Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-14-048 - Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register Staff Report ��c t R Community Services Department wmkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 3, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Sloan, Manager of Long Range & Policy Planning - 519-741-2200 ext. 7648 PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Heritage Planner— 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 & 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 5, 2014 REPORT NO.: CSD-14-048 SUBJECT: LISTING OF PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the following properties be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register each as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest, in accordance with the respective Statement of Significance attached as Appendix 'A' to Community Services Department report CSD-14- 048: • 69 Agnes Street; • 31 Cedar Street North; • 33 Cedar Street North; • 35 Cedar Street North; • 37 Cedar Street North; • 39 Cedar Street North; • 41 Cedar Street North; • 43 Cedar Street North; • 187 Duke Street East; • 189 Duke Street East; • 283 Duke Street West; and, • 914 King Street West. BACKGROUND: The 2013-2015 Community Services Department Business Plan identifies the continued development of the Municipal Heritage Register as a Divisional Project to be completed in 2013 and 2014. This work contributes to the Quality of Life Community Priority in the City's Strategic 8 - 1 Plan. The development of the Municipal Heritage Register follows the Council approved 4-Step Listing Process, as outlined in Staff Reports DTS-05-213 and DTS-09-160. REPORT: Heritage Planning staff continue to prioritize the listing of non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The approved 4-Step Listing Process includes a transparent and public process for evaluating properties identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Building for inclusion as non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. Properties identified on the inventory are found throughout the City with the most recent group of properties generally located in the central area in and around the downtown. Completing the review of the inventory will strengthen efforts to conserve cultural heritage resources and align with provincial, regional and municipal policies. The process continues to ensure a thorough and objective evaluation of each property, and opportunities for public input and consultation. Current Properties The subject properties were recommended for listing in Staff Report CSD-13-110, which was considered by Heritage Kitchener on December 3, 2013. The owners of 69 Agnes Street spoke with staff in advance of the Heritage Kitchener meeting and requested that their property be deferred to provide time to consider the implications of listing. The owners of 31 Cedar Street North, 33 Cedar Street North and 39 Cedar Street North attended the Heritage Kitchener meeting and requested that their properties be deferred to consider the implications of listing. Since their properties are part of a nine unit row house complex, both Heritage Kitchener and staff suggested that full row house represented by the properties municipally addressed as 31- 43 Cedar Street North and 187-189 Duke Street East be deferred. Staff supported all requests for deferral and agreed to meet with the owners to provide additional information about listing and designation. Council considered the Heritage Kitchener recommendations on January 27, 2014. The owner of 283 Duke Street West attended the Council meeting and expressed concerns with the listing. The owners of 914 King Street West attended the Council meetings and requested that their property be deferred to provide time to consider the implications of listing. In addition to the ten (10) deferrals recommended by staff and Heritage Kitchener, Council deferred the listing of 283 Duke Street West and 914 King Street West and provided direction for all the deferrals to be reconsidered by Heritage Kitchener on or before June 3, 2014. Staff have sent letters and a-mails (where available) as well as hosted a Public Open House regarding the Municipal Heritage Register. Details of the property owner consultation are outlined below under the Community Engagement section of the report. At this time, staff recommend that the properties municipally addressed as 69 Agnes Street; 31 Cedar Street North; 33 Cedar Street North; 35 Cedar Street North; 37 Cedar Street North; 39 Cedar Street North; 41 Cedar Street North; 43 Cedar Street North; 187 Duke Street East; 189 Duke Street East; 283 Duke Street West; and, 914 King Street West be listed as non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. As a result, the property owners have been formally notified of the heritage interest and invited to participate in Step 3 of the process. Step 3 involves the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting scheduled for June 3, 2014 where the properties will be considered for listing as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. A Statement of Significance for each is attached to this report as Appendix `A'. 8 — 2 Next Steps Heritage staff will continue to review candidate heritage properties through the Council approved 4-Step Listing Process, including property owner engagement, review by Heritage Kitchener, and consideration by Council as part of each individual station study area planning process. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Listing of non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register supports the Quality of Life Community Priority of the City of Kitchener Strategic Plan by helping to nurture a sense of pride and community and promote culture as both an economic driver and a central element of a healthy community. Listing on the Municipal Heritage Register also supports the Development Community Priority to honour and protect our heritage. