death record of C. A. Ahrens (junior) indicates that he resided at 276 Louisa Street at the time of his death. August2078 MHBC 137 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener ou n m Anarews 82 Airs E H Moyer 84 Rev J W German 86 Richard Reid Courtland ave crosses Figure 20:1901-1903 Directory, Town of Berlin (Source: Kitchener Public Library) Figure 21: 1911 Census of the Town of Berlin, C. A. Ahrens, 118 Queen Street South (Source: Ancestry.ca) The 1908 (revised 1925) Fire Insurance Plan notes that the building located on the subject lands is 21/2 storeys in height and was of brick construction. The building is depicted as having a footprint similar to what is exists at 262 Queen Street South. The property includes a small single storey brick outbuilding located west of the residence (likely an automobile garage). The 1908 (revised 1947) Fire Insurance Plan indicates that the building did not change since the previous plan in 1925. According to the records at the City of Kitchener Land Registry office, the property located at 262 Queen Street South was granted to Neil A. Morrison in 1928 for $12,500.00. Mr. Morrison was a doctor, and his residence on the subject property is confirmed by the 1940 Voters List (See Figure 22). The property remained in the Morrison family until 1975. It cannot be conclusively determined if the building was used as both a residence and a doctor's office. August2078 MHBC 138 John herr yrs 58 A Vanderhart 6 J H Landt�rath 56 J 8 Hoffman 68 Mrs F W "I`werk W A Greene 74 _.- Henry Aletter is u — . ou n m Anarews 82 Airs E H Moyer 84 Rev J W German 86 Richard Reid Courtland ave crosses Figure 20:1901-1903 Directory, Town of Berlin (Source: Kitchener Public Library) Figure 21: 1911 Census of the Town of Berlin, C. A. Ahrens, 118 Queen Street South (Source: Ancestry.ca) The 1908 (revised 1925) Fire Insurance Plan notes that the building located on the subject lands is 21/2 storeys in height and was of brick construction. The building is depicted as having a footprint similar to what is exists at 262 Queen Street South. The property includes a small single storey brick outbuilding located west of the residence (likely an automobile garage). The 1908 (revised 1947) Fire Insurance Plan indicates that the building did not change since the previous plan in 1925. According to the records at the City of Kitchener Land Registry office, the property located at 262 Queen Street South was granted to Neil A. Morrison in 1928 for $12,500.00. Mr. Morrison was a doctor, and his residence on the subject property is confirmed by the 1940 Voters List (See Figure 22). The property remained in the Morrison family until 1975. It cannot be conclusively determined if the building was used as both a residence and a doctor's office. August2078 MHBC 138 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 214 Apt 74. Cray. Mrs. W W 214 Apt 75. Juhn*)w lxre m. sah,%maln 214 Apt 75, Johnson. Mrs. LA-wtii -- 226 {4 inmr, WAltrr: bux driver 22d Moomr. Wt. W - - ZN MOW. Mi-% 1. M. widlo 326 Bulla�x. Roy. mairt.ixrr 226 hut4*, Hoax. rnana af-r 242 rra mer. Dr J W. dort"r 242 Fra -•r. M" J W 242 Frarwrr. Wm. oflive cle-rk 254 MacUkjowid, Dr. W. C . d6vtor 354 Mat— osiald. MnL W. C ', Ul Morri++ori. Dr.N, SPA.,dwUst Pt"". 'MW vtmll.' mom' :] m Hatgt. Mrs. H. A. --- 1)M P+rare+r. Mm P., haaratewife = $chwritxer. Mins E. ste•noarapher 3M Smith. Clare . sale-cmim 2N Smith. Mrs. C. 'tM %. I-,Yrr. Mlm Alkv.. hottru•kreper at+t W,yer. Mum Miry. lady .Sit I av* R. U.. radi+► wrvity 2% J .. m iesM Carl 1C_, clerk hill Jamirnm Mr& Millicent. wodiiw IIA Apt- A. Hanel,,, Wm-. ithipper '1SA Apt: A. Halk4L Mrs, Wm. -- A Apt A. Re". Mrs. Carl, widow :WA AIA. 111. MauxbrM & G„ innnager 2NO Apo L M+aumbwg Mei 8. G � Am& V r►tUak Mrs lr _ wkinw Figure 22: 1940 Voters Lists for the City of Kitchener (Source: Ancestry.ca) August2078 MHBC 139 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 4.0 Description of Site and Surrounding Features 4.1 Introduction This section of the report will identify and describe the significant heritage features and attributes of the subject lands located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South. This section of the report also includes a description of the building located at 242 Queen Street South, which was constructed in 2007. 4.2 Description of Setting and Context The subject lands are situated east of Queen Street South between Courtland Avenue and Joseph Street. The subject lands are located within the boundary of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and are surrounded by a mix of medium and high rise development. This includes the Drewlo development located at 310 Queen Street South, the Victoria Place residential building located at 290 Queen Street South, and the York Apartment buildings located at 214 Queen Street South (See Figures 27 — 30). The subject lands have been altered to remove landscaped open space in the rear yards prior to 1997 as per a review of aerial photos available from the City of Kitchener. The existing lots include small landscaped open space to the east fronting Queen Street South. The side and rear yards have been altered to include paved laneways and parking to support the adaptive re -use of the buildings. The only features of cultural heritage value or interest located on the subject lands are the two (2) single -detached buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South. August2078 MHBC 140 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 23 & 24: (left) View of Queen Street South looking north from east side of Queen Street South (right) View of Queen Street South looking south from east side of Queen Street South (Source: MHBC October, 2017) PJWW' A& Figures 25 & 26: (left) View of Bread and Roses Co -Op homers looking south-east from west side of Queen Street South (right) View of single detached buildings on the west side of Queen Street South (north of the subject lands, south of Joseph Street), looking north-west (Source: MHBC October, 2017) .T- -W. .� Figures 27 & 28: (left) View of York Apartment building looking north-west from west side of Queen Street South, (right) View of Victoria Place residential building looking north-west from east side of Queen Street South, (Source: MHBC October, 2017) August2078 MHBC 141 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 29 & 30: (left) View of subject lands looking south-west noting location of Victoria Place residential building and Drewlo residential building (right) View of Drewlo high rise residential building at 310 Queen Street South, looking south-west from east side of Queen Street South (Source: MHBC October, 2017) 4.3 Description of Built Features The following provides a description of the single -detached dwellings of cultural heritage value or interest located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South. As the building located at 242 Queen Street South was constructed in 2007 and is not of cultural heritage value or interest, it is not described in this section of the report. 4.3.1 254 Queen Street South (Exterior) The building located at 254 Queen Street South was constructed c.1884 in the Italianate architectural style. The building is 2 storeys with a hipped roof, constructed in yellow brick. The building displays features common to the Italianate architectural style such as arched window openings, wood brackets, and brick quoins. All elevations include a deep overhang cornice with wood dentils. The building located at 254 Queen Street South is comprised of different components or 'sections', described in this report as Sections 'A' through V. Each section of the building was constructed at different periods of time for different purposes. The original portion of the building constructed c.1884 is described in this report as Section 'A' and includes original features of the building indicative of the Italianate architectural style. This includes yellow brick quoins at the corners of the building, a hipped roof with wide overhang, wood cornice with fascia with dentils and wood brackets with finials. The foundation is constructed of stone. Section 'B' of the building can be described as two separate rear yellow brick additions (B 'i' and B 'ii'), both of which are visible on the 1908 revised 1925 Fire Insurance Plans. Section 'B i' is located August2078 MHBC 142 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener directly adjacent to the west elevation of the original building and is 1 1/2 storeys. Section 'B ii' is a single storey brick addition to the west. Both additions are noted on Fire Insurance Plans are being part of the dwelling. Sections 'C' and 'D' are described as single storey brick additions constructed after 1947 (as they are not depicted on available Fire Insurance Plans). While both of these additions were constructed of yellow brick, the patina, texture and composition of brick is different than that of original bricks, providing additional confirmation that these sections of the building were later additions. Section 'E' can be described as a verandah/porch constructed post 1947 as it is not visible on available Fire Insurance Plans. This portion of the building includes a wood -frame deck with hipped roof supported by four yellow half -brick pillars with Doric order columns. Section 'F' of the building can be described as a wood frame accessibility ramp which appears to have been added in recent years (post 1997) as it is not visible on the 1997 aerial photograph of the property available on the City of Kitchener Interactive Map web application. Figure 31: Aerial Photo of 254 Queen Street South noting different Sections of the building (Sections 'A' through 'F') (Source: City of Kitchener, 2017) August2078 MHBC 143 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Identifier: Date Range: Notes: A c. 1884 Original Building Footprint B (i and ii) 1892-1925 Rear Additions C Post 1947 South Addition D Post 1947 S/W Corner addition E Post 1947 PorticoNeranda F Post 1997 Accessibility Ramp East (front) Elevation The east elevation includes views of Sections 'A','D','E' and 'F' of the building. The original portion of the building (Section 'A') includes an arched doorway with brick voussoir. The existing wood frame door with sidelights is typical of the 19th century and is likely original to the building. The east elevation includes a bay window with hipped roof north of the main entrance where all original windows have been replaced, respecting original window openings. At the second storey of Section 'A', a two paired window openings are visible above the bay window which are original, but have been replaced with contemporary windows. A wood frame door is visible to the south, which has likely been altered from an original window opening. Section 'D' of the building can be described as a single storey yellow brick addition to the south. The addition includes a hipped roof and displays a bay window with three window openings to the east fronting Queen Street South. These window openings include brick voussoirs and contemporary windows. Section 'E' (verandah) includes four yellow brick half -pillars with Doric order columns supporting a hipped roof. The existing wood frame accessibility ramp (Section 'F') is oriented north -south and has been added in recent years. Figures 32 & 33 — (left) View of east (front) elevation looking west from west side of Queen Street South, (right) Front yard sign identifying Bullas Travel Agency (Source: MHBC October, 2017) August2078 MHBC 144 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 34 & 35 — (left) View of east (front) elevation verandah from west side of Queen Street South, (right) Detailed view of roofline, cornice and wood brackets (Source: MHBC October, 2017) Figures 36 & 37 — (left) View of existing covered verandah looking north towards Queen Street South, (right) View of existing accessibility ramp looking south towards east (front) elevation,(Source: MHBC October, 2018) North Elevation The north elevation includes a view of Sections 'A', 'B (i)' and 'B (ii)'. The original portion of the building (Section 'A') includes two window openings with brick voussoirs at the first storey of the north elevation, with two windows of the same size and design at the second storey above. All windows have been replaced with contemporary (vinyl) windows. A chimney is visible at the north elevation which includes decorative brick banding. Section 'B (i)' can be described as a 1 1/2 storey yellow brick addition. The north elevation includes one window opening similar to that of the original portion of the house with a rounded oeil-de- boeuf window above. This portion of the rear addition includes a stone foundation and raised brick details to the west. Section 'B (ii) does not include a foundation, quoins, or any other detailing. A door opening appears to have been previously located to the north, which has been bricked -over. August2078 MHBC 145 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 38 & 39 - (left) View of north elevation from west side of Queen Street South detailing brick exterior, (right) Detailed view of chimney, roofline, cornice, and wood brackets (Source: MHBC October, 2017) Figures 40 & 41 - (left) View of north elevation looking east towards Queen Street South, (right) Detailed view of north elevation of Section 'B ii' noting bricked -over door opening (Source: MHBC October, 2018) South Elevation The south elevation provides views of Sections W, 'D' and 'C' of the building. The south elevation of Section 'A' includes a pair of rectangular window openings to the west above the first storey bay window. These window openings include brick voussoirs and have been replaced with contemporary windows. The original portion of the building at the first storey includes a bay window to the west. This bay window includes window openings, which are partially obstructed by vines and foliate. All window openings have been respected while replacing with contemporary windows. The south elevation of Section 'C' includes a series of rectangular shaped contemporary (vinyl) windows with 6x1 false muntins. This section of the building was constructed post 1947. Currently, this portion of the building has been damaged by graffiti and vandalism. August2078 MHBC 146 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener The south elevation of Section 'D' describes the single storey addition to the east. The south elevation of this portion of the building has been completely obstructed by foliage. Figures 42 & 43 — (left) View of south elevation from west side of Queen Street South detailing brick exterior and single storey addition (right) Detail view of second storey addition (Source: MHBC, 2018 .j Figures 44 & X45 — (left) Detail view of south elevation of Section 'C' noting graffiti, (right) Detail view of Section 'D' looking north-west noting bay window and foliage. (Source: MHBC, 2018) West (rear) Elevation The west (rear) elevation provides views of Sections 'A', C, and 'B (i)' and 'B (ii)'. The rear elevation of the original portion of the building is almost entirely obstructed and does not include any original window opening, which have likely been covered by Section 'B (i)'. The rear elevation of Section 'B (i)' includes a rectangular -shaped window opening with brick voussoir with contemporary window. A door opening is located to the north, having a wood -frame door similar to the east (front) elevation. This door opening has likely been altered from a window opening. A yellow brick chimney is visible above. August2078 MHBC 147 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener The west (rear) elevation of Section 'B (ii)' includes a small basement window (covered with a metal grate) and access to a basement door which has been added at an unknown date. This elevation also includes a small rectangular window opening with brick voussoir and contemporary window and a door opening (approximately 0.5 metres above grade) which was added at an unknown date. The south elevation of Section 'C' includes a wood -frame porch and contemporary door opening. Figures 46 & 47 - (left) View of south and west (rear) elevations, looking north-east towards Queen Street South, (right) Detail view of west (rear) elevation (Sections 'B (i)' and 'B (ii)'(Source: MHBC, 2018) Figure 48 — View of west (rear) elevation looking east towards Queen Street South and Sections 'A', 'C', and 'B' (i and ii). (Source: MHBC, 2018) August2078 MHBC 148 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 4.3.2 254 Queen Street South (Interior) Basement The basement of 254 Queen Street South provides views of the foundation, floor and flooring systems which give clues as to the construction of the overall building. The foundation of the original portion of the building as well as the rear additions are comprised of stone. Flooring systems include sawn floorjoists. No structural beams (including hand hewn beams) were visible. The floor of the original portion of the house (Section W) included bricks, which were later covered with concrete and were visible in localized areas. The remainder of the floor was wood boards. The original portion of the basement had been finished in some areas to include a fireplace and seating area with wood trim. This fireplace was electric or gas and does not include features indicative of the 19th century. The fireplace and surrounding wood details were added at some point in the 20th century. �a Figures 49 & 50 — (left) View of access to basement noting wooden stairs within rear addition, (right) Detail view of floor system and sawn joists (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 51 & 52 — (left) View of stone foundation wall (parged) within basement of rear addition right) Detail view of exposed brick basement floor under concrete within original portion of dwelling (Source: MHBC, 2018) August2078 MHBC 149 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 53 & 54 — (left) View of fireplace and wood detailing in basement of original portion of dwelling, (right) Detail view of stone foundation and red brick interior wall noting spalling bricks and water damage, (Source: