Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-14-060 - Listing of Non-Designated Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register Staff Report ��c ti 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 2, 9 & 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 20, 2014 REPORT NO.: CSD-14-060 SUBJECT: LISTING OF NEW 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- 060: • 51 Benton Street; • 79 Benton Street; • 83 Benton Street; • 23-27 Cedar Street North; • 30 Cherry Street; • 40 Cherry Street; • 101 Church Street; • 32 Duke Street East/ 58-60 Frederick Street; • 30-32 Duke Street West; • 42 Francis Street North; • 40 Gage Avenue; • 38-41 Irvin Street; • 3571 King Street East; • 201 Lancaster Street East; • 304 Louisa Street; • 87 Margaret Avenue; • 100 Margaret Avenue; • 104-106 Margaret Avenue; • 112 Margaret Avenue; 9 - 1 • 136 Margaret Avenue; • 148 Margaret Avenue; • 41 Pandora Avenue North; • 79-81 St. George Street; • 82-84 Waterloo Street; and, • 130 Weber 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 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 for inclusion as non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. Heritage Planning staff have also undertaken a significant amount of work identifying cultural heritage resources in the Rapid Transit Station Areas. Council, at the December 9, 2013 meeting, directed staff to proceed with the PARTS project as outlined in the Community Services Department report CSD-13-104 and the Phase 1: Project Plan and Background Report. These reports identify the need to prioritize and complete the listing process for properties identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings and previously unidentified properties of cultural heritage interest prior to the preparation of land use / development scenarios for the Station Study Areas. The listing of properties on the Municipal Heritage Register is consistent with PARTS. Properties identified on the inventory and previously unidentified properties of cultural heritage interest 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 and the previously unidentified properties of cultural heritage interest will strengthen efforts to conserve cultural heritage resources and align with provincial, regional and municipal policies. The listing process continues to ensure a thorough and objective evaluation of each property, and opportunities for public input and consultation. Current Properties The properties municipally addressed as 51 Benton Street; 30 Cherry Street; 40 Cherry Street; 32 Duke Street East / 58-60 Frederick Street; 30-32 Duke Street West; and, 42 Francis Street North are identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings and have been recommended by both the field team and the evaluation sub-committee to be listed as non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The properties municipally addressed as 79 Benton Street; 83 Benton Street; 23-27 Cedar Street North; 101 Church Street; 40 Gave Avenue; 38-40 Irvin Street; 3571 King Street East; 201 Lancaster Street East; 304 Louisa Street; 87 Margaret Avenue; 100 Margaret Avenue; 104- 9 - 2 106 Margaret Avenue; 112 Margaret Avenue; 136 Margaret Avenue; 148 Margaret Avenue; 41 Pandora Avenue North; 79-81 St. George Street; 82-84 Waterloo Street; and, 130 Weber Street West were previously unidentified properties of cultural heritage interest and have been recommended by the field team and evaluation sub-committee to be listed as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. All 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'. 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. Letters were sent on March 14, 2014 inviting owners of previously unidentified property of cultural heritage interest to attend a Public Open House regarding the Municipal Heritage Register on April 10, 2014. The owners of 83 Benton Street, 23-27 Cedar Street North, 136 Margaret Avenue, 160 Margaret Avenue and 82-84 Waterloo Street 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, a copy of the staff presentation and a list of frequently asked questions. The display panels, heritage information sheet, staff presentation and frequently asked questions are attached as Appendix `B.' Owners were asked to submit comments by May 16, 2014. An information package was mailed to all property owners on April 22, 2014. 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; a a copy of the Statement of Significance 9 - 3 which describes the historic place, identifies the key heritage values, and lists the principal heritage attributes; and the Public Open House materials: including the heritage information sheet and list of frequently asked questions. The heritage information sheet and frequently asked questions are attached as Appendix `B.' 