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Property owners have been engaged under the "INFORM" and "CONSULT" theme of the Community Engagement Toolkit. The Kitchener listing process continues to go beyond the legislated requirements and typical steps of other municipalities. An information package was mailed to all property owners on October 13, 2013. The information package included: a letter that describes the heritage interest in the property and the listing process, including how property owners can participate in the process and/or submit comments; a copy of the Municipal Heritage Register brochure; and, a copy of the Statement of Significance which describes the historic place, identifies the key heritage values, and lists the principal heritage attributes. The Statement of Significance also includes photographs of the property and a copy of the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form, which was completed by the field team and evaluation sub-committee. Following the December 3, 2013 Heritage Kitchener meeting, a letter was mailed to all property owners on December 9, 2013 advising that the recommendations for listing would be considered by Council. Following the January 27, 2014 Council meeting, a letter was mailed to all property owners on January 30, 2014 advising of the Council decision, including the decision to defer properties. Letters and a-mails (where available) were sent on March 12, 2014 inviting owners to attend a Public Open House regarding the Municipal Heritage Register on April 2, 2014. The owners of 69 Agnes Street, 31 Cedar Street North, 33 Cedar Street North, 39 Cedar Street North, 41 Cedar Street North and 43 Cedar Street North attended the public open house. Display panels were available for viewing before staff provided a presentation. Handouts were also available including the municipal heritage register brochure, a heritage information sheet and a copy of the staff presentation. The display panels, heritage information sheet and staff presentation are attached as Appendix `B.' Owners were asked to submit comments by May 16, 2014. Representatives of the owner of 283 Duke Street West advised that the owner was out of the country and unable to attend the public open house. Staff suggested an alternate date and time for a meeting with the owner. Staff met with the owner and a representative of the owner on 8 - 3 May 14, 2014. The meeting with the owner was quite positive as the owner was able to share their vision for the future of the property while staff were able to confirm that their vision was very similar to other industrial sites such as the Breithaupt Block and the Lang Tannery. The owners of 914 King Street West were also not able to attend the public open house. Staff met with the owners on May 15, 2014. The owners expressed concern with potential future designation and development opportunities on and adjacent to their property. In response to the owners concerns, staff provided a letter to the owners outlining the City's practice for designating properties. Staff received written comments from five property owners. Four of the owners (69 Agnes Street, 33 Cedar Street North, 39 Cedar Street North and 41 Cedar Street North) submitted written comments advising that they support the listing of their properties. One owner (31 Cedar Street North) submitted written comments opposing the listing of the property. A second information package was mailed and e-mailed (where available) to all owners on May 5, 2014. The information package included: a letter inviting the property owners to attend the Heritage Kitchener and Council meetings; and, the Public Open House materials including: display panels, heritage information sheet and staff presentation. These materials are attached as Appendix `B.' The information package also included a summary of the questions and answers from the Public Open House. The summary is attached as Appendix `C.' A second letter will be mailed and e-mailed (where available) to property owners advising of the Heritage Kitchener committee recommendation in advance of the final Council meeting. A third letter will be mailed to the property owners advising of the Council decision. CONCLUSION: Identifying specific local cultural heritage resources is a vital first step toward upholding the City's responsibility to protect and conserve its heritage. The subject properties have undergone thorough and objective evaluation through the City's public process for listing non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The result of the evaluation is that the properties meet the City's criteria for listing as non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. REVIEWED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning APPENDIX `A': Statements of Significance (Available in alternate format upon request) APPENDIX `B': Public Open House Materials: • Display Panels • Heritage Information Sheet • Staff Presentation APPENDIX `C': Public Open House • Summary of Questions and Answers 8 - 4 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 69 Agnes Street Municipal Address: 69 Agnes Street Legal Description: Plan 324 Lot 4 to 7 Part > f�IN Lot 1, 2, 3 & 8 Plan 377 Part Lot 489 oA Year Built: 1927/1955 < Architectural Style: Art Deco Original Owner: KW Granite Club Original Use: Curlingx 24 jj Condition: Goodj 1 y Description of Historic Place 69 Agnes Street is a two storey commercial building built in the Art Deco architectural style. The building is situated on a 1.15 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Agnes Street between Dominion Street and Park Street in the Cherry Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the commercial building. Heritage Value 69 Agnes Street is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a notable example of the Art Deco architectural style. The building is in good condition and features: a two storey building with an asymmetrical composition; red brick construction; central two storey tower and smaller tower near south end of front fagade; concrete banding below the parapet with concrete motifs; 4/4 and 1/1 windows arranged in groups of two, three, four, seven and eight with concrete sills; the north entrance features a one-storey glazed entranceway will terrazzo floor; and, the south entrance features