MHBC, 2018) Main Floor The main floor of the building has includes a combination of new finishes and original features. Some original features which were visible at the main floor include pocket doors, and wood trim around window openings and doors. The building includes new flooring and drop -tile ceilings in some locations. The majority of ceilings in the original portion of the building were in excess of 8 ft. in height. Access to the basement is provided within Section 'B (i)' of the dwelling only. No access to the basement was provided from the original portion of the dwelling (Section 'A') as it has likely been removed. Figures 55 & 56 — (left) View of front (east) elevation entrance door, looking east towards Queen Street South right) Detail view of main floor radiator (Source: MHBC, 2018) August2078 MHBC 150 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 57 & 58 — (left) View of office and meeting areas in original portion of house, looking east towards Queen Street South (right) Detail view of pocket doors with wood trim looking south from rear addition ('B (i)' towards Section 'C', (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 59 & 60 — (left) View of office noting high ceilings and wood trim in rear addition of main floor, looking north. Red arrow notes location of entrance to basement within Section 'B (i)', (right) View of hallway and office space looking west towards rear additions from original portion of building (Source: MHBC, 2018) damW V 1i Figures 61 & 62 — (left) View of rear addition (Section 'B (ii)' looking south noting contemporary wall finishes and drop -tile ceiling, (right) Detail view of west elevation brick wall of Section 'B (i)', looking east from Section 'B (ii)', (Source: MHBC, 2018) August2078 MHBC 151 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Second Floor The majority of the second floor has been re -finished. Some original moulding remains, with the majority of floors, walls and trim being re -finished. The main (front) staircase banister does not appear original as it does not include ornate features indicative of the Queen Anne architectural style. Figures 63 & 64 — (left) View of stairs and access to second storey, (right) Detail view of round window at within rear addition staircase, looking north (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 65 & 66 — (left) View of cracked plaster and drywall materials between original portion of building and rear additions, (right) Detail view of second storey moulding and carpet over wood flooring (Source: MHBC, 2018) August2018 MHBC 152 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 67 & 68 — (left) View of second storey washroom with window opening looking west, (right) View of ition, lookina west (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 69 & 70 — (left) View of second storey rooms looking east towards original portion of building (Section 'A') (right) Detail view of main staircase in original portion of building, (Source: MHBC, 2018) 4.3.3 262 Queen Street South (Exterior) The building located at 262 Queen Street South can be described as a 2 1/2 storey building constructed in the Queen Anne architectural style. The existing building includes different components or sections which were constructed for different purpose at different periods of time. These sections of the building are described in this report as'A','B','C', and U. The original portion of the building constructed c. 1891 (Section 'A') includes features which are indicative of the Queen Anne architectural style including gabled roofs, large parlour windows, and ornamental brackets. Section 'B' of the building can be described as a 2 storey brick addition to the original portion of the building constructed between 1891 and 1925. The building includes a front-end gabled roof oriented east -west. A wood -frame verandah and balcony was added to the north elevation of Section 'B' between 1891 and 1925. August2078 MHBC 153 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener The original building footprint included an ornate wood -frame verandah at the east and north elevations. This portion of the building has been removed and is indicated on Figure 71 with a dotted red line. In the early 20th century, a new verandah was added which spanned the majority of the east (front) and north elevations. This verandah included stone half -pillars and columns. Portions of this alteration remain and can be described as part of Section 'C', of the building. In more recent years, this verandah has been enclosed. The building has been adaptively re -used as a business and has lost a number of its original heritage features through the alterations described above. Figure 71: Aerial Photo of 262 Queen Street South noting different Sections of the building (Sections'A' through 'F') (Source: City of Kitchener, 2017) August2078 MHBC 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Identifier: Date Range: Notes: A C. 1891 Original Building Footprint B 1891-1925 Rear Addition C Early 2011 century, Altered in later half of 20' century Veranda (later enclosed) D 1891-1925 Verandah and Balcony East (front) Elevation The east (front) elevation of the building provides a view of Sections 'A', and 'C'. The original portion of the building (Section 'A') includes a bay window under a gabled roof. This portion of the building includes three sets of window openings with wood frame windows which are likely dated to the early 20' century as per a review of historic photos of the building. Decorative brackets are provided below the roof gable. A paired rectangular -shaped window with scalloped detailing is provided above. These features are also original as per a review of historic photos. The remainder of features of the original portion of the building have been covered and are not visible. This portion of the building is described as Section 'C', represented a comprehensive verandah constructed in the early 20th century and has since been enclosed. In the 20th century, this included the addition of stone half -pillars with wood columns. This verandah was enclosed in the latter half of the 20th century and now includes white painted brick, horizontal siding, and contemporary (vinyl) windows with false muntins to mimic the wood frame window at the second storey of the original portion of the building. The second storey of Section 'C' includes an enclosed sun -room with gabled roof. An uncovered patio was formerly located here, which was later enclosed in the early 20th century. August2078 MHBC 155 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 72 & 73 - (left) View of east (front) elevation, looking west from east side of Queen Street South (front) View of east and south elevations, looking north-west from west side of Queen Street South (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 74 & 75 - (left) Detailed view of east (front) elevation showing gable roof and window facing Queen Street South, (right) Detailed view of second storey bay window and wood brackets (Source: MHBC October, 2017) Figures 76 & 77 - (left) Detailed view of east (front) elevation showing the east elevation addition with stone columns, (right) View of east elevation showing building addition and remaining bay window at the first storey (Source: MHBC October, 2017) August2078 MHBC 156 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener North Elevation The north elevation provides views Sections 'A', 'C', and 'D' of the building. The majority of Section 'A' has been obstructed by Sections 'Cand U. The exception to this is a small window to the east of a bay window. The bay window at the north elevation is similar to that of the east (front) elevation. The north elevation of Section 'C' includes a covered verandah with squared stone column bases and wood pillars. Two paired rectangular -shaped windows are located to the east, which were added to the structure when the verandah was enclosed in the 20' century. The north elevation of Section 'D' includes an ornate wood frame verandah and balcony to the north of Section 'B'. This verandah and balcony includes wood detailing and elements which are likely original to Section 'D' as they are indicative of the Queen Anne style of architecture. While this is true, the verandah has been altered to include newer wood balusters and vertical wood siding at the first storey. Figures 78 & 79 — (left) View of north elevation showing gable roof and window, (right) View of north elevation noting stone halfcolumnsand wood column verandah (Source: MHBC 2018) Figures 80 & 81 — (left) View of west and north elevations looking east noting first storey of Section 'D' (right) View of west and north elevations noting second storey of wood frame balcony (Section 'D') (Source: MHBC October, 2018) August2078 MHBC 157 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 82 & 83 — (left) Detail view of north elevation of Section 'D' (second storey balcony), (right) Detail view of north elevation of Section 'D' (first storey verandah) (Source: MHBC October, 2017) South Elevation Views of the south elevation of the building includes views of Sections 'A', 'B', and 'C'. The south elevation of Section 'A' (original portion of the building) displays a tall stone foundation. Two window openings are visible, the first being a trio of rectangular -shaped windows which are contemporary. A single rectangular -shaped window is located to the east of this contemporary window. At the second storey of Section 'A', two rectangular window openings are visible below a gable. The gable at the south elevation includes a pair of rectangular -shaped window openings similar to that of the east elevation and are likely original. Two rectangular -shaped windows are located at the south elevation of Section F. A basement window is also provided at the south elevation of Section 'B'. August2078 MHBC 158 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 84 & 85 — (left) View of south elevation of Section 'A' noting gable roof and windows, (right) View from south elevation noting stone foundation and brick exterior (Source: MHBC October, 2017) -1 A I. Figures 86 & 87 — (left) Detail view of two window openings at the first and second storey of Section 'B' , (right) Detail view of contemporary window at the south elevation of Section 'A' (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figure 88 — (left) Detail view of tall stone foundation at south elevation of Sections 'A' and 'B' (Source: MHBC, 2018) August2078 MHBC 159 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener West (rear) Elevation The south elevation provides views of Sections 'B' and 'D' of the building. Section 'B' can be described as a 2 storey front-end gable addition to the original portion of the building. The rear elevation includes a central chimney which has been removed above the roofline. Two rectangular -shaped window openings are located at the second storey, with one similar -shaped window opening at the first storey. A basement window to the south is provided and a small covered basement entrance has been added at an unknown date to the north. Views of Section D' of the building provide views of the wood frame verandah and balcony, having a sloped roof and wood detailing indicative of the Queen Anne style of architecture. Figures 89 & 90 — (left) View of south and west (rear) elevations, looking north-east towards Queen Street South , (right) View of west (rear) elevation looking east noting Sections 'B' and 'D' (Source: MHBC 2018) August2078 MHBC 160 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 91 & 92 — (left) Detail view of second storey of Section 'B' noting location of window openings and chimney, (right), Detail view of main floor window opening and window/access to basement in Section 'B', (Source: MHBC October, 2018) 4.3.4 262 Queen Street South (Interior) Basement Views of the basement provided evidence of a flooring system constructed with sawn joists and a stone foundation. No beams (including hand hewn beams) were visible. The basement is accessed from both the original portion of the dwelling (via a new spiral staircase which was added at an unknown date) and a second staircase towards the rear of the building. The majority of the basement has been re -finished (including walls, ceilings, etc.). Figures 93 & 94 — (left) View of new spiral staircase providing access to the basement within original portion of the building, (right) Detail view of brick foundation wall materials, (Source: MHBC, 2018) August2078 MHBC 161 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 95 & 96 — (left) View of secondary staircase and access to the basement provided to the rear of the building, (riaht) Detail view of floorina system and sawn ioists with contemoorary HVAC systems, (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 97 & 98 — (left) View of basement storage room noting drop -tile ceiling and electrical systems, (right) Detail view of remnant part of foundation wall in doorway opening between original portion of dwelling and rear addition (Source: MHBC, 2018) Main Floor The main floor provides views of both Sections'A', 'B', and 'Cof the building. The majority of the main floor includes original/191h century trim, mouldings, and a wood staircase. Some new partitioned walls have been added with new drywall. The original portion of the building included a 19th century fireplace and one stained glass window. August2078 MHBC 162 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 99 & 100 — (left) View of new white grate protecting access to basement spiral staircase and 19th century dark wood banister, (right) View of typical moulding around door opening in original portion of the building, (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 101 & 102 — (left) Secondary view of white grate and wood staircase, (right) View of spiral staircase and Figures 103 & 104 — (left) View wood coffered ceiling within original portion of dwelling which may be original to the structure, (right) Detail view of typical baseboard in original portion of dwelling (Source: MHBC, 2018) August2078 MHBC 163 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 105 & 106 — (left) View of 1911 century fireplace and mantle in original portion of building (likely original), right) Detail view of rectangular stained glass window of north elevation bay window (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 107 & 108 — (left) View of typical room in rear addition noting contemporary window, (right) Detail view of contemporary window at south elevation of original portion of building, (Source: MHBC, 2018) Second Floor Views of the second floor of the building provide evidence of some original features, including a wood staircase, and trim and mouldings (including baseboards). This is contrasted with new drywall, flooring, and windows in additions to the building. Figures 109 & 110 — (left) View of wood staircase in original portion of building noting balusters and newel post, (right) Secondary view of wood staircase and access to second storey (Source: MHBC, 2018) August2078 MHBC 164 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 111 & 112 — (left) View of bay window at north elevation of original portion of building, (right) Detail view of stained glass windows and transoms in enclosed verandah looking east towards Queen Street South, (Source: MHBC, 2018) Attic Views of the attic provided evidence of late 1911 century construction materials, such as sawn wood roof rafters and cladding. The attic also included what is likely original wood flooring and wood frame windows. mei■■ W06--- I Figures 113 & 114 — (left) View of roof structure noting sawn wood and cladding material, (right) Detail view of sawn wood and attic cladding material, (Source: MHBC, 2018) August2078 MHBC 165 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figures 115 & 116— (left) Detail view of original wood flooring in attic, (right) Detail view of wood frame window in attic dormer, (Source: MHBC, 2018) 4.3.5 242 Queen Street South (Exterior) The building located at 242 Queen Street South was constructed in 2007 to replace a 19th century structure which was destroyed by fire. The existing building is a 2 1/2 storey brick structure with a rectangular -shaped plan and hipped roof with gables at the north, east, and south elevations. The building includes a poured concrete verandah supported by wood pillars. The building includes features which are reminiscent of traditional styles but are employed in a fairly contemporary manner. This includes the use of brick quoins and regularly spaced and paired rectangular -shaped windows with stone sills (See Figures 51 & 52). No interior analysis or observations were conducted for 242 Queen Street South as it is of recent construction and does not include heritage fabric. Figures 117 & 118 — (left) View of east (front) elevation of 242 Queen Street South, looking north-west, (right) View of subject lands looking north-west from east side of Queen Street South (Source: MHBC October, 2017) August2078 MHBC 166 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 5.OEvaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources 5.1 Introduction and Evaluation Criteria The following sub -sections of this report will provide an analysis of the significance of the subject lands as per Ontario Regulation 9/06, which is the legislated criteria for determining heritage significance. This includes the properties located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South. As noted in sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this report, the building located at 242 Queen Street South was constructed in 2007 and does not demonstrate cultural heritage value or interest as an authentic heritage resource despite being located within the VPNHCD. Therefore, the property located at 242 Queen Street South has not been evaluated as per Ontario Regulation 9/06. Ontario Regulation 9/06 prescribes that that: A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more or the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest.- The nterest. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of on area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. August2078 MHBC 167 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Section 4.6.1 of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties — Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (2014) provides an explanation of Ontario Regulation 9/06 (as above) in order to provide further information on the evaluation of cultural heritage resources. The following analysis has been drafted in consideration of this explanation of Ontario Regulation 9/06. 5.2 254 Queen Street South The following provides an overview of the cultural heritage value of the property located at 254 Queen Street South. This includes a list of identified heritage attributes. 5.2.1 Design/Physical Value The property located at 254 Queen Street South has design/physical value as a representative example of a building constructed in the Italianate architectural style c.1884. The building is comprised of different sections (described in this report as Sections 'A' through 'F'). Section 'A' is the original portion of the building constructed c. 1884 in the Italianate architectural style. The building is not considered early, rare or unique. The building was constructed in the latter half of the 18th century, where 15% of the building stock in the VPNHCD constructed during this period. The construction date is not considered early for the City of Kitchener or the province of Ontario. While the Italianate architectural style is not considered rare in the context of the City of Kitchener of the province of Ontario, the VPNHCD Study indicates that 4% of the 377 buildings in the District are of the Italianate architectural style. The building does not demonstrate significant value related to scientific achievement, craftsmanship or artistic merit. Sections 'B (i) and (ii)' have modest design/physical value. While they are not part of the original building footprint, they were likely constructed in the late 19th century and are compatible with the original portion of the building. These two rear additions were not constructed with the same level of detailing indicative of the Italianate architectural style. These additions do not offer significant information which contributes to the site and therefore, their removal would be considered a minor adverse impact. The remainder of the additions to the building (described as Sections 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F') were constructed in the latter half of the 20th century and are not of design/physical value. 5.2.2 Historical/Associative Value The building located at 254 Queen Street South has modest historical/associative value. The building is associated with C. Knipfel (widow) who likely had the building constructed for her after she received a grant from Emil Vogelsang in 1884. C. Knipfel resided at the house until the turn-of- August2078 MHBC 168 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener the -century with various boarders. No information in the historic record is available to demonstrate that she was significant to the local community. The property is associated with members of the Hallman family, who purchased the lands in 1903. The 1921 census confirms Orlando Hallman resided on the subject lands and was occupied as a reverend. There is no information in the historic record to demonstrate that members of this branch of the Hallman family were significant members of the local community. It is important to note that the subject property is not associated with Lyle S. Hallman (philanthropist) b. 1922, d. 2003. 5.2.3 Contextual Value The property located at 254 Queen Street South has modest contextual value for its location within the Victoria Park Area HCD. The building helps to frame the street and contributes to the overall Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and maintains its prominent location on Queen Street South, which was formerly known as 'Schneider Road', one of the earliest roads in Waterloo Region. However, the context of the Queen Street South corridor is variable, having a range of building types and forms. Queen Street South is no longer a residential streetscape and has evolved to include higher density mixed use. Contextual values are primarily related to the location of buildings close to the street, forming a relatively consistent street edge. The building is not functionally related to its surroundings and is not part of a significant grouping. 5.2.4 List of Identified Heritage Attributes The following provides a list of identified heritage attributes for the property located at 254 Queen Street South: Section 'A': • Overall 2 1/2 storey yellow brick massing with overhang hipped roof, brick quoins and wood cornice, fascia with dentils; • East and south elevation brick bay window projections with window openings; • All original window and door openings visible from the street including brick voussoirs; • Remaining yellow brick chimneys; • Wood brackets with finials; • Frontage, orientation, and relatively shallow building setback from Queen Street South. Sections '13 (i and ii): • 1 1/2 and single storey massing yellow brick construction; August2078 MHBC 169 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener • Original window openings including the north elevation round window and raised brick details of Section' B (i)'. 5.3 Evaluation of 262 Queen Street South The following provides an overview of the cultural heritage value of the property located at 262 Queen Street South. This includes a list of identified heritage attributes. 5.3.1 Design/Physical Value The property located at 262 Queen Street South has design/physical value as it includes a representative example of a building constructed in the Queen Anne architectural style. This includes the original portion of the building (described in this report as Section 'A'). Section 'A' includes features indicative of the Queen Anne architectural style including low and moderately pitched gables, large parlour windows, and ornamental brackets. The building is not considered early, rare or unique. The building was constructed in the latter half of the 18th century, where 15% of the building stock in the VPNHCD constructed during this period. According to the VPNHCD Study, Queen Anne buildings make-up 19% of the 377 buildings present within the District. This architectural style is not considered rare or unique in the context of the City of Kitchener or the province of Ontario. The building does not demonstrate significant value related to scientific achievement, craftsmanship or artistic merit. The remaining sections of the building are described in this report as Sections 'B' through 'C' and have modest design/physical value as they were previously complementary to the building, but have been subject to a number of unsympathetic alterations. Section 'B' does not include details and ornamental features which are similar to that of the original portion of the building, but is complementary to its overall construction, scale and massing. 5.3.2 Historical/Associative Value The property located at 262 Queen Street South has historical/associative value for its associations with C. A. Ahrens (senior) who purchased the property from C. Knipfel in 1891 and likely constructed the existing building. C. A. Ahrens was a prominent businessman and shoe manufacturer. His son, Charles August Ahrens (junior) has been inducted into the Region of Waterloo Hall of Fame. He is described as serving as an apprentice at the Henry Roth harness making shop in Berlin, Ontario. He later joined his father in the shoe manufacturing business (located at what is now 45 Queen Street South) and later on Linden Street. C. A. Ahrens (junior) is noted as being August2078 MHBC 170 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener highly respected as a'business man and leading citizen'. C.A. Ahrens (senior) died in 1903 and left his estate to his son, C. A. Ahrens (junior), who died in 1937. �. A. _N,,."A Amo CO, -t sjtol pacnn►t Figure 119- Photograph of C. A. Ahrens & Co. Shoe Factory (Source: Ancestry.ca) (now 45 Queen Street South) Figure 120 - Photograph of C. A. Ahrens (junior) (Source: Waterloo Region Hall of Fame) August2078 MHBC 171 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 5.3.3 Contextual Value The property located at 262 Queen Street South has modest contextual value for its location within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. The building helps to frame the street and contributes to the overall Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. The building maintains its prominent location on Queen Street South, which was formerly known as'Schneider Road', one of the earliest roads in Waterloo Region. The context of the Queen Street South corridor is variable, having a range of building types and forms. Queen Street South is no longer a residential streetscape and has evolved to include higher density mixed use. Contextual values are primarily related to the location of buildings close to the street, forming a relatively consistent street edge. The building is not functionally related to its surroundings and is not part of a significant grouping. 5.3.4 List of Identified Heritage Attributes The following provides a list of identified heritage attributes for the property located at 262 Queen Street South: Section 'A': • Overall 2 1/2 storey brick massing with gables and bay windows; • All original window and door openings visible from the street; • Paired wood brackets at the corner -ends of projecting bay windows; • Wood scalloped and trellis cladding within attic gables; and • Frontage, orientation, and relatively shallow building setback from Queen Street South. Section 'B': • Overall brick construction and 2 1/2 storey massing with front-end gable; • Original window and door openings; Section 'C": • Remaining stone half -pillars and features of the early 20th century alterations to the east elevation verandah, where existing. Section 'D': • Overall 2 storey wood frame verandah and balcony including original wood detailing, where existing; August2078 MHBC 172 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 5.4 242 Queen Street South The following provides an overview of the cultural heritage value of the property located at 242 Queen Street South. This includes a list of identified heritage attributes. 5.4.1 Design/Physical Value The property located at 242 Queen Street South does not demonstrate any design/physical value as it includes a building constructed in 2007. Therefore, the building is not considered an authentic heritage resource which has design/physical value as an early, rare, or representative example of built form. The building does not demonstrate significant value related to scientific achievement, craftsmanship or artistic merit. 5.4.2 Historical/Associative Value The property located at 242 Queen Street South does not demonstrate significant historical/associative value as the property and building are not directly associated with a theme, event, person, activity, or organization that is significant to the community. The property does not demonstrate or reflect the work of an architect who is significant to the community. 5.4.3 Contextual Value The property located at 242 Queen Street South has modest contextual value as it is located within the boundary of the VPNHCD. The building helps to frame the street and has been designed to be sensitive with its immediate context. However, the Queen Street South is no longer a residential streetscape and has evolved to include higher density mixed use. Contextual values are primarily related to the presence of buildings close to the street, forming a relatively consistent street edge. The building is not functionally related to its surroundings and is not part of a significant grouping. 5.4.4 List of Identified Heritage Attributes The following provides a list of identified heritage attributes for the property located at 242 Queen Street South: • Relatively shallow building setback from Queen Street South. August2078 MHBC 173 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 5.5 Integrity and Physical Condition Although Ontario Regulation 9/06 does not consider the integrity of a resource or its physical condition, the Ministry of Culture Tourism and Sport advises on Integrity (Page 26) and Physical Condition of properties (Page 27) in part of Section 4, Municipal Criteria of the Heritage Property Evaluation document of the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. In the matter of integrity the Guide notes that: (underline for emphasis), A cultural heritage property does not need to be in original condition. Few survive without alterations on the long journey between their date of origin and today. Integrity is a question of whether the surviving ahvsicol features (heritage attributes) continue to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property, For example, a building that is identified as being important because it is the work of a local architect, but has been irreversibly altered without consideration for design, may not be worthy of long-term protection for its physical quality. The surviving features no longer represent the design; the integrity has been lost. If this some building had a prominent owner, or if a celebrated event took place there, it may hold cultural heritage value or interest for these reasons, but not for its association with the architect. Cultural heritage value or interest may be intertwined with location or an association with another structure or environment. If these have been removed, the integrity of the property may be seriously diminished. Similarly, removal of historically significant materials, or extensive reworking of the original craftsmanship, would warrant an assessment of the integrity. There can be value or interest found in the evolution of a cultural heritage property. Much can be learned about social, economic, technological and other trends over time. The challenge is being able to differentiate between alterations that are part of an historic evolution, and those that are expedient and offer no informational value. Ministry guidelines from the Ontario Heritage Took Kit Heritage Evaluation resource document note that: Individual properties being considered for protection under section 29 must undergo a more rigorous evaluation than is required for listing. The evaluation criteria set out in Regulation 9/06 essentially form a test against which properties must be assessed. The better the characteristics of the property when the criteria are applied to it, the greater the property's cultural heritage value or interest, and the stronger the argument for its long-term protection. August2078 MHBC 174 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener The following provides a review of the integrity of each of the buildings of cultural heritage value or interest located on the subject lands at 254 and 262 Queen Street South. 5.5.1 254 Queen Street South Evidence of the compromised integrity of the building through the loss of building fabric and features or the introduction of unsympathetic additions, are as follows: • Addition of east elevation veranda (and accessibility ramp); • Replacement of all original wood frame windows with contemporary replacements (respecting window openings); and The building is less ornate than an Italianate Villa (for example) and has been subject to alterations which have resulted in the loss of some original heritage attributes. This includes the addition of the east elevation verandah which is likely not original to the structure as it is not indicated on the fire insurance plans. While this is true, the majority of attributes have been retained and replaced sympathetically. As such, the building as retained its heritage integrity. 5.5.2 262 Queen Street South The building provides physical evidence of the compromised integrity of the building through the loss of original building fabric and features or the introduction of unsympathetic additions. Section 'D' includes some wood features and detailing indicative of the Queen Anne style, it has been considerably altered resulting in the loss of original heritage attributes. Section 'C' of the building has also been considerably altered, resulting in removing the original front elevation wood verandah to construct a new verandah with heavy stone half pillars in the early 20' century. While this alteration to the building was not in -keeping with the Queen Anne architectural style, its features took on a level of significance in their own right. However, this verandah was later enclosed, resulting in the removal of both original heritage attributes as well as other attributes added in the early 20th century which accumulated heritage value in their own right. The enclosure of the existing verandah at the front elevation and the loss of heritage attributes are not complementary to the building. Should Sections '13% U, and 'C' be removed in the future, it would be considered a minor adverse impact. Alterations to the building which has resulted in its comprised heritage integrity are as follows: • Removal of the original wood frame verandahs and porches; • Multiple additions at the east (front) elevation at the first and second storey which removed original heritage attributes; • Enclosure of the east (front) elevation verandah; and • Removal of the majority of original wood frame windows. August2078 MHBC 175 Heritage ImpoctAssessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener As the building been subject to an unsympathetic addition to the front (south) elevations, it no longer makes an important contribution to the historic character of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. The building has been altered to the extent that it no longer reflects the majority of original heritage attribute as per early photographs of the building provided in this report (See Figure 19). Therefore, the building is valued primarily for its context as part of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District rather than being valued for its design/physical value independently. 