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. Owners were asked to submit comments by May 20, 2014. Property owners were also invited to submit comments and attend the June 3, 2014 Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. A second letter will be mailed to property owners advising of the Heritage Kitchener committee recommendation in advance of the final Council meeting. A third letter will be mailed to property owners advising of the Council decision. Staff received correspondence from nine property owners. Three property owners (79 Benton Street, 23-27 Cedar Street North and 148 Margaret Avenue) expressed concern and opposition to listing their property. The owner of 79 Benton Street submitted written comments advising that they do not want their property listed and in a follow-up conversation advised that he does not want to submit a heritage impact assessment if development is contemplated on the property in the future. The owner of 23-27 Cedar Street North attended the Public Open House and submitted written comments opposing the listing of the property. Staff responded to a number of questions regarding the implications of listing, the difference between listing and designation, the impact of listing on property values and the impact of listing on future development. The owner of 148 Margaret Avenue contacted staff by phone and advised that they did not think their property was heritage. Staff responded to a number of questions regarding the criteria used to evaluate cultural heritage value and interest, the impact of listing on property values, the impact of listing on future severances and the cost of heritage impact assessments. The owner of 40 Gage Avenue contacted staff by phone advising that they were unable to attend the public open house. Staff provided an update to the owner regarding the outcome of the public open house and the next steps in the listing process. The owner of 3571 King Street East submitted written comments advising that they have no objections to the listing. The owner of 100 Margaret Avenue and 104-106 Margaret Avenue submitted written comments advising that advice was sought from a former member of Heritage Kitchener and that the owner would not challenge the decisions made by staff, Heritage Kitchener or Council with respect to listing the property. The owner of 83 Benton Street submitted written comments in support of the proposed listing including additional historic and associative information, which has been added to the Statement of Significance for the property. Lastly, the owner of 160 Margaret Avenue requested a deferral to allow the Board of Directors of the New Apostolic Church Canada to meet and form a position on the listing of their property. Staff support the request for deferral and as such the address has been omitted from the recommendation. 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 9 - 4 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 Frequently Asked Questions 9 - 5 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 51 Benton Street /p i/ N7 r 64 j/110/1 + 01/1 SRS M Municipal Address: 51 Benton Street Legal Description: Plan 394 Lot 39 Year Built: c. 1890 Architectural Style: Italianate Original Owner: E.P. Clement Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 51 Benton Street is a two storey late 19th century brick house built in the Italianate architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.55 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Benton Street and Church Street in the Cedar Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the original house. Heritage Value 51 Benton Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. 9 - 6 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Italianate architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: shallow hip roof with wide eaves; decorative soffits, scroll brackets and fascia, including dentil trim; stucco with corner quoins; segmentally arched window openings with hoodmoulds and 2/2 windows; first and second floor bay windows on the front elevation, including transoms; storm door on front elevation; and, wrap around porch. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Benton Street and Church Street streetscapes. The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and the funeral home. The original owner was E.P. Clement who was a prominent local lawyer (Shea, 1989). He became King's Council in 1904 and was also a director and president of Mutual Life (Shea, 1989). The home was purchased by the Schreiter's family and converted to a funeral home in 1929 (Shea, 1989). Arthur Sandrock purchased the funeral home from the Schreither's in 1939 (Dignity Memorial, 2014). He had extensive experience in funeral services stemming from his involvement in World War I when he was in charge of embalming and shipping bodies from Camp Cody, New Mexico to points throughout the US (Dignity Memorial, 2014). The home continues to function as a funeral home. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 51 Benton Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Italianate architectural style of the house, including: • shallow hip roof; • decorative soffits, brackets and fascia, including dentil trim; • stucco with corner quoins; • segmentally arched window openings with hoodmoulds and 2/2 windows; • first and second floor bay windows on the front elevation, including transoms; • storm door on front elevation; and, • wrap around porch. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Benton Street and Church Street streetscapes. References Dignity Memorial. (2014). Schreiter-Sandrock Funeral Home & Chapel. Retrieved on April 15, 2014 from http://www.digEgyM2M2�igi.ca/schreiter-sandrock-funeral-home ca/history.�a�e. Shea, P. (1989). Historic Property Report: Schreiter-Sandrock Funeral Home — 51 Benton Street. Kitchener, Ontario. 