an unclosed entranceway with roof. The associative and historic values relate to the original land owner, the sport of curling, the Granite Club, the architect of the original building, the contractor of the original building, the sport of badminton, the badminton club, and the architect of the major renovation after the fire in 1955. The sport of curling dates back to the 1880s in Kitchener when players used to play on a rink in the location of the present day Schreiters furniture building at the corner of Charles Street and Gaukel Street (Schmidt, 1977). In 1927 both Kitchener and Waterloo decided to amalgamate and build on Agnes Street and formed the Athletic Association of Kitchener- Waterloo (Schmidt, 1977). The Granite Club purchased the land from A.R. Kaufman of the Kaufman Rubber Co. for $2500 (Schmidt, 1977). The original structure and the additions between 1927 and 1952 were designed by club member Bernal A. Jones. B.A. Jones attended the Toronto Technical School and worked as a draftsman for Frank Darling, in the office of 8 - 5 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Darling and Pearson, between 1908 and 1922 (Hill, 2009). B.A. Jones moved to Kitchener in 1922 and worked with W.H.E. Schmalz until opening his own office in 1926 (Hill, 2009). During that time B.A. Jones assisted W.H.E. Schmalz design the 1922-23 Kitchener City Hall. B.A. Jones is also responsible for the design of several other important buildings in Kitchener such as the 1932 Public Utilities Building and the 1936-37 Church of the Good Shepherd (Hill, 2009). The original structure was built by the Dunker Brothers (William and Albert) later known as Dunker Construction Ltd. (Schmidt, 1977). The Dunker Brothers were a well-known and respected local building company that operated between 1887 and 1974 (Parks Canada, 2013). They were responsible for the construction of several other important buildings in Kitchener such as the 1938-39 Registry Theatre and the 1928 additions and alterations to Courtland Avenue Public School (Parks Canada, 2013). The sport of badminton dates to the 1920s in Kitchener and the Granite Badminton Club officially opened on November 20, 1931 (Schmidt, 1977). Over the years the club struggled with funding and was known for renting space for other uses such as tire storage for the Dominion Rubber Co, skating and tennis (Schmidt, 1977). An addition for the Badminton Club was constructed in 1931 (Schmidt, 1977). Unfortunately, disaster hit the building on May 8, 1955 when a fire caused extensive damage to the building (Schmidt, 1977). The Athletic Association did not dwell on the fire but rather worked quickly to design, fund and build a new building. The new building was designed by the local architectural firm of Jenkins and Wright (KW Record, 1955). Jenkins and Wright were also responsible for the design of the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium. The Granite Club moved out of the building in 2003. The Granite Badminton continues to operate out of the building. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 69 Agnes Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Art Deco architectural style of the building, including: • a two storey building with an asymmetrical composition; • red brick construction; • central two storey tower and smaller tower near south end of front fagade; • concrete banding below the parapet with concrete motifs; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 4/4 and 1/1 windows arranged in groups of two, three, four, seven and eight with concrete sills; • the north entrance features a one-storey glazed entranceway will terrazzo floor; and, • the south entrance features an unclosed entranceway with roof. References Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada orb/architects/view/173 on October 4, 2013. Parks Canada. (2013). Canada's Historic Places: Registry Theatre. Retrieved from htts�://www.historic�laces.ca/en/red-rep/dace-lieu.as�x?id®12427 on October 4, 2013. Schmidt, C. (1977). History of Kitchener-Waterloo Granite Club. Kitchener, Ontario. 8 - 6 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos o 69 Agnes Street Zoo rv: l% fy ..owo it f 69 Agnes Street B - 7 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE i//DO/! i iiii"" 4 N """""", 69 Agnes Street APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 69 Agnes Street Period: 1927/1955 Field Team Initials: LB/MD Description: former Granite Club Date: July 2, 2013 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: banding, motifs,windows, central tower, details at cornice line FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character of the ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 8 - 9 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE INTEGRITY N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Site Does the structure occupy its original site? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Notes Field Team: maintenance is required FIELD TEAM EVALUATION HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& SUBCOMMITTEE SIGNIFICANCE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place,an event or a people? Notes 8 - 10 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 31-43 Cedar Street North & 187-189 Duke Street East Municipal Address: r 31-43 Cedar Street North Legal Description: Plan 369 Part Lot 22 25 & 26 I , Year Built: c. 1925 r / / I Architectural Style: Vernacular �V ✓ f "° , Original Owner: Unknown s i 20 27 Original Use: Row House 27 2161 i 27 � Condition: f [7 / 27!' Description of Historic Place The building is a two storey early 20th century brick row house built in the Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.29 acre parcel of land located on the south east corner of Cedar Street North and Duke Street East in the King East Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the row house. Heritage Value The building is recognized for its design and contextual values but also has potential associative value that requires further investigation. The design value relates to the architectural style and type of building. The building is a rare example of an early 