5.6 Summary of Evaluation Ontario Regulation 9/06 254 Queen Street South 262 Queen Street South Design/Physical Value L Rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method ii. Displays high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit iii. Demonstrates high degree of technical or scientific achievement Historical/associative value L Direct associations with a theme, event, belief,ep rson, activity, organization, institution that is significant ii. Yields, or has potential to X X yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture iii. Demonstrates or reflects Designer/orchitectunknown Designer/architect unknown the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the community. Contextual value L Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area ii. Physically, functionally, X X visually, or historically linked to its surroundings iii. Is a landmark August2078 MHBC 176 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 6,,0 Description of Proposed Development The proposed development can be described as an 8 storey mixed-use development including 125 residential units and underground parking. The building proposes a maximum height of 24 metres, setback 7.0 metres from Queen Street. A total of 106 parking spaces are provided, having 11 visitor parking spaces and 4 barrier free parking spaces. The building complies with the existing zoning. The building requires site plan approval but does not require a Zoning by-law Amendment. Elevations depicting the proposed development are provided in Appendix A of this report. Figure 121 — View of proposed east elevation fronting Queen Street South (Source: NEO Architecture Inc. 2018) August2078 MHBC 177 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figure 122 — View of proposed south and west elevations, (Source: NEO Architecture Inc. 2018) Figure 123 — View of proposed south elevation, looking east (Source: NEO Architecture Inc. 2018) August2078 MHBC 178 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 7,01rnpact Analysis This section of the report will review impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed development on the identified cultural heritage resources located on the subject lands. 7.1 Introduction The following sub -sections of this report will provide an analysis of impacts to identified cultural heritage resources which are anticipated as a result of the proposed redevelopment. This will include a description of the classification of the impact as beneficial, neutral, or adverse. 7.2 Classifications of Impacts There are three classifications of impacts that the effects of a proposed development may have on an identified cultural heritage resource: beneficial, neutral or adverse. Beneficial impacts may include retaining a resource of cultural heritage value, protecting it from loss or removal, restoring/repairing heritage attributes, or making sympathetic additions or alterations that allow for the continued long-term use of a heritage resource. Neutral effects have neither a markedly positive or negative impact on a cultural heritage resource. Adverse effects may include the loss or removal of a cultural heritage resource, unsympathetic alterations or additions which remove or obstruct heritage attributes. The isolation of a cultural heritage resource from its setting or context, or the addition of other elements which are unsympathetic to the character or heritage attributes of a cultural heritage resource are also considered adverse impacts. These adverse impacts may require strategies to mitigate their impact on cultural heritage resources. The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may occur over a short or long term duration, and may occur during a pre -construction phase, construction phase or post -construction phase. Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact. The following analysis of impacts of the proposed new development adjacent to the VPAHCD is guided by the Heritage Toolkit of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Here, the Toolkit outlines potential sources of adverse impacts as follows: • Destruction: of any, or part of any significant heritage attributes or features; August2078 MHBC 179 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener • Alteration: that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance: • Shadows: created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; • Isolation: of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • Direct or Indirect Obstruction: of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; • A change in land use: such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; • Land disturbances: such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The following will provide a detailed analysis of the impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed development related to a) the demolition of the buildings located on the subject lands, and b) whether or not the proposed development conforms to the policies of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan. 7.3 Impacts of Demolition within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District The Ontario Heritage Toolkit identifies that demolition or removal of a heritage resource is a negative impact. Section 2.1 of the VPAHCD Plan regarding the Queen Street South Corridor identifies that the Queen Street South corridor is one of the oldest parts of the Victoria Park Area which is under significant redevelopment pressure due to its proximity to the downtown business area which permits higher density development. Policies regarding demolition within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District encourage the retention of heritage resources as follows: Presumption There shall be a presumption against demolition. The conservation of historic buildings in the Area is a primary goal. Property owners are encouraged to work with existing buildings, altering, adding to and integrating them into new development rather than demolishing. However, the Plan also identifies that the exception to this presumption against demolition is Queen Street South, where demolition is anticipated as a result of redevelopment that is consistent with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. August2078 MHBC 180 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener The VPAHCD Plan states the following: The Victoria Park Area is remarkably intact with few vacant lots as a result of demolition. The exception is Queen Street South, where a number of fine historic residences were demolished for new development which did not materialize. The empty sites diminish the stature and integrity of the remaining streetscope. The intent of the Plan is to discourage demolition in the residential areas. In the Queen Street South corridor, demolition is acknowledged as a possibility where zoning permits significantly higher density than presently exists. The Plan also states: "In the Queen Street South corridor, zoning permits and encourages new high rise, high density development. Major new building may be expected. This plan recognizes and supports the rights and privileges of property owners to redevelop in compliance with the Municipal Plan. This is not necessarily contrary to heritage conservation.... To achieve higher densities, however, the loss of some earlier low density single-family residences may occur. While this would be regrettable as the integration of old buildings into new development is encouraged, a main goal is to ensure that new development enhance the historic and civic character of Queen Street South." (VPAHCD Plan, p 69) Therefore, the Heritage Conservation District Plan considers that demolition may occur. Also, that demolition can be mitigated through the appropriate integration of new higher density buildings along the Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor. The following provides an analysis of the impacts anticipated as a result of the demolition of the buildings of cultural heritage value or interest located on the subject lands. The Plan states that the demolition of buildings within the Queen Street South Corridor is subject to the policies related to Building Conservation. Here, Section 2.2 of the Plan provides the following policies related to demolition: Presumption There shall be a presumption against demolition. The conservation of historic buildings in the area is a primary goal. Property owners are encouraged to work with existing buildings, altering, adding to, and integrating them into new development rather than demolishing. The above policy provides a presumption against demolition. However, it has been established that within the Queen Street South area, demolition may occur as a result of development that is consistent with the City's Official Plan and Zoning by-law. August2078 MHBC 181 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Moving Where removal of an historic building is contemplated, moving the building onto a new site should be considered. The proposed development has taken the possible re -location of the buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South into consideration. However, no appropriate location within the context of the Victoria Park Area HCD is available. Salvage Where removal is not feasible, the careful salvage of key historic building fabric shall be undertaken so that it can be used in the restoration of other similar style buildings. This Heritage Impact Assessment includes recommendations regarding salvage, which are provided in Section 11.0 of this report. Act Where demolition is applied for, the procedures of the Ontario Heritage Act shall be followed. This Heritage Impact Assessment and the planning process related to the proposed development are consistent with the procedures of the Ontario Heritage Act. Features The retrieval of architectural features from demolished buildings and their inclusion in a new building is encouraged. This Heritage Impact Assessment includes recommendations regarding salvage and commemoration, which are provided in Section 11.0 of this report. As such, the proposed development is consistent with the policies provided in the VPAHCD Plan (as above) related to demolition. The following sub -sections of this HIA provide an analysis of the impact of demolition related to the cultural heritage value of the buildings located at 254, 262 and 242 Queen Street South. 7.3.1 254 Queen Street South This Heritage Impact Assessment has determined that the cultural heritage value of 254 Queen Street South includes the existing building as a representative example of the Italianate architectural style c. 1884 and its context as part of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. This HIA has also determined that the building has retained the majority of its original heritage attributes and has therefore maintained its heritage integrity despite some alterations. August 2018 M H BC 182 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener However, the building is not considered early, rare, or unique and does not demonstrate significant design/physical value related to scientific achievement, craftsmanship or artistic merit. According to the VPAHCD Study, there are 14 other buildings constructed in the Italianate architectural style within the District. As such, the Italianate architectural style would continue to be represented within the Victoria Park Area HCD after the proposed demolition of the building located at 254 Queen Street South. Therefore, while the demolition of the building located at 254 Queen Street South is considered an adverse impact as it results in the permanent removal of heritage fabric, it is considered an acceptable level of change as a) the VPAHCD Plan includes policy structure for the Queen Street Corridor that considers the removal of existing low density buildings and replacement with higher density mixed use buildings consistent with the Official Plan and Zoning by-law, b) the Italianate architectural style will continue be represented within the VPAHCD, and c) the building located at 254 Queen Street South does not demonstrate significant cultural heritage value to the extent that it would negate the applicable policies for the subject lands as per the City's Official Plan and Zoning by-laws as it relates to increased density. 7.3.2 262 Queen Street South This Heritage Impact Assessment has determined that the cultural heritage value of 262 Queen Street South includes the existing building as a representative example of the Queen Anne architectural style and its context as part of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. This HIA has also determined that the building has not retained the majority of original heritage attributes and that its heritage integrity has been considerably reduced. In addition to this, the building is not considered early, rare, or unique and does not demonstrate significant design/physical value related to scientific achievement, craftsmanship or artistic merit. According to the VPAHCD Study, there are over 70 other buildings constructed in the Queen Anne architectural style within the District. As such, the Queen Anne architectural style would continue to be well represented within the Victoria Park Area HCD after the proposed demolition of the building located at 262 Queen Street South. While the demolition of the building located at 262 Queen Street South is considered an adverse impact as it results in the permanent removal of heritage fabric, it is considered an acceptable level of change as a) the VPAHCD Plan includes policy structure for the Queen Street Corridor that considers the removal of existing low density buildings and replacement with higher density mixed use buildings consistent with the Official Plan and Zoning by-law, b) the Queen Anne architectural style will continue be represented within the VPAHCD, and c) the building located at 262 Queen Street South does not demonstrate significant cultural heritage value to the extent August 2018 M H BC 183 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener that it would negate the applicable policies for the subject lands as per the City's Official Plan and Zoning by-laws as it relates to increased density. 7.3.3 242 Queen Street South This HIA has demonstrated that the property located at 242 Queen Street South is located within the VPAHCD. As such, the property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. While this is true, the existing building located at 242 Queen Street South was constructed in 2007 after a 19th century building was destroyed by fire. Therefore, the existing building received approval through the heritage permit application process as it relates to the policies for new buildings within the VPAHCD. While the building is located within the VPAHCD, it is not considered a heritage resource and its demolition is considered a neutral impact. 7.3.4 Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor The character of the Queen Street South streetscape can be described as containing a variety of densities and built forms. While the subject lands include low density single -detached buildings, the surrounding area is comprised of considerably higher densities (See Figure 124). Further, the VPAHCD Plan identifies that new high density commercial residential development can be expected for this area, which may result in the demolition of some historic buildings. Therefore, it is understood that the interruption of some groupings of low density buildings is anticipated. The subject lands include 3 individual properties, each having a low density single detached building. The adjacent property to the north at 226 Queen Street south also includes a single detached low-density building known as the 'Darling Residential' care home. The properties located at 262, 254, 242, and 226 Queen Street South have been evaluated as a grouping of buildings as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 in order to determine if these properties form a significant grouping along the Queen Street South corridor. The four buildings do not have design/physical value as a group, since each of the buildings were constructed at different time periods and represent different architectural styles. This includes the building located at 242 Queen Street South, which was constructed in 2007 to replace an earlier 19th century building which was destroyed by fire. Therefore, the buildings do not have design/physical value as a grouping of structures as they were not purposely constructed as a cohesive set of buildings. The group of buildings are not directly associated with a common theme, event, person, builder, or architect. These properties share the same modest contextual value as they are located within the VPAHCD along the Queen Street South. The presence of these buildings along Queen Street South includes relatively shallow setbacks which help to provide a consistent street edge. However, this could also be achieved with any new building, including the existing building located at 242 Queen street South which was constructed in 2007. August2078 MHBC 184 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Therefore, the demolition of the buildings located on the subject lands will not result in the loss of a significant grouping of buildings. 