20th century row house built in the Vernacular architectural style. The row house is two storeys in height and features: irregular plan with varied setbacks; flat roof with decorative cornice; parapet; red brick; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; and, stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Cedar Street North and Duke Street East streetscape. The setting is noteworthy as the building is placed close to the street creating an urban form. The building was likely constructed as workers housing linked to industries in the area. The building has potential associative value because it may be connected with the D.B. Betzner Berlin Woodenware Co. that was located on the opposite side of Cedar Street between King Street and Elgin Street (now Duke Street). According to an evaluation from from 1997, the row houses were called "Bitzner Terrace" but it is likely that the reference should have read "Betzner Terrace" given the proximity and age of the building and the D.B. Betzner Berlin Hardware Co. across the street. The company was later known as the Ontario Woodworking Company Limited. 8 - 11 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Attributes The heritage value of the row house resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Vernacular architectural style of the house, including: • irregular plan with varied setbacks; • flat roof with decorative cornice; • parapet; • red brick; • segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; and, • stone foundation. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the row house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Cedar Street North and Duke Street East streetscape. References Wagner, P. (1997). 43 Cedar Street North. Kitchener Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Building Evaluation Form —2.0. Photos �p ,II �' ,,,.„�^”°`-w,"'www »..✓"""w"i Y� P I„, �I r' nBr � Mr ,p d 0 i �i Ji /JrJ rr r 31-43 Cedar Street North & 187-189 Duke Street East 8 - 12 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE j I II �ry / I i 101�7Yk�ilki�l%fl1nW, r � :c l Sri iir r�lUDIYV)l)j � ' � 9� 31-43 Cedar Street North & 187-189 Duke Street East r I 4 J I u iy ll � u III � i ral i �r � � f 1/ ������ ���ly�'✓�/// ����0//Gi0/iii rain/a/rri a� f�lllWlfl�lllllllll�lllllllllllll�lllllll Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/// ������////%�//� ,�, �/////���j��%%/ r�)N�",y,,,�" � " ///� ku✓i11 31-43 Cedar Street North & 187-189 Duke Street East 8 - 13 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE mm Y �I d I 1. I ,iMlWo^�. �+ I it i 31-43 Cedar Street North & 187-189 Duke Street East 8 - 14 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 31-43 Cedar St N & 187-189 Duke St E Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Row House Date: June 14, 2013 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: rare—row housing, composition with varied front fagade setbacks, segmentally arched window openings, decorative cornice with evidence of dentils, rough stone foundation FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character of the ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 8 - 15 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team:was building built for an industry or other purpose? Sub-Committee: proximity of building to street is a very urban form FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE INTEGRITY N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Site Does the structure occupy its original site? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ Notes FIELD TEAM EVALUATION HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& SUBCOMMITTEE SIGNIFICANCE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place,an event or a people? Notes 8 - 16 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 283 Duke Street West Municipal Address: 74 Fa 72' 2BI6 283 Duke Street West Legal Description: , ; Plan 376 Lot 215-220 Part Lotdy'd ,a !r% 213 & 214 Lot 34 STS & LNS Year Built: 1896; 1936; 1939 jj !, . Architectural Style: ' j `„ ""� �� Eg Industrial Vernacular Original Owner: %, - 6 The D. Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd. ", 1% W a i * POP Original Use: Industrial . Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 283 Duke Street West is a complex of interconnected industrial buildings ranging from one to three storeys that were constructed in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The buildings are situated on a 1.54 acre parcel of land bounded by Duke Street West, Breithaupt Street, Waterloo Street and the CNR lands in the Mount Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the industrial buildings. Heritage Value 283 Duke Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the buildings. The buildings are a unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The buildings are in good condition. The buildings range in height from one to three storeys and feature: varied rooflines, including flat roof and low pitch side gable roof; buff brick; original windows, including 6/6 windows paired in each bay and ribbon of three 6/6 windows in each bay; original window openings, including flat head and segmentally arched openings with original wood sills or concrete sills; off-white brick (now painted); slight brick work under the eaves; shallow buttressing; and, entrance on Duke Street West marked by simple projecting pilaster. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the buildings makes to the continuity and character of the Duke Street West and Breithaupt Street streetscapes. The setting is noteworthy as the buildings are located directly adjacent to the rail line. The buildings are an important landmark within the neighbourhood. 8 - 17 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The historic and associative value relate to the original and previous owners as well as uses of the building. The original owner of the buildings was the D. Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd. (1889- 1920) (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984/85). Daniel Hibner founded the factory in 1889 but it was rebuilt in 1896 after a fire. He was mayor of Berlin in 1894-1895 and served as reeve for three years. He was instrumental in the decision to purchase the land that now comprises Victoria Park. He was also the chairman of the Parks Commission and a member of county council for 13 years. In the 1930s, Daniel Hibner left money for a memorial to himself, which resulted in the creation of the Ctiy's second oldest park, Hibner Park. The second owner of the buildings was Malcolm & Hill Ltd. (1920-1933) (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984/85). The third owner of the buildings was Dominion Electrohome Ltd. (1936-1979) (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984/85). The Pollock Manufacturing Co., which manufactured hornless phonographs, was founded in 1907 by Arthur B. Pollock (Dominion Electrohome Industries Limited, 1947). The vice president and general manager was C.A. Pollock. The company was also known as Pollock-Welker Limited, Electrohome Industries Ltd., and Dominion Electrohome Industries Limited (Dominion Electrohome Industries Limited, 1947). The company amalgamated with the Grimes Radio Corporation in 1933 with the radio division moving the property at the corner of Breithaupt and Edward (now Duke). The main offices were moved to the corner of Breithaupt and Edward in 1936 and a new wing was built in 1939. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 283 Duke Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the buildings, including: • varied rooflines, including flat roof and low pitch side gable roof; • off-white brick (now painted); • original windows, including 6/6 windows paired in each bay and ribbon of three 6/6 windows in each bay; • original window openings, including flat head and segmentally arched openings with original wood sills or concrete sills; • slight brick work under the eaves; • shallow buttressing; and, • entrance on Duke Street West marked by simple projecting pilaster. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the buildings and contribution they make to the continuity and character of the Duke Street West and Breithaupt Street streetscapes; • Proximity to the rail line; and, • Presence as a neighbourhood landmark. References Dominion Electrohome Industries Limited. (1947). The 40th Anniversary 1907-1947. Kitchener, Ontario. Kolaritsch, D. & Horne, M. (1984/85). D. Hibner Furniture/Electrohome. LACAC: Kitchener, Ontario. 8 - 18 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos Ae , urv� iu'aur 1. 283 Duke Street West (Duke Street Elevation) i W r �µ •ry..m 283 Duke Street West (Breithaupt Street Elevation) 8 - 19 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE , ry 283 Duke Street West (Breithaupt Street Elevation) jai 1 , y i tl. 283 Duke Street West (Interior Side Yard Elevation and CNR Elevation) B - 20 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener- Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 283 Duke Street West Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: July 31, 2013 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team:segmentally arched 6/6 windows; brick voussoirs FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character of the ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood N? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 8 - 21 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE INTEGRITY N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Site Does the structure occupy its original site? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Notes FIELD TEAM EVALUATION HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& SUBCOMMITTEE SIGNIFICANCE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place,an event or a people? Notes B - 22 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 914 King Street West Municipal Address: 27 914 King Street West ' 2 rye,. ,7 Legal Description: '° • Plan 385 Lot 299 32d-9N t Year Built: c. 1900 rZR . Architectural Style: �, � .. , Queen Anne q104 � Original Owner: Original Use: House % •., %/j/ Condition: Good �1 Description of Historic Place 914 King Street West is a two storey residential building built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The residential building is situated on a 0.19 acre parcel of land located on the north side of King Street West between Mt. Hope Street and Pine Street in the KW Hospital Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the residential building. Heritage Value 914 King Street West is recognized for its design value. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a notable example of the Queen Anne architectural style. The building is in good condition and features: a two storey building; gambrel roof with moulded eaves, plain soffit and moulded fascia; red brick; front projecting bay with gable roof; two storey enclosed porch with brick piers, wood posts, multi- paned windows, shingled wall between foundation and lower porch, sloped shingle wall between lower and upper porch and gable roof; first floor picture window with half-round transom in centre of front projecting bay; round leaded window on right; three section bay window; two part attic window with pedimented trim in front window; semi-circular attic window on side elevations; and, rusticated foundation. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 914 King Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the building, including: • a two storey building; • roof and roofline, including: ■ gambrel roof with moulded eaves, plain soffit and moulded fascia; • red brick; • front projecting bay with gable roof; B - 23 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE • two storey enclosed porch with brick piers, wood posts, multi-paned windows, shingled wall between foundation and lower porch, sloped shingle wall between lower and upper porch and gable roof; • all window and window openings, including: • first floor picture window with half-round transom in centre of front projecting bay; • round leaded window on right; • three section bay window; • two part attic window with pedimented trim in front window; • semi-circular attic window on side elevations; and, • rusticated foundation. Photos KIM t o r 6. W e^-,. r✓i.�„i .. 'li :s %/iii%%%%///�<, / +. I r i uow w ��' �'"" � vMa4l.'Y luvmz4mWHM u!4bwtid1Vi4M Nmnw'NiwfgpiU �,mm 914 King Street East B - 24 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE k h silo/ 1�7�j��s�'a'r p ip a !1' IIV1,✓IIU��� � 5 m `��w�r� J��,'A"&W ��� )��� d i,✓�'� ,fry f ,�,"s i� M��y�����,f�� ;.p I�I�yly wr, r � fiu l � y1!��l> y 914 King Street East y h. i x 7 m - iP ��,�+suu»oo uw;m�oumww�7�vuii�iiinu;�Na¢�d irms�wmr q � r.� 914 King Street East B - 25 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 914 King Street East Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: June 20, 2013 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: gambrel roof rare/unusual in Kitchener; brick detailing;stain glass;stepped corner, oriel window on side elevation;foundation interesting; porch enclosure/addition in keeping with rest of house FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character of the ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? B - 26 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ that complete the site? Notes FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE INTEGRITY N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Site Does the structure occupy its original site? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Notes FIELD TEAM EVALUATION HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& SUBCOMMITTEE SIGNIFICANCE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place,an event or a people? Notes B - 27 , • lu IIII°IIII • �tl //1/%I/:�� � ;G�!✓�,rlA l uuuuullll a • IIII iiiVIVIV,V,H'M'M'Hii�� • • $ �" � � 1,,,, ® • u 9 � IiIIIIIIIIIIV ® 411, � Iliiiolli�l IIII� • �', yl l,l I � , � ° , • �� ,,,,o /i .i/n J.yYI VrIY • • II�III ' • ° ' lllllilllllll • • � ' , • �n llllluiiillll /f, 1 f„ .I , ��Ilil�llV A yl, ,. • • A f uuu A i! I�I�� • IIIIIIIII ,; ���illillllll 1 • piiiiilllllllillllllol" ° f Illlmm�IV IIIIIIIIIIII�.' • luiol IIV • l IIII l�ilii , , II�IIi��IIIIIIV A • ° 1 li f. � II • IIUNIllllllm • r Illlloviiiiiilllll A lul"I IIV , • • A A • ' / t 1 • 1 A / ® • d �%iii.%/�;,, /�'.' /��� A ® fl III I A IJ,I A Yil' • A J IIII��yy,Vl , • J 1 1 1 • • A , • ,�, F r1 VIII^I VII uu a Il�u„ Ijiil'lllllllu I Vu�lllm luu>I�mlllllluu piii �BkYuu 1plol IIV \ 1 • i tl • pliiiilll�l�llillllllol" • , 1 1 IIIIIVIIIIIII�.. • • IIIIIIIV \ 1 , 1 \ 'illoi�,Vl 1 1 i . 1 . • • IIIIIIIIIIIII 1 • • • a 1 • i • 1 \ uu"� 1 • 1 1 1 IuNIIIIVIm ® 1 ® • a 1 i � 1 ® • 1 luu>Imluu • \ 1 1 i tl , i • 1 1 � • 1 IVml�iiiiiuull 1 1 • , 1 1 1 • • i i 1 \ • 1 • 1 • lllluumu ® • 1 • tl 1 1 1 1 1 1 , • • II III IIIIIVI I 1 Jill u�u • 1 • 79t ❑ ❑ ❑ a v LEW v &ro ii1 �� A}V'��^,' spt"i hit Hit Ann g x Ell aV '11 OM 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ s� z � s ❑ o ❑ o o � � ❑ ❑ o 0 0 w� ❑ o ❑ o o ❑ ❑ o 0 0 ❑ o ❑ o o ❑ ❑ o 0 0 s N — — — O � � 1 1 \ 1 • 1 • 1 1 \ 1 • 1 • • • 1 ® 1 1 ® • • ® 1 . i 1 i • ' 1 1 ® ® • i 1 1 ® • 1 1 • II III ® • ® • ' 1 1 • 1 6 1 IIIIII I • 1 1 \ Null„IIII • i 1 1 • ' 1 ' 1 1 • i • 1 a ® ' • 1 • 1 i i 1 a • IluuuuumuV ® 1 1 • ® i oiluuuumuuuu i • ® 1 iV,�lilu i 1 1 • 1 • • 1 1 • i 1 1 • 1 IIIIII�..I uu 1 ® • i 1 • i IIII�III ® ® 1 1 ® • a ® ® ' 1 • 1 1 „,,,,, IRS i l i l i , a 00 i i r i ; ........... iiiii U 9 0) ,"C R LM Q Q �. Q 0 cu N 4- (ll ■� tU O 41 _ _ O T 3 0 i � p Q (B (l3 �. 4- N cu Q C 0 cul 0 .2 N -C CL C 2 2 a U �% 2 c c / / 0 0; � ++�+ nth :, //i; ,Q; _ c it �? Q D C cu m Yr.. 5c. A cu 0 a a a (D � �; � � CU a� w as o 0), v Z zs zs -0 v � s a a _ _ cn, 0- 0- ■ a� v w ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,�� °„ o 0 0 D Q � C, ur / �' �� a 0 0— ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,��% w ai a�i U ,,,�%" �i! 0 0 0 O O O Q m 3 3 LL f� Q a . Z; � Z 8-31 . �-+ ,��iii,,,, .... iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�i /// %%iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii" „. l %%%%// � � �!} aOs , 0 04 40 N O (Y) N ff 0 c 0- Z3; C tp o N f2 a C 0) VS C R5 S2 ��ii U? j' 0 p p +. c3 cU N p N CL �c c 0 0 a) - L c E N � ` `� 0) as O c6 0 C 0 O O O 4� C c �y, Q _ 3 c cu n o 0- c w M oU U 0) c 0- o o axi n a� �s o i 4- U ai ° o o w .- a© 0- w 7o E lop m C as ' , ff o- d- p p E E a) to 0)W m 4 ca pt�} } 4 N N :3 3 � S 0,11-1/11 ;:a O r- 0 Z , O S23 O c/j C 0) i Im '5 '6. 0 0 o " d- N O N io� uuu' ,,;' iin@uuw Illllmuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 8-32 April 2, 2014 HERITAGE INFORMATION SHEET HERITAGE & PROPERTY VALUES Heritage Districts Work! Heritage Conservation District Study Summary Report 2009 prepared by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario with the assistance of Heritage Ottawa, Huron County Municipal Heritage Committees, St. Catharines Municipal Heritage Committee, Thunder Bay Municipal Heritage Committee and the Heritage Resources Centre http://www.arconserv.ca/news events/cf download.cfm?fi le=H C D%20Study%20S Q M ARY%20REP ORT.pdf&p th=\ Heritage Designation and Property Values: Is there an Effect?, 2000 prepared by Robert Shipley and published in The International Journal of Heritage Studies http://www.heritageoshawa.ca/docs/re and- Study of the Comparative Value of Heritage and Non-heritage Houses in Vancouver, 2005 prepared by Kelsey Singbeil for the Vancouver Heritage Foundation http://www.vancouverheritagefoundation.org/documents/Research The Economic Value of Heritage Districts: How assessment growth in Heritage Conservation Districts compared with non-designated areas in Hamilton, 2012 prepared by the Centre for Community Study HERITAGE & INSURANCE Insurance and Heritage Properties, 2012 prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport df Heritage Properties: Insuring the Living Past, 2012 prepared by the Insurance Bureau of Canada http://www.ibc.ca/en/home insurance/documents/brochures/hgLitagepro rties brochure HERITAGE & LAND USE PLANNING Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, 2006 prepared by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage Tool Kit Heritage PIPS infoSheet. df OTHER RESOURCES Ontario Heritage Tool Kit • Information on municipal heritage committees, heritage property