7.3.5 Summary The Ontario Heritage Toolkit identifies that demolition or removal of a heritage resource is a negative impact. This report has identified that the demolition of the buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South is considered an adverse impact as it results in the permanent removal of heritage fabric. However, the VPAHCD Plan identifies that demolition can be considered and is even anticipated in limited situations including development along the Queen Street South corridor which allows for higher densities than what currently exists. The VPAHCD Plan specifically states that older single detached residences may be demolished and that new building can conserve and enhance the historic character of the area. The VPAHCD Plan recognizes the planned function of the Queen Street South corridor and applies special policies and guidelines for the properties in this area. The Queen Street South area policies recognize that while the demolition of buildings is regrettable, the main goal is to ensure that new buildings enhance the historic and civic character of Queen Street South. August2078 MHBC 185 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Figure 124: Aerial Image noting approximate location of subject lands in red, and the densities of surrounding development as per the table below. (Source: Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2015). Identifier Density Stories (approximate) Orange High 9-18 Green Yellow Medium 5-7 Low 1-2 112 August2078 MHBC 186 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 7.4 Impacts of New Building within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and the Queen Street South Mixed Use Corridor 7.4.1 Conformity to the VPAHCD Policies regarding New Building According to the policies for new buildings provided in the VPAHCD Plan, new high rise buildings are anticipated within the Queen Street South corridor due to the permitted densities in the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan. The following provides a review of the policies for new buildings as it relates to location, scale and massing in order to provide a preliminary review of the proposed development in support of demolition. Provided that demolition is approved by Council, additional information related to the proposed new building will be provided which includes a fulsome review of other applicable policies in the VPNHCD. The following provides a review of the proposed development with regard to the applicable policies of the VPAHCD Plan for new buildings regarding location, scale and massing. New Building Introduction In the Queen Street South corridor, zoning permits and encourages new high rise, high density development. Major new buildings may be expected. This plan recognizes and supports the rights and privileges of property owners to redevelop in compliance with the Municipal Plan. This is not necessarily considered contrary to heritage conservation. New high density, high rise building can be the heritage of tomorrow. The 1928 7 -storey York Apartment Building is an example of an early high rise building that is now part of the Queen Street South heritage. To achieve higher densities, however, the loss of some earlier low density single-family residences may occur. While this would be regrettable as the integration of old buildings into new development is encouraged, a main goal is to ensure that new development enhance the historic and civic character of Queen Street South. This will be achieved in large part through appropriate urban design such that the building style, profile, massing and materials complement the special historic character of Queen Street South. The contemporary addition to the Bread and Roses Housing Co-op is an excellent example of the achievement of this goal - a blend of old and new. This situation reflects the diversity of the Heritage Conservation District the stable and largely unchanging residential areas and the dynamic and unchanging Queen Street South corridor. It is considered a healthy challenge to heritage conservation - accommodating change and contemporary redevelopment, which will become the heritage of tomorrow. August2078 MHBC 187 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Pedestrian Scale New building shall emphasize a human scale that creates a comfortable, safe and livable streetscape. Ground floor uses which can animate and enliven the public street are encouraged. The proposed development will emphasize a human scale through the design of the first and second storeys which includes a gray coloured brick podium. The brick podium will add interest to the street as it includes multiple window and door openings in a regular and rhythmic pattern. Further, the inclusion of balconies above the first storey provides 'eyes on the street' and a safe, livable streetscape. The ground floor includes two storey residential units. Location New building shall be located to create streetscape continuity and pedestrian scale. The building is located within close proximity to the street (and sidewalk), having a front yard setback of 7.0 metres, which is consistent with other adjacent buildings. Density Every effort shall be made to blend new high rise building with neighboring low rise residences. This could include varied building heights and elevations and the breaking up of the building mass. Height Design treatments to lessen the perception of height in new high rise development shall be considered, such as facade setbacks, mansard roofs, gables and varying building finishes and textures. Section 2.1 of the VPAHCD Plan specifies that within the Queen Street Corridor, the use of land, height, density, and parking are regulated by the Kitchener Municipal Plan and Zoning by-law as it relates to new buildings. According to the City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014), the subject lands are designated mixed use. The Victoria Park Neighbourhood Secondary Plan designates the lands Mixed Use Corridor. The subject lands are zoned MU -2. The maximum height as per the Zoning by-law is 24.0 metres with a maximum density of 4.0 FSR. August2078 MHBC 188 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener The proposed 8 storey building has a building height of 24 metres and a Floor Space Radio of 4.0. The height and density comply with the Official Plan designation and Zoning By-law. The proposed building height of 24 metres (8 storeys) is consistent with the existing buildings along the Queen Street Streetscape (west side) between Courtland Avenue West and Joseph Street as the adjacent building to the south located at 290 Queen Street South is 7 storeys, and the building located at 214 Queen Street South is also 7 storeys in height. The proposed design attempts to lessen the perception of height through the use of varying building finishes and textures as well as the use of a podium and a building step back above the second storey. August2078 MHBC 189 Heritage ImpoctAssessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 8. 0 Alternative Development Approaches 8.1 Alternative Development Approaches The following have been identified as a range of development alternatives that may be considered as part of the heritage planning process. 1. Do Nothing This option would result in the retention of all buildings located on the subject lands including the buildings of cultural heritage value or interest located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South. This option would have little or no impact on heritage resources but would result in little or no intensification on the site. Given the location of the buildings, the lot size and zoning requirements for parking, retaining all three buildings leaves little opportunity to intensify the site much more than the level of density that currently exists. 2. Develop the Site while Retaining the Buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South: This option results in the retention of the existing buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South and would include: a) Removal of the building at 242 Queen Street South; b) The demolition of sections of the existing buildings which are not of significant cultural heritage value (i.e. later additions which are not identified as heritage attributes); c) The conservation and rehabilitation of the identified heritage attributes; and d) Intensification of the site through a new building that is either attached or unattached to the existing buildings. Three variations for intensifying the site while retaining the two existing buildings is shown conceptually in Appendix E. All of the options shown in Appendix E retain the two existing buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South and therefore these options have less impact on heritage resources than the proposed development. August2018 MHBC 190 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener A summary of each of the options is as follows: Option 3 in Appendix E conceptually shows the height and density that would be required to achieve 124 units which is the same number of dwelling units as the proposed concept. This option would exceed both the height limits and density limits of the in place zoning. Option 2 shows a building at 8 storeys and FSR of 4.0 which is the maximum permitted by the current zoning. The total number of dwelling units would be 100 which is less than the 125 units that would be provided in the proposed concept. The rear yard setback and the number of parking spaces would not comply with the current zoning regulations. Non-compliance is primarily related to the inefficiencies of the parking structure since retaining the two existing buildings precludes an underground parking structure on that portion of the lot. Furthermore, in order to stay within the 8 storey height limit, 2 levels of underground parking are required. Geotechnical work undertaken by the owned indicates that 2 levels of underground parking would not be feasible given the depth of the water table (See Appendix F). Option 1 shows a building at 6 storeys and an FSR of 2.7 with a total of 62 units. The height and density on the site is lower than the maximum of 8 storeys and 4.0 FSR permitted by the current zoning but is higher than the minimum required density of 1.0 FSR. The total of 62 units is approximately half of the total number of units in the proposed concept. Therefore, while this option has minimal impacts on heritage resources, the density of development is reduced. 3. Relocate the Existing Buildings to an Alternative Site The relocation of the existing buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South to an alternative site has been considered as it relates to the development of the subject lands. To date, an appropriate lot for relocation has not been identified in the vicinity of the subject lands or elsewhere in the City of Kitchener. No structural assessment has been undertaken for the buildings which would confirm their feasibility in regards to relocation. This option would result in adverse impacts, including the loss of their frontage and location in- situ on Queen Street South as part of the VPNHCD. This option would require mitigation recommendations to ensure that a) that heritage attributes are conserved and that any new location is appropriate, and c) that the buildings could be re -located safely. August2078 MHBC 191 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 9,,0 Mitigation Recommendations The recommended mitigation measures and conservation measures vary depending on whether the demolition of all three buildings and intensification of the site (the applicant's proposed option) or alternative options (e.g. demolition of 242 Queen Street South, retention of 254 and 262 Queen Street South and intensification of the site) are chosen. 9.1 Demolition of All Three Buildings and Intensification of Site (Proposed Development) Since the proposed development results in the demolition of the existing buildings of cultural heritage value or interest located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South no mitigation measures are recommended. However, the policies of the VPAHCD Plan require that in cases where demolition is approved, salvage of the building materials should occur. In addition, heritage best practices dictate that the buildings proposed for demolition should be documented. Therefore, should this option be approved, the following is recommended: • That a cultural heritage documentation and salvage report be prepared for the existing buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South which includes: o Photograph documentation of the interior and exterior of the buildings; o Measured architectural drawings of the exterior of the buildings at all elevations; and o Recommendations for identifying and salvaging heritage fabric as opposed to being discarded as landfill; ■ This includes recommendations regarding a) materials which may be considered for salvage and incorporation with the proposed building, and b) materials which may be made available to the public in order to support the conservation of other local heritage resources. August2078 MHBC 192 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 9.2 Retention of 254 & 262 Queen Street South and Intensification of the Site If the buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South are retained, the following mitigation and conservation measures are recommended: • Prior to the removal of the additions and components of the buildings that do not have heritage value, a Conservation Plan be completed that: o Identifies how the buildings will be stabilized and maintained during construction; o Identifies where and how heritage attributes that have been altered or removed will be reinstated; and o Identifies a long term maintenance plan for the buildings. August2078 MHBC 193 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The owner of the subject lands proposes to redevelop the site by removing the existing buildings and intensifying the site consistent with the existing Official Plan policies and zoning bylaw. The subject lands are within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. The property located at 254 Queen Street South has design/physical value as it includes a building representative of the Italianate architectural style. The property has modest contextual value as part of the Victoria Park Area HCD. The property located at 262 Queen Street South has design/physical value as a representative example of a building constructed in the Queen Anne architectural style. A review of fire insurance plans and historical photographs of the building demonstrate that the building has been subject to considerable alterations which has resulted in the loss of significant heritage attributes at the front (east) elevation. The property has historical/associative value for its associations with C. A. Ahrens (senior and junior). The property demonstrates modest contextual value as part of the overall Victoria Park Area HCD. The property located at 242 Queen Street South includes a building which was constructed in 2007 and does not demonstrate significant cultural heritage value. However, the property itself demonstrates modest cultural heritage value for its location within the boundary of the VPAHCD. The VPAHCD Plan discourages demolition, but notes that the Queen Street South Corridor will evolve, resulting in the loss of earlier lower -density single family development where zoning permits significantly higher density than presently exits. The subject lands are within the Queen Street South Corridor. While the loss of cultural heritage resources is discouraged, the HCD Plan recognizes and supports redevelopment in compliance with the Official Plan. The proposed development is consistent with policies for increasing density along the Queen Street South Mixed Use corridor in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. The proposed demolition of the buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South will result in a minor adverse impact. The subject buildings are not part of a significant grouping of buildings which results in heritage value beyond the merits of any single building. Given that the buildings are a) located in the Queen Street corridor, b) are isolated from the low density residential neighbourhood that forms the majority of the Heritage Conservation District and c) are August2078 MHBC 194 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener of an architectural style and age that is well represented in the HCD, the impact of the removal of the subject buildings in the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District is relatively minimal. Alternative development scenarios have been reviewed as part of the HIA. Alternatives that retain the buildings at 242 and 264 Queen Street South would have less impact on heritage resources than would the proposed development. However, retaining the two buildings limits amount of intensification that could occur to approximately half of the density of the proposed development. If the demolition of the existing buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South is approved the following is recommended: • That a cultural heritage documentation and salvage report be prepared for the existing buildings located at 254 and 262 Queen Street South which includes: o Photograph documentation of the interior and exterior of the buildings; o Measured architectural drawings of the exterior of the buildings at all elevations; and o Recommendations for identifying and salvaging heritage fabric as opposed to being discarded as landfill; ■ This includes recommendations regarding a) materials which may be considered for salvage and incorporation with the proposed building, and b) materials which may be made available to the public in order to support the conservation of other local heritage resources. If an alternative development scenario is approved that retains the buildings at 254 and 262 Queen Street South, a conservation plan that identifies how the buildings will be appropriately conserved during construction and in the long term is recommended. Yours truly, MHBC Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Partner Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Heritage Planner August2078 MHBC 195 Heritage Impact Assessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 11.0 Bibliography Bloomfield, Elizabeth. Waterloo Township through two Centuries. Region of Waterloo: St Jacobs Printery, 2006. Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971. English, John and McLaughlin, Kenneth. Kitchener an Illustrated History. Toronto: Robin Brass Studio, 1996. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Waterloo, ON: Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. McLaughlin, Kenneth and Sharon Jaeger. Waterloo: An Illustrated History, 1857-2007. City of Waterloo, 2007. na. Busy Berlin;jubilee souvenir. 