evaluation, designating heritage properties, heritage conservation districts and heritage places of worship http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage to lkit.shtmi B - 33 April 2, 2014 Waterloo Region Heritage Foundation • Information on the foundation, grants, awards, upcoming events, heritage links, gallery and the media htt�://www.wrhf.or�/ City of Kitchener— Heritage • Information on districts, funding, awards, properties and walking tours htt ://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/Herita�e.as� The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario— North Waterloo Region Branch • Information on branches, news and events, resources, buildings at risk, gallery and the preservation works program http://www.arconserv.ca/branches/show.cfm?id®8 Heritage Resources Centre • Information on the centre, services, projects, resources, news and events https://uwaterloo.ca/heritage®resources®centre/ Ontario Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport • Information on the heritage act, conserving Ontario's heritage places, designating heritage properties, heritage conservation districts, heritage tool kit, municipal heritage directory, renewable energy, standards and guidelines to protect provincial heritage properties, and tools http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage.shtmi Ontario Heritage Trust • Information on the trust, conservation, programs, resources and learning http://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/Home.g.spx 8 - 34 W F O Illl������llllllllll���� � N CL Illlllllllll�ii'i'i 'jjjl W m i ............................... O a � U � Z h W W 8 - 35 Illiiiu��" o M � A C So, 4-a d N O lye,"1111 ul U d LO Q � O r? N N ,U� fl- N �. E Z U W O � — C w o K$ N o � 05 c: U) d N mS%MWOl d v ,� � a cn c a v (n U2 d 0 0 0 • • 8 - 36' ' q , Ali '' a �I�iiii �� �I ���� �uuuuiu I uuu�� a � t up uu t III 0110 m�111111""" ���� 1111111011 �I � l II �I . � t ® � i „ „ / / i ............................. r / i / / rrr / t� All ( U Q} 3 2 W Z c: N (U C: J 7? , C: Lf C:_ C: cn L U) O C: o ( .- 0 L C: � C: 10 L cn -1--+ -- 00 o 8 - 8 f 11�11r �1 �uuuuuuu� ! N° off, j � b � " ° �," ✓ �y`� trf w i r/ AZI WN % r u i r !!, J Mill bIIIIIIIN rl I Ir J% olll ,fir IIIIIIIU : II �lu I uuum If r uuu I I�I I r.. I i IIIIIIIIIIU I I i w l� j j�ff � +i Ynti ttS mid IUmw I IIIIIIIIII ,I a r ¢I � r ° �y �I l+l I'II I'Yh trr � ° 0 111110 (I a Ili � .�Nr III Yj II r Y j it Y� I I i N, 0 r hd 4 d l f f j j li; Ma f, �i a a� / �Illu II II )�1 � ��I�die. /�✓4�(I J / Irr Y r4 r �r j b AM PRE Nick V r ll'rl i o/ uuu 1 III YY y �IIIIIIIIIIIIII� all, r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIW r� l k Ili /G /1 I i J i�k ll,a'((fi0 J Dig rl e� J G MM r i. �N ,mr ��-'�% ��m���' � ��� II , ���� °'.�ud�, ,, t�' �i �„ i IIII �� 9�r � rttr r� w� P ,,,- � /�n a � � �`� r r ���h�v,�) i�r� i �' �, �, �.. � 1 rlW� ,�D u �� aJ+ "� o�Y�l�II r��� 7 ��.�°mm�m � ��,ear ��i„ .� _.... :o � ��,� � i 1 i�� r"� � ��� ^��'�'�' ,.,�,� R��rdam IIII � � � � �� I 'f r � IY";,V`. i� � x �� �� fn J it '' r r �+ ,� �i �' u ,,i ��1 a � 'b ,. �, m, °� � °" " �' �� v �,,, �i�i1 i �� � d�, � r �f�y � "� ,�,i �e 'l d i �� lm,�r' ��' � :.,, � � g d.�� j � ,�fG' �� i �, � � � I� �� �r ' � ii„ r �/il, � e s i,m 1 ,lf;.., 0 �IIIIIIIIIIIIIII� �"` ' X111111""" glow 1111111 0� � r 4 i �(✓�J all li�f ���f / %�ii�i� gg/� rr d , r mm u lllllluum�� w U I I �nul" Imnnnl ul^ I I� U 111111 uumm Jf �� �C � �J;��ldU1J191JJUl �W VIII �III Illl�r fM IJ6' r ✓��i W VIII ME �mllilV1°,". �mm II e �I .m� t t I I t r �I t I ` t t t ` e t t t � t r ilk 0 Nil t e i , iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii/ R 1 10 cU - iii � +r d d (U cn cu tJ " 03. — 4-4 �� t . " '"_' cu C].. cm 0 ui ccrs > .° F _ CU -ii E O p s:. 4 � C6 U N cry U N c4 .,.., c3 , LW CU 0 0 0 R C N tU U '— Cp — X37U ;( , Lfq 0 =CQ x'37 +r C? ch CL 8 - 50 w d � N d � a q cn cn uuuuu� '' II 70 � � � _0 v £ � a E o � nN D � v - v N c ° N 2 ed � N � L N v v 3 � - m $-, ° � m a Ev ¢ v v v v v d d a ¢ m m m m m m Cl- w • • 8 - 51 -NIIIIIIIIIII '.. yPlllllllo pwni 1 mli lull U0111^�II IIII 1 Ali • Y � 71111 � a c m rn c m llie IIIIII��Yyl�l�l�l�l��l N r � m N V (O �\ N CU j C-4 0 D ai fn •. c V � L � am � qT LO C90 C lV �m LO • 8 - 53 Appendix C Municipal Heritage Register Public Open House April 2, 2014 Questions &Answers Q1.Where are these properties at in the 4-Step Listing Process? The properties invited to attend the public open house this evening have completed Step 1 to 3. In addition, the properties commenced Step 4 but were deferred by Council in order to provide an opportunity for owners to obtain more information by meeting with staff to respond to concerns and questions. Q2. What is the purpose of the extended timeline to process demolition permits under the Ontario Building Code? Prior to 2005, the Ontario Heritage Act did not enable the City to list property. Now the Act enables the City to provide an interim delay from demolition for listed properties. The purpose of the delay is to provide sufficient time for Council to consider whether the property warrants further protection by means of designation. The designation process involves notice to the owner, Ontario Heritage Trust and general public via circulation in a local newspaper and provides an appeal mechanism to a provincial tribunal known as the Conservation Review Board. Q3. How fast can a property change from listed to designated? The Ontario Heritage Act suggests that designation is possible within 60 days. Our opinion is that 60 days is a very tight timeline. Unless under threat, the City's practice is to informally consult with property owners about designation before preparing any reports for consideration by the Heritage Kitchener committee and Council. It takes time for informal consultation, the preparation of a staff report, consideration by the Heritage Kitchener Committee, approval by Council to proceed with notice of intent to designate, distribution and publication of the notice, and the 30 day appeal period. If appealed, the timeframe could increase beyond several months. Q4. Does Council list all properties put before them for consideration? No. Over the years the various Councils have listed the majority of properties put before them by staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee. However, some owners expressed concern to staff, submitted written comments and/or spoke as a delegation before Council and Council chose not to list their property. Properties that are not listed by Council have no heritage status. Q5. Isn't it true that listing is the first step to designating a property? Not necessarily. A property does not need to be listed to be designated. The City's listing process does confirm that the property may be worthy of designation at some point in the future. As stated previously, unless under threat, the City's practice is to informally consult with owners in an effort to find support before proceeding to recommend designation to the Heritage Kitchener committee and Council. B - 54 Q6. How many properties that have been listed have then been designated? 128 properties have been listed and 2 of these properties have been designated. The 2 properties were designated due to potential threats that could have comprised the cultural heritage value and attributes of the property. Q7.What alterations can you make to the buildings if they are listed? The listed status does not impose restrictions for alterations. I would encourage you to conserve the values and attributes identified in the statement of significance for your property. But you would not require review by staff, Heritage Kitchener or Council. For instance, you could build a deck, change the roof or re-clad the building with no heritage approvals. Q8.Will the City require us to make improvements to our buildings once they are listed? No. The Ontario Heritage Act provides no authority for the City to require owners to make improvements to their property or buildings. Generally, this applies to both listed and designated properties. The only exception is the City's property standards by-law related to vacant heritage buildings. Similar to normal property standards requirements, vacant heritage buildings are required to maintain a minimum level of maintenance. Q9. How will the listed status affect my property value? Property values depend on many variables. It has been our experience that opponents to heritage regulation believe that restrictions will make a property less attractive in the marketplace. There is no solid evidence to support such a generalization. In fact, studies have shown the opposite to be true. Residential property values actually increase faster than other properties and hold their value during market slumps. Q10. How many properties have been considered for listing? 815 properties have been evaluated. 537 were not listed and therefore have no heritage status. 128 properties were listed. Approximately 250 properties remain to be evaluated through the 4- Step Listing Process. Q11. Do the numbers that remain to be evaluated include those properties recently identified for potential listing that were not previously identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings? Yes. The primary focus since 2006 has been to evaluate properties identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory through the 4-Step Listing Process. We focused our attention on various areas of the City, including downtown, rural lands, and mixed use corridors. Over the last year, we have focused our attention to the central area of the City and in doing so completed pedestrian or windshield surveys for upwards of 10000 properties. From those surveys, approximately 60 properties that were not on the inventory were identified for potential cultural heritage value and listing. 8 - 5.5 Q12. Who completes the cultural heritage resource evaluation form during Step 1 and 2 of the process? Step 1 involves Field Team members. The individuals are either Heritage Planning staff or members of the Heritage Kitchener committee. Step 2 involves the Sub-Committee. The individuals include at least one Heritage Planning staff member along with members of the Heritage Kitchener committee. Q13. What are the qualifications of the Heritage Kitchener members who complete the evaluation forms? Members of the Heritage Kitchener committee have various backgrounds such as architecture, building industry, engineering, history, or planning. Members are provided training when they are appointed to the committee. The training focuses on the listing process, the provincial criteria and architectural styles. Q14. How does a property owner have their listed status removed from the property? The Ontario Heritage Act does not provide an appeal mechanism. The City has not received any requests to remove a property once it has been listed by Council. Other municipalities have received such requests and the practice has been that the requests must be submitted to Council and Council must seek the advice of the Heritage Kitchener committee before making a decision to remove the listed status. Q15. Are heritage approvals required for listed properties that apply for a building permit? No. Q16. What happens if I want to develop my property and required planning approvals? A Heritage Impact Assessment and/or Conservation Plan may be required with the submission of a complete application. The purpose of these documents is to identify the range of conservation options and recommend a preferred conservation option. Note that conservation options range and may include: • Documentation with measured drawings before demolition; • Commemoration through interpretive signs, historic street names or historic park names; • Integration within a new development by requiring design guidelines for new construction that create a compatible new context; or, • Rehabilitation that facilitates new uses through partial demolitions, additions and other improvements. Q17. Where can we find a copy of the Municipal Heritage Register? The City Clerk is responsible for maintaining the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The register contains listed properties and designated properties. Three pdf documents are available for download from the City's website. B - 56