1897. Ontario Ministry of Culture (Now the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). Infosheet # 5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Winter 2006. Waterloo Historical Society. Sixteenth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society, 1928. Waterloo Historical Society, Fifty Second Annual Volume of the Waterloo Historical Society, 1964. August2078 MHBC 196 Heritage ImpoctAssessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Appendix A: Floor Plans and Elevations (next page) August2018 MHBC 197 ----- ------- �''� ex _ 0 �0�0= ---� ° �. - --- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- - ----- --------------- - ---------------- ---------------------------- ----------- ---- wai�n"e<...,,xssur�.iizc Ka I si s»laza O -a' N Ll �P o �W e e " � I II iy I �- II li li li e N li li li 'I t_ I I I II II ,I M III I Q in I II I co cu I I Ll N �P o ,W — d eel J - I I ICOE�y I I —�� a� L 73 za CL Q q I I I I c Y 0 E I I II t a o I III'' IIII III ',,. I O 00 00 O 00 O 00 O M CD I�� N �P - O I I I I I d �y a L CL I c Q (L O q , I I I I c Y 0 Li E I I II t a 0 rLT I IIID _ IIII III ',,. I S6SL O 00 00 O 00 O 00 O �w2nn`.K�.�s ur�.iizc Kal si s»laza L CD I!� N N J El CL I , I N � n 36 I I „ III ie v¢5 ¢9eb W6L � ti TPi gym' B o5LdT0ooa 9 B OBLb�o 6L�� l OOL9� o,rt...... u N eel e wain"e�...,,xssur.iizc Ka I si s»laza O �P W o �W z 0 LL o p 0 = Z 0 V Z 2 �o a 1o0V0 zoO o�z ¢ 0 o¢ ¢ 0 wO YS Yam_O ¢o moVVO o V V mS ? OS S w S O S w SO 0 O � O O Z O O O 00 O mO 0 o 0 U¢O V V V VU uVSO 0 � M MO r, 11MRIM O a u O O u a V .®III �_�_ SII ILII ILII II■I I■I I■I �_ Ind I■lillll O H O 3 a 0 a u O O O Z_ z ¢O uuSu u ¢7 N o V S S S � O O G O x w O .®III �_�_ SII ILII ILII II■I I■I I■I �_ Ind I■lillll o J3 Iz Iz < Z c m Iz O Z. u 20 I u O u u 00OOu E4 0 Z z k=41 L�l L�Jl L�41 L==41 k=4 <' 0 u 0. AL 6� 6� L 0 7771 Z = 9 2 0 0 u v0 u o-_ u O u 9 9 �zq < u c ,9 -� R rc c 0 u u 0 u c� a �a � w '''w > Lai ��_ :�_ �� �� r.��. �� a a�� e m: e � � � 5 z o� Z 5 a �, z_ Q, � �( - £ . { 2 �} ©) )E ! § _ ( Iz/§ 2 - ))_( )\, (\ _ (_I�=�-1=I- 111-1-V l ,�-�� I ---j - ---J i i i Ix AM Heritage ImpoctAssessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Appendix B: Terms of Reference (next page) August2018 MHBC 198 City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division 242, 254 & 262 Queen Street South OPA / ZCA / Site Plan Applications Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference 1.0 Background A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future development. The study shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a property which is listed on the City's Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the development application stage or construction. In this regard, the subject properties municipally addressed as 242, 254 and 262 Queen Street South are located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, and adjacent other protected (Part V designated) property. 2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development or alteration. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as early as possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre -submission consultation meeting, followed by written notification to include specific terms of reference. The notice will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage Impact Assessment. The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment: 2.1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site alteration. 2.2 A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). 2.3 A written description of the buildings, structures and cultural heritage landscape features on the subject properties including: building style, massing, scale or November 28, 2017 composition; features of a property related to its function, design or historical associations; interior spatial configurations; exterior layout; materials and craftsmanship; visual setting, views and vistas; and the relationship between the properties and its broader setting. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions. 2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, identified heritage attributes and overall context; as well as a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. 2.5 An outline of the proposed development, its context, and how it will impact the subject properties (buildings, structures, and CHL features); adjacent protected properties; the Queen Street South streetscape; and the integrity of the VPAHCD. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties and on adjacent protected properties. 2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to preservation/conservation in situ, rehabilitation, adaptive re -use, relocation, alternative development approaches and design (height, massing, scale, location, setbacks, stepbacks, etc.). Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. Disassembly or demolition with commemoration and/or documentation should not be considered a preferred form of conservation, particularly when other forms of conservation are available and appropriate including avoidance or not proceeding with the development. 2.7 A summary of the heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). 2.8 Proposed alterations, relocation and demolitions must be justified and explained including discussion on any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the property, streetscape and neighbourhood. Conclusions or statements regarding structural or aeneral condition. reauired repairs and fJ P_asibility of relocation shall be supported by reports and cost estimates prepared by qualified individuals. November 28, 2017 2.9 Recommendations shall address applicable VPAHCD Plan policies and guidelines, and in particular all policies regarding New Buildings and Building Demolition. Recommendations shall be as specific as possible; describing and illustrating recommended locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc.; and consider the tools available under the subject Planning applications to implement recommendations and conservation measures (e.g. special policies, special regulations, conditions of 'site plan approval). 2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The summary statement should provide a full description of: • The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. ■ The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties, adjacent protected heritage properties, the Queen Street South streetscape, and the integrity of the VPAHCD, and_wuch impacts cannot be avoided. An explanation 'of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended, and the way in which such recommendations can be implemented through the Planning process. ■ Explanation as to why other conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. 4.0 Approval Process Five (5) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic pdf format burned on a jump drive shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic copies shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met. Following the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one electronic copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note that Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee has been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff. Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the November 28, 2017 report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. November 28, 2017 Heritage ImpoctAssessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Appendix C: Structural Condition Report (next page) August2018 MHBC 199 STRIK BALDINELLI • MONIZ CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL Structural Condition Assessment 254 Queen Street S Kitchener, ON June 2018 File No.: SBMW-18-175 London Office: Kitchener Office: 14361 Medway Rd. PO Box 29 1415 Huron Road, Unit 225 Arva, Ontario, NOM 1CO Kitchener, Ontario, N211 OD P: 519 4716667 F: 519 4710034 P: 519 725 8093 Aaron Strik, P.Eng Michael Baldinelli, MESc, P.Eng Kevin Moniz, P.Eng STRIK BALDINELLI * MONIZ CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL Executive Summary ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION CIVIL /S%R LIC IURAL DIVISION MECHANICAL i EIECIRICAL DIVISION 14361 Medway Rd., P.O. Box 29 1514 Woodcock St., Unit #7 1415 Huron Ad., Unit 225 Arvo. Ont. NOM ICO London. 0nt. N6 5S Kitchener.Ont, N2R OL3 P: 519.471.6667 P: 519.641.3044 P: 519.725.8093 www.sbm1td.co sbrn@sbrnitd.cc Strik Baldinelli Moniz ("SBM") was retained by Vive Development Corporation to conduct a preliminary structural condition assessment for 254 Queen Street S., subject to the limitations outlined in Section 6.0 of this report. The review consists of a general visual review of the site, structure and building envelope. Our inspection was a visual review only, viewed from the exterior and interior, where access was permitted. Based on the original construction, the building appears to be at least 80 years old. It is a two storey building with a full basement. The building appears to have originally been constructed as a house but is currently used as office space for Bullas Travel Inc. The roof framing, floor framing and interior load bearing walls are conventional stick framed construction using rough sawn lumber. The exterior walls are double wythe brick which are supported on a rubble stone foundation wall. Overall the building appeared to be in fair condition, commensurate with its age and in comparable standing with other buildings in the area. A review of the structural systems did not reveal any obvious signs of excessive deflections or over stressing. The building appears be structurally sound and constructed in general accordance with standard building practices in place at the times of construction. The following deficiencies were noted that require immediate repair: The two retaining walls at the back of the property are in very poor condition and should be replaced. Other deficiencies noted which are currently not a structural concern, but may lead to future structural damage if not properly maintained or repaired include: Cracks and deteriorated mortar joints in the exterior masonry walls. We recommend repointing the cracked or deteriorated mortar joints to avoid a structural issue in the future. iii. Properly insulate and caulk or seal around all penetrations in the exterior wall. iv. Install a drain in the landing at the exterior walk out stairs to keep water away from the bottom of the exterior door. Review and repair the exterior waterproofing around the foundation. vi. Review the roofing and confirm there are no active leaks. STRIK BALDINELLI * MONIZ CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL Vive Development Corporation Attention: Mr. Stephen Litt Re: Structural Condition Assessment 254 Queen Street S, Kitchener, ON 1.0 Introduction ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION CIVIL /S%R LIC IURAL DIVISION MECHANICAL i EIECIRICAL DIVISION 14361 Medway Rd., P.O. Box 29 1514 Woodcock St., Unit #7 1415 Huron Ad., Unit 225 Arvo. Ont. NOM ICO London. Ont. N6 5S Kitchener.Ont, N2R OL3 P: 519.471.6667 P: 519.641.3044 P: 519.725.8093 www.sbm1td.co sbrn@sbrnitd.cc June 29, 2018 This structural condition assessment has been prepared for Vive Development Corporation. This is a preliminary review completed in accordance with the Professional Engineers of Ontario practice guideline "Structural Condition Assessments of Existing Buildings and Designated Structures Guideline" as well as the National Building Code, commentary L "Application of NBC Part 4 of Division B for the Structural Evaluation and Upgrading of Existing Buildings." The purpose of the review is to provide our professional opinion as to the property's overall structural condition, subject to the limitations outlined in Section 6.0. This preliminary assessment is a qualitative, visual review only using a systematic approach to ensure the condition of all structural systems have been noted, where access is available. No destructive investigations or calculations have been completed unless specifically noted. We are pleased to present this report of our observations, conclusions and recommendations herein. 2.0 Building Description The building is located at 254 Queen Street South in Kitchener, between Courtland Avenue W and Joseph Street. Based on the original construction, the building appears to be at least 80 years old. It is a two storey building with a full basement. The building appears to have originally been constructed as a house but is currently used as office space for Bullas Travel Inc. The front and left sides of the property are nicely landscaped. The right side of the property is an asphalt driveway which leads to the asphalt paved parking area at the rear of the building. The roof framing, floor framing and interior load bearing walls are conventional stick framed construction using rough sawn lumber. The exterior walls are double wythe brick which are supported on a rubble stone foundation wall. There is a wood framed barrier free entrance ramp which has been added to the front entrance. It appears that a two storey and one storey addition was added to the rear of the building many years ago. The addition has cast - in -place concrete foundation walls and a brick veneer which matches the original brick. www.sbmltd.ca 3.0 Methodology SBMW-18-175 Darryl Cowan, P.Eng of Strik Baldinelli Moniz attended the site on the morning of June 25, 2018 with Mark Roswell of Vive Development Corporation to complete a general overall visual inspection of the above noted property. Our inspection was a visual review only, viewed from the exterior and interior, where access was permitted. No specialist reviews, physical or destructive investigations were completed unless specifically noted. The following information has been reviewed /obtained for the purposes of completing this report: • A visual examination of the property. No other drawings, reports, assessments or description of previous repair work was available for review. For purposes of this report north is considered the front (King Street) wall. 4.0 Observations 4.1 Site Conditions a. The asphalt paved driveway and parking lot are in poor condition with lots of map cracking and rutting/settlement in the driveway and parking lot. The asphalt paving is not a structural item and is therefore not a concern on the overall stability of the building. b. There is a timber retaining wall approximately 29" high on the right side of the property separating the driveway from the adjacent property at 242 Queen Street. The wall is in very poor condition as there is severe rot, missing timbers and the wall has a considerable lean towards the driveway (see photo 4). The wall should be replaced immediately. c. There is a concrete retaining wall approximately 24" high separating the driveway from the parking lot. The concrete retaining wall is in poor condition (see photo 3). There is severe spalling on the back of the wall, there are several large vertical cracks through the width of the wall and a large chunk missing from the top of the wall. Additionally the wall has a significant lean towards the parking lot. This wall should be replaced immediately. It is recommended a vehicle guard be installed in front of this wall on the high side to prevent impact damage. d. There is a set of concrete walkout stairs from the basement to the rear parking lot (see photo 7). The following deficiencies were noted with the concrete stairs -on -grade: a. There is no handrail provided at the stairs. The Ontario Building Code (OBC) requires a handrail on one side. b. There is no drain in the floor at the bottom landing of the steps. This condition permits water to accumulate to in the landing and cause flooding and moisture damage to the wood door frame. Water staining was noted on the basement floor just inside the walk out door. e. The concrete approach at the bottom of the barrier free ramp is in poor condition with large cracks and deterioration. This approach slab should be replaced. This is a non-structural item. www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-175 4.2 Building Exterior/Envelope a. The exterior double wythe brick wall is in overall fair condition. There are some small step cracks in mortar joints, particularly over some windows and at joints between the original building and the addition. All cracks in the exterior brick should be repointed. Cracks in the brick allow moisture to penetrate the surface which may lead to structural damage such as spalling after several freeze thaw cycles. b. The brick veneer for the addition at the rear extends down to grade. The brick has severe deterioration in the mortar joints and the face shells have spalling in the bottom courses adjacent to the driveway (see photo 5). The mortar joints in the bottom courses are the rear entrance door have severe deterioration (see photo 6). The bricks require replacement and repointing to avoid escalated deterioration with each freeze thaw cycle. c. The portion of the rubble stone foundation wall above grade appears to be in fair to poor condition. The mortar has severe deterioration which appears to have caused some stones to become loose. Repointing is required for the exterior foundation wall above grade. 4.3 Building Structure a. It is unknown if the building underwent a full structural review when it was converted from residential use to business and personal service use. The current OBC requires the main floor of an office to support a 60 Ib/sq.ft. (psf) higher live load and a 10 psf higher live load on the second floor than what is required for residential use. None of the original framing that could be viewed in the basement was noted to be reinforced. In our professional experience, the existing rough sawn framing typically does not conform to current loading requirements for an office. It is recommended that the existing framing be reviewed by a structural engineer for structural adequacy. b. The attic was inaccessible and therefore the roof framing could not be reviewed or commented on. c. The second floor and main floor are generally all covered with finishes leaving the structural framing inaccessible for review. In most cases the finishes are the original plaster, which was noted to have hairline cracking throughout. These cracks are common for this type of construction and are likely shrinkage cracks due to thermal expansion and contraction of the finishes. d. The second and main floors have a noticeable slope in several areas. This is a common deficiency for this type of construction due to construction tolerances at the time of original construction, but may also be related to settlement of the foundations. e. Water damage was noted in several areas in the second floor ceiling (see photo 8). It is recommended that the roofing and attic space be reviewed to ensure there are no active leaks. Over a prolonged period of exposure, leaks have the potential to ruin finishes and reduce the integrity of the structural framing. f. There is a door from the second floor hall hallway to a front porch over a portion of the main floor. There is no guard installed around the elevated porch. It is recommended that a proper guard is installed or that the door is permanently fixed shut. g. The main floor joists are visible from the basement and were noted to be rough sawn 2"x10" joists @ 15"± o/c, which bear on the exterior rubble stone foundation wall and an interior load bearing stud walls. The floor joists appear to be in good condition with no signs of excessive knots, splits or deflections. www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-175 h. The left foundation wall near the middle of the building was noted to be in fair to poor condition. There is efflorescence on the inside of the wall indicating that water is leaking through the structural (see photo 9). Additionally the plaster finish is peeling off the wall and water staining is present in the corner by the wall. The foundation wall appears plumb and structurally stable; however over time the water damage will continue to deteriorate the wall. The waterproofing on the exterior of the building should be reviewed and repaired. i. There is a section of basement near the front left that is not accessible due to a permanent wall which has been constructed in the basement without a door. j. There are two penetrations in the middle of the left foundation wall where daylight can be seen from the inside (see photo 10). These areas allow moisture to actively enter the building. These penetrations should be properly insulated and sealed. k. The footings are all below grade and are therefore not accessible for review. 5.0 Conclusions & Recommendations Overall the building appeared to be in fair condition, commensurate with its age and in comparable standing with other buildings in the area. A review of the structural systems did not reveal any obvious signs of excessive deflections or over stressing. The building appears be structurally sound and constructed in general accordance with standard building practices in place at the times of construction. Although we have not performed any calculations to verify, it is our opinion that the original framing is likely not sufficient to support the prescribed office loading. Consider completing a full review of each floor to ensure the floors support office loads as prescribed in the current OBC. The following deficiencies were noted that require immediate repair: The two retaining walls at the back of the property are in very poor condition and should be replaced. Other deficiencies noted which are currently not a structural concern, but may lead to future structural damage if not properly maintained or repaired include: Cracks and deteriorate mortarjoints in the in the exterior masonry walls. We recommend repointing the cracked or deteriorated mortar joints to avoid a structural issue in the future. iii. Properly insulate and caulk or seal around all penetrations in the exterior wall. iv. Install a drain in the landing at the exterior walk out stairs to keep water away from the bottom of the exterior door. Review and repair the exterior waterproofing around the foundation. vi. Review the roofing and ensure there are no active leaks. www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-175 6.0 Limitations • This report is intended exclusively for the Client(s) named in the report. The material in it reflects our best judgment in light of the information reviewed by Strik Baldinelli Moniz at the time of preparation. This report is not a certification of compliance with past or present regulations. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety. • Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. • Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. The consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes or insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of the information. The Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. • Budget figures are our opinion of a probable current dollar value of the work and are provided for approximate budget purposes only. Accurate figures can only be obtained by establishing a scope of work and receiving quotes from suitable contractors • This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future costs, hazards or losses in connection with a property. No site inspections, physical or destructive testing and no design calculations have been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions existing but not recorded were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can perform further investigation on items of concern if so required. • Any time frame given for undertaking work represents an educated guess based on apparent conditions existing at the time of our report. The actual service life or optimum repair/replacement process may vary from our estimate. • We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time. Any user of this report specifically denies any right to claims against the Consultant, Sub - Consultants, their Officers, Agents and Employees in excess of the fee paid for professional services. Please contact us if additional engineering or inspections are required. We trust this report meets your satisfaction, if you need further clarification please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. Civil • Structural • Mechanical • ElectricalRQFSSiOLfi�G� ( D. H. UNAN T:Iq w 100072514 Darryl Cowan, P.Eng �.,Gy 3,�a[ Associate •O,p� ¢`O OF: www.sbmltd.ca APPENDIX "A PHOTOGRAPHS SBMW-18-175 grjmk 9" -4 ?1- www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-175 Figure 3: The concrete retaining wall between the driveway and parking lot is in poor condition. Figure 4: The timber retaining wall along the right property line of the building is in poor condition. www.sbmltd.ca Figure 5: The mortar joints in the brick veneer at grade have severe deterioration and spalling. SBMW-18-175 Figure 6: The mortar joints in the brick veneer at the rear main floor entrance have severe deterioration. www.sbmltd.ca SB MW -18-175 Figure 7: The rear walk out stairs do not have a hand rail or adequate drainage at the bottom landing. Figure 8: Typical water damage to the finishes on the second floor ceiling. www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-175 Figure 9: The interior foundation wall has minor spalling and efflorescence where the plaster finish has peeled away. Figure 10: A penetration in the foundation wall has daylight visible to the exterior. Moisture damage is present around the opening. The penetration requires insulation and to be sealed. STRIK BALDINELLI • MONIZ CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL Structural Condition Assessment 262 Queen Street S Kitchener, ON June 2018 File No.: SBMW-18-174 London Office: Kitchener Office: 14361 Medway Rd. PO Box 29 1415 Huron Road, Unit 225 Arva, Ontario, NOM 1CO Kitchener, Ontario, N211 OD P: 519 4716667 F: 519 4710034 P: 519 725 8093 Aaron Strik, P.Eng Michael Baldinelli, MESc, P.Eng Kevin Moniz, P.Eng STRIK BALDINELLI * MONIZ CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL Executive Summary ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION CIVIL /S%R LIC IURAL DIVISION MECHANICAL i EIECIRICAL DIVISION 14361 Medway Rd., P.O. Box 29 1514 Woodcock St., Unit #7 1415 Huron Ad., Unit 225 Arvo. Ont. NOM ICO London. 0nt. N6 5S Kitchener.Ont, N2R OL3 P: 519.471.6667 P: 519.641.3044 P: 519.725.8093 www.sbm1td.co sbrn@sbrnitd.cc Strik Baldinelli Moniz ("SBM") was retained by Vive Development Corporation to conduct a preliminary structural condition assessment for 262 Queen Street S., subject to the limitations outlined in Section 6.0 of this report. The review consists of a general visual review of the site, structure and building envelope. Our inspection was a visual review only, viewed from the exterior and interior, where access was permitted. Based on the original construction, the building appears to be at least 80 years old. It is a two storey building with an unfinished accessible attic and a full basement. The building appears to have originally been constructed as a house but is currently used as office space for Kechnie Financial Centre. The roof framing, floor framing and interior load bearing walls are conventional stick framed construction using rough sawn lumber. The exterior walls are double wythe brick which are supported on a rubble stone foundation wall. Overall the building appeared to be in good to fair condition, commensurate with its age and in comparable standing with other buildings in the area. A review of the structural systems did not reveal any obvious signs of excessive deflections or over stressing. The building appears be structurally sound and constructed in general accordance with standard building practices in place at the times of construction, with the exception of the roof framing for the front left dormer. This framing should be replaced or reinforced. Other deficiencies noted include: 1. Consider completing a full review of each floor to ensure the floors support office or storage loads as prescribed in the OBC. 2. A proper guard and handrail should be installed along the rear basement stairs. 3. Cracks in the exterior masonry walls. We recommend repointing the cracked or deteriorated mortar joints and repairing the free standing guard wall at the front stairs to avoid a structural issue in the future. Further consideration should be given to installing structural lintels over the exterior windows to prevent the diagonal step cracking from re -occurring. 4. Properly caulk or seal around all penetrations in the exterior wall. 5. The wood siding and window frames should be re -painted to prevent further moisture damage to the wood. STRIK BALDINELLI * MONIZ CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL Vive Development Corporation Attention: Mr. Stephen Litt Re: Structural Condition Assessment 262 Queen Street S, Kitchener, ON 1.0 Introduction ARVA LOCATION NORTH LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION CIVIL /S%R LIC IURAL DIVISION MECHANICAL i EIECIRICAL DIVISION 14361 Medway Rd., P.O. Box 29 1514 Woodcock St., Unit #7 1415 Huron Ad., Unit 225 Arvo. Ont. NOM ICO London. Ont. N6 5S Kitchener.Ont, N2R OL3 P: 519.471.6667 P: 519.641.3044 P: 519.725.8093 www.sbm1td.co sbrn@sbrnitd.cc June 29, 2018 This structural condition assessment has been prepared for Vive Development Corporation. This is a preliminary review completed in accordance with the Professional Engineers of Ontario practice guideline "Structural Condition Assessments of Existing Buildings and Designated Structures Guideline" as well as the National Building Code, commentary L "Application of NBC Part 4 of Division B for the Structural Evaluation and Upgrading of Existing Buildings." The purpose of the review is to provide our professional opinion as to the property's overall structural condition, subject to the limitations outlined in Section 6.0. This preliminary assessment is a qualitative, visual review only using a systematic approach to ensure the condition of all structural systems have been noted, where access is available. No destructive investigations or calculations have been completed unless specifically noted. We are pleased to present this report of our observations, conclusions and recommendations herein. 2.0 Building Description The building is located at 254 Queen Street South in Kitchener, between Courtland Avenue W and Joseph Street. Based on the original construction, the building appears to be at least 80 years old. It is a two storey building with an unfinished accessible attic and a full basement. The building appears to have originally been constructed as a house but is currently used as office space for Kechnie Financial Centre. The attic is being used as file storage. The front and right sides of the property are nicely landscaped. Left side of the property is an asphalt driveway which leads to the asphalt paved parking area at the rear of the building. The roof framing, floor framing and interior load bearing walls are conventional stick framed construction using rough sawn lumber. The exterior walls are double wythe brick which are supported on a rubble stone foundation wall. The exterior brick has been painted. There is a bay window addition on the front of the building which is clad with horizontal vinyl siding. There is also an older second storey sunroom addition over part of the main floor at the front, which is clad with painted horizontal wood siding. The dormers for the attic space are clad with painted cedar shingles. The roof cladding appears to be asphalt strip shingles. At the rear of the building there is a two storey porch which appears to be an addition. www.sbmltd.ca 3.0 Methodology SBMW-18-174 Darryl Cowan, P.Eng of Strik Baldinelli Moniz attended the site on the morning of June 25, 2018 with Mark Roswell of Vive Development Corporation to complete a general overall visual inspection of the above noted property. Our inspection was a visual review only, viewed from the exterior and interior, where access was permitted. No specialist reviews, physical or destructive investigations were completed unless specifically noted. The following information has been reviewed /obtained for the purposes of completing this report: • A visual examination of the property. No other drawings, reports, assessments or description of previous repair work was available for review. For purposes of this report north is considered the front (King Street) wall. 4.0 Observations 4.1 Site Conditions a. There are no site items which would be subject to a structural review. b. The asphalt paved driveway and parking lot appeared to be in good condition with minimal cracking, rutting or settlement. 4.2 Building Exterior/Envelope a. The exterior double wythe brick wall has been painted on the exterior. The type of exterior paint is unknown, however painting brick is not recommended as common paint is not permeable and will not all the exterior brick to 'breathe' which may lead to future structural issues such as spalling after several freeze -thaw cycles. However, considering the age of the building, the exterior brick appeared to be in good to fair condition. Diagonal step cracking is commonly noted over the top corners of the exterior windows (see photo 7). The cracking is likely caused from lack of proper bearing for the soldier course lintel. This is a common deficiency in this type of construction. Installing a structural lintel over the windows should mitigate the reoccurrence of the stepped cracks over the windows. b. All cracks in the exterior brick should be repointed. Cracks in the brick allow moisture to penetrate the surface which may lead to future structural damage such as spalling after several freeze thaw cycles. c. The painted wood window frames are in fair to poor condition and have varying degrees of weathering or rot. The wood siding and window frames should be re -painted to prevent further moisture damage to the wood. Consider replacing the windows with vinyl framed windows at the end of their useful life. d. The vinyl siding appears to be in good condition. e. All penetrations through the exterior wall should be properly sealed. Sealant was noted to be absent on some penetrations. www.sbmltd.ca 4.3 Building Structure SBMW-18-174 a. It is unknown if the building underwent a full structural review when it was converted from residential use to business and personal service use. The current Ontario Building Code (OBC) requires the main floor of an office to support a 60 Ib/sq.ft. (psf) higher live load and a 10 psf higher live load on the second floor than what is required for residential use. In addition, storage areas are required to support a 100 psf live load. None of the original framing was noted to be reinforced. In our professional experience, the existing rough sawn framing typically does not conform to current loading requirements for an office, especially the storage loads in the attic spaces. It is recommended that the existing framing be reviewed by a structural engineer for structural adequacy. The roof framing was all exposed for review from within the attic. As is typical with the age and construction style of the house, not all the framing conforms to the current building code; however it is generally considered acceptable since this is an existing condition and our review of the framing did not expose any excessive deflections, notches or splits which would limit the structural capacity, with the exception of the following: The top of the rafters over the front dormer on the left side appear to have some previous char damage. The top of the rafters are cut off where the damage begins and are improperly spliced with a non -full length member. The new rafter members are not directly opposite each other on either side of the ridge board, which is not permitted under the OBC (see photo 3). The rafters should be replaced or sintered with new full length rafters which conform to the current OBC. ii. One existing roof rafter over the front dormer on the left side has a spilt at the top end which will limit the connection and load carrying capacity of the member. The rafter should be replaced. c. The main floor joists are visible from the mechanical room and were noted to be rough sawn 2"x10" joists @ 17" o/c, which bear on the exterior rubble stone foundation wall and an interior double wythe brick wall. d. The second floor, main floor and basement are generally all covered with finishes leaving the structural framing inaccessible for review. In most cases the finishes are the original plaster, which was noted to have hairline cracking throughout. These cracks are common for this type of construction and are likely shrinkage cracks due to thermal expansion and contraction of the finishes. e. There is a small to medium diagonal crack on the office/corridor wall in the front office on the second floor. The crack is the length of height of the wall, approximately 7'-0" long. The crack is larger than a typical shrinkage crack (see photo 4). f. The second and main floor have a noticeable slope in several areas. This is a common deficiency for this type of construction due construction tolerances at the time of original construction, but may also be related to settlement of the foundations. g. The rear stairs to the basement are missing a proper guard and handrail (see photo 5). These should be installed in conformance with the OBC. h. The footings are all below grade and are therefore not accessible for review. The portion of rubble stone foundation wall above grade appeared to be in good condition. Some mortar was missing between some stones on the right elevation, however no stones appeared to be loose or missing. i. There is a free standing stone wall which acts as a guard along the front entrance stairs to the building. The mortar joints in the wall are in poor condition and have severe deterioration which have caused some of the masonry to become loose (see photo 6). The wall should be repaired and repointed. www.sbmltd.ca 5.0 Conclusions & Recommendations SBMW-18-174 Overall the building appeared to be in good to fair condition, commensurate with its age and in comparable standing with other buildings in the area. A review of the structural systems did not reveal any obvious signs of excessive deflections or over stressing. The building appears be structurally sound and constructed in general accordance with standard building practices in place at the times of construction, with the exception of the roof framing for the front left dormer. This framing should be replaced or reinforced. Although we have not performed any calculations to verify, it is our opinion that the attic floor framing is not structurally sufficient to support file storage loads. To avoid a more serious structural issue in the future, it is recommended that all file storage in the attic be moved to the basement, or the attic floor be reinforced to support the intended loading. Consider completing a full review of each floor to ensure the floors support office loads as prescribed in the current OBC. A proper guard and handrail should be installed along the rear basement stairs. Other deficiencies noted which are currently not a structural concern, but may lead to future structural damage if not properly maintained or repaired include: 1. Cracks in the exterior masonry walls. We recommend repointing the cracked or deteriorated mortar joints and repairing the free standing guard wall at the front stairs to avoid a structural issue in the future. Further consideration should be given to installing structural lintels over the exterior windows to prevent the diagonal step cracking from re -occurring. 2. Properly caulk or seal around all penetrations in the exterior wall. 3. The wood siding and window frames should be re -painted to prevent further moisture damage to the wood. www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-174 6.0 Limitations • This report is intended exclusively for the Client(s) named in the report. The material in it reflects our best judgment in light of the information reviewed by Strik Baldinelli Moniz at the time of preparation. This report is not a certification of compliance with past or present regulations. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety. • Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. • Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. The consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes or insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of the information. The Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. • Budget figures are our opinion of a probable current dollar value of the work and are provided for approximate budget purposes only. Accurate figures can only be obtained by establishing a scope of work and receiving quotes from suitable contractors • This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future costs, hazards or losses in connection with a property. No site inspections, physical or destructive testing and no design calculations have been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions existing but not recorded were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can perform further investigation on items of concern if so required. • Any time frame given for undertaking work represents an educated guess based on apparent conditions existing at the time of our report. The actual service life or optimum repair/replacement process may vary from our estimate. • We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time. Any user of this report specifically denies any right to claims against the Consultant, Sub - Consultants, their Officers, Agents and Employees in excess of the fee paid for professional services. Please contact us if additional engineering or inspections are required. We trust this report meets your satisfaction, if you need further clarification please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. Civil • Structural • Mechanical • ElectricalRQFSSiOLfi�G� T (6 :Iq w � D. H. UNAN 100072514 Darryl Cowan, P.Eng �.,Gy 3,�a[ Associate •O,p� ¢`O OF: www.sbmltd.ca APPENDIX "A PHOTOGRAPHS SBMW-18-174 www.sbmltd.ca Figure 1: View of the front left elevation of the building (From Queen Street). Figure 2: View of the front right of the building (from Queen Street). SBMW-18-174 www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-174 Figure 3: The roof rafters over the front left dormer are cut and improperly spliced at the top. These rafters should be repaired or replaced. Figure 4: The small to medium diagonal crack in the interior wall of the front office on the second floor. www.sbmltd.ca Figure 5: The rear basement stairs are missing a guard and handrail. Figure 6: The mortar joints in the free standing wall at the front stairs has sever deterioration. SBMW-18-174 www.sbmltd.ca SBMW-18-174 Figure 7: Typical step cracking in the mortar joints of exterior brick above the windows. Heritage ImpoctAssessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Appendix D: Curriculum Vitae cnextpage> August2018 MHBC I 100 CU RRICU LUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP EDUCATION Dan Currie, a Partner and Managing Director of MHBC's Cultural Heritage Division, joined MHBC Planning in 2009, after having worked in various positions in the 2006 public sector since 1997 including the Director of Policy Planning for the City of Masters of Arts (Planning) Cambridge and Senior Policy Planner for the City of Waterloo. University of Waterloo Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients 1998 including a wide range of cultural heritage policy and planning work including Bachelor of Environmental Studies strategic planning, heritage policy, heritage conservation district studies and University of Waterloo plans, heritage master plans, heritage impact assessments and cultural heritage landscape studies. 1998 Bachelor of Arts (Art History) University of Saskatchewan PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Full Member, Canadian Institute of Planners Full Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE MASTER PLANS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND POLICY STUDIES Niagara -on -the -Lake, Corridor Design Guidelines Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan Township of West Lincoln Settlement Area Expansion Analysis Ministry of Infrastructure Review of Performance Indicators for the Growth Plan Township of Tiny Residential Land Use Study Port Severn Settlement Area Boundary Review City of Cambridge Green Building Policy Township of West Lincoln Intensification Study & Employment Land Strategy Ministry of the Environment Review of the D -Series Land Use Guidelines Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan City of Cambridge Trails Master Plan City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy CONTACT City of Cambridge Growth Management Strategy City of Waterloo Height and Density Policy 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, City of Waterloo Student Accommodation Study Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 City of Waterloo Land Supply Study T5195763650x 744 City of Kitchener Inner City Housing Study F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CU RRICU LUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP HERITAGE PLANNING Town of Cobourg, Heritage Master Plan Municipality of Chatham Kent, Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan City of Kingston, Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan Update Burlington Heights Heritage Lands Management Plan City of Markham, Victoria Square Heritage Conservation District Study City of Kitchener, Heritage Inventory Property Update Township of Muskoka Lakes, Bala Heritage Conservation District Plan Municipality of Meaford, Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan City of Guelph, Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District Plan City of Toronto, Garden District Heritage Conservation District Plan City of London, Western Counties Cultural Heritage Plan City of Cambridge, Heritage Master Plan City of Waterloo, Mary -Allen Neighbourhood Heritage District Plan Study City of Waterloo Rummelhardt School Heritage Designation Other heritage consulting services including: • Preparation of Heritage Impact Assessments for both private and public sector clients • Requests for Designations • Alterations or new developments within Heritage Conservation Districts • Cultural Heritage Evaluations for Environmental Assessments DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Provide consulting services and prepare planning applications for private sector clients for: • Draft plans of subdivision • Consent • Official Plan Amendment • Zoning By-law Amendment • Minor Variance • Site Plan 140111[4 �_i Col 2016 Master of Arts in Planning, specializing in Heritage Planning University of Waterloo, School of Planning 2010 Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Historical/Industrial Archaeology Wilfrid Laurier University CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 728 F 519 576 0121 vhicks@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Vanessa Hicks, M.A., c.A.H.P. Vanessa Hicks is a Heritage Planner with MHBC and joined the firm after having gained experience as a Manager of Heritage Planning in the public realm where she was responsible for working with Heritage Advisory Committees in managing heritage resources, Heritage Conservation Districts, designations, special events and heritage projects (such as the Architectural Salvage Program). Vanessa is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and graduated from the University of Waterloo with a Masters Degree in Planning, specializing in heritage planning and conservation. Vanessa provides a variety of research and report writing services for public and private sector clients. She has experience in historical research, inventory work, evaluation and analysis on a variety of projects, including Heritage Conservation Districts (HCDs), Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs), Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs), Conservation Plans (CPS), Documentation and Salvage Reports, and Commemoration Projects (i.e. plaques). Vanessa is also able to comment provide comments regarding Stages 1-4 Archaeological Assessments due to her experience as a practicing field archaeologist and experience writing archaeological reports submitted to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and sport. Ialate] I0.1611I ]IFE0W1».]IaI[aI June 2016 - Cultural Heritage Specialist/ Heritage Planner Present MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Ltd. 2012- Program Manager, Heritage Planning 2016 Town of Aurora May 2012 - Heritage Planning Assistant October 2012 Town of Grimsby 2007- Archaeologist 2010 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 1 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 728 F 519 576 0121 vhicks@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CU RRICU LU MVITAE Vanessa Hicks, M.A., C.A.H.P. SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (HIAs) 2016-2018 Heritage Impact Assessment -'Southworks', 64 Grand Avenue South, City of Cambridge Heritage Impact Assessment - 47 Spring Street Waterloo, Albert/MacGregor Neighbourhood HCD Heritage Impact Assessment - 107 Concession Street, City of Cambridge Heritage Impact Assessment — 33 Laird Drive, City of Toronto Heritage Impact Assessment — Badley Bridge, part of a Municipal EA Class Assessment, Township of Centre Wellington Heritage Impact Assessment — 362 Dodge Drive, City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment — 255 Ruhl Drive, Town of Milton Heritage Impact Assessment — 34 Erb Street East, City of Waterloo Heritage Impact Assessment — 474 and 484 Queen Street South (and Schneider Haus National Historic Site), City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment — 883 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment — 57 Lakeport Road, City of St. Catharines Heritage Impact Assessment — 8331 Heritage Road, City of Brampton Heritage Impact Assessment — 55 Fallbrook Lane, City of Cambridge Heritage Impact Assessment — Langmaids Island, Lake of Bays Heritage Impact Assessment — 28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment — 1679 Blair Road, City of Cambridge Heritage Impact Assessment— 13373 Guelph Line, Milton Heritage Impact Assessment - 64 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment — 51 David Street, City of Kitchener CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORTS (CHERs) 2016-2018 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - Dunlop Street West and Bradford Street, Barrie - Prince of Wales School and Barrie Central Collegiate Institute Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - Lakeshore Drive, Town of Oakville Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - 317 Mill Street, 28/30 Elizabeth Street South, 16 Elizabeth Street South, Town of Richmond Hill CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 728 F 519 576 0121 vhicks@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Vanessa Hicks, M.A., c.A.H.P. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report — Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report — 28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report — 13373 Guelph Line, Milton HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (HCDs) Heritage Conservation District Study — Southeast Old Aurora (Town of Aurora) CONSERVATION PLANS Strategic Conservation Plan — Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plan — 28 Burgetz Avenue, City of Kitchener DOCUMENTATION AND SALVAGE REPORTS Documentation and Salvage Report — Main Street Properties, Township of Whitchurch-Stouffville Documentation and Salvage Report & Commemoration Plan — 474 and 484 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Documentation Report — 64 Grand Avenue South, City of Cambridge Documentation and Salvage Report — 487424 30 Side Road, Town of Mono SPECIAL PROJECTS Artifact Display Case -Three Brewers Restaurant(275 Yonge St., Toronto) Heritage ImpoctAssessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Appendix E: Alternative (next page) Development Concepts August2018 MHBC I 101 & g & f w mL5 -22 U Heritage ImpoctAssessment 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener Appendix F: Geotechncial Analysis (next page) August2018 MHBC 1102 From: eric.chung@cvdengineering.com Sent: August 3, 2018 12:21 PM To: sl@vivedevelopment.ca Cc: mike.lefebvre@cvdengineering.com; he@vivedevelopment.ca Subject: RE: 242-262 Queen St S - Revised HIA and August HK Meeting Hi Stephen, Our geotechnical investigation indicated that the water level measured in the monitoring wells ranged in depths between 3.69 and 5.14 m, corresponding to elevations 325.43 arfd 326.71m. During drilling, a saturated condition was observed at depths between 3.7 and 4.5 m. The water table was observed to generally mimic the topography on site, with water level elevations ranging from approximately 325.4 m in the southern portion of the site to 328.5 m in the northern portion. If two levels of underground parking is to be constructed, the excavation will be made in the saturated fine granular deposits approximately 3 to 4 m below the groundwater table during construction. Therefore, it will require a dewatering system in order to work in a "dry condition" and to maintain the integrity of the foundation soils. Application to MOECC for a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) will be required. The underground parking structure will require water -proofing the basement floor slab and the foundation walls. The basement floor slab will need to be structurally reinforced to withstand the hydrostatic pressure and may require to be anchored down dependent on the final structural design and analysis. In addition, a shoring system will be required to support the excavation side walls and the adjacent structures and roadway. Due to the groundwater condition, it will not be economically viable to construct two levels of underground parking. SIM ERIC CHUNG, M.Eng., P.Eng. ), PRINCIPAL ENGINEER CHUNG & VANDER DOELEN ENGINEERING LTD. 311 VICTORIA STREET NORTH / KITCHENER / ONTARIO / N2H 5E1 O 519 742 8979 C 519 249 6595 E eric.chung@cvdengineerine,.com