9 - 7 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos i q r ly lk 51 Benton Street i r . dd iuuooummlllllp III�0�1111 �� ,, i l fir; 51 Benton Street 9 - 8 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE i r 51 Benton Street 9 - 9 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 51 Benton Street Period: c. 1890 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: June 25, 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: notable as a large highly decorative Italianate/estate; unusual if it was originally stucco; various modifications/additions for use as a funeral home have resulted in the loss of some elements but the principle elevation and roofline are relatively intact 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 N? 9 - 10 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ that complete the site? Notes Field Team: occupies a large, long lot on the corner; later additions continue design elements 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 Field Team: see details in file regarding E.P. Clements activities and achievements; also see details in file regarding association with Schreiter family 9 - 11 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 79 Benton Street INNS ,2 u 45 Municipal Address: 79 Benton Street Legal Description: Plan 205 Part Lot 3 Year Built: c. 1926-1927 Architectural Style: Vernacular influenced by Arts and Crafts Original Owner: R. Boehmer. Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 79 Benton Street is a two-and-a-half storey early 20th century vernacular brick house influenced by the Arts and Crafts architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.15 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Benton Street between St. George Street and Church Street in the Cedar Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 79 Benton Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. 9 - 12 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of a vernacular house influenced by the Arts and Crafts architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two-and-a-half storeys in height and features: front gable roof; soffits and exposed rafters; coursed shingles on gable wall; red and black brick; asymmetrical enclosed entry and upper porch; trio 1/1 windows; rusticated concrete sills and lintels; brick chimney; gabled dormers; matching outbuilding (garage); and, leaded glass transoms on first storey windows. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Benton Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 79 Benton Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Arts and Crafts architectural style of the house, including: • front gable roof; • soffits and exposed rafters; • coursed shingles on gable wall; • red and black brick; • asymmetrical enclosed entry and upper porch; • windows and window openings, including: • trio 1/1 windows; • leaded glass transoms on first storey windows; • rusticated concrete sills and lintels; • brick chimney; • gabled dormers; and, • matching outbuilding (garage). ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Benton Street streetscape. 9 - 13 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos I'll f pi 0 r r e �nb G F( i ��r��"� �� � ,��`, r,✓ ��%�1//6 �✓,4i,il✓i„z+�i�`;i:�, .'x;.,Y I✓ra!,ya,n J ”, „+<,.. �,�a i Wig kdy 4k v „v f w� �',✓.. .� .,, .,,-w.m. ��iw fl!IL,IAII, fTl.� w� i,v. � „r� '/ x � i ,%" ' r i i/ai vi/�1��/'�i`�%/�Yi�✓� min i a 79 Benton Street If Rr v I �u ..e Yoe �✓/lr 4�J l�i�'�,`�yl�;%���'��%�'G��j%Qlll��!o��ii�l'%%r 1�' �% l f- �,, ai 79 Benton Street 9 - 14 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Ij / r i 1 tit n r � l w i � f r ° y 79 Benton Street 9 - 15 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 79 Benton Street Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Robert J Dyck Architect and Engineer Inc. Date: June 27, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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: 2 storey; large/substantial size; different brick (red and black); craftsman; matching outbuilding (garage); leaded glass transoms 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 ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N 9 - 16 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable 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 9 - 17 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 83 Benton Street J IT Municipal Address: 83 Benton Street Legal Description: Plan 205 Part Lot 2, 4, 7, 9 and 10 Together with & Subject to ROW Year Built: c. 1886 Architectural Style: Italianate Original Owner: Adeline & Conrad Bitzer Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 83 Benton Street is a two storey late 19th century brick house built in the Italianate architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.32 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Benton Street between St. George Street and Church Street in the Cedar Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 9 - 18 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 83 Benton Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Italianate architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: hipped roof; projecting roof eaves; soffits; brackets; cornice; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs, including false window openings; 1/1 windows; centre peak with arched window; double wood door with glazing; and, front porch with decorative woodwork. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Benton Street streetscape. The historic and associative values relate to an early property owner, the original building owner and the Bitzer family. The property (lot 20) was purchased by Christopher Blum in 1871 (Bitzer, 2014). Christopher Blum is the great-great-uncle of the current property owner (Bitzer, 2014). His niece and husband, Adeline and Conrad Bitzer, built the building around 1886 (Bitzer, 2014). Conrad Bitzer was elected to the Berlin Town in 1888 and served as Mayor in 1892 (Bitzner, 2014). He was also active on the Public School Board and served as Chairman of the High School Board until his death in 1903 (Bitzer, 2014). His sons also served as alderman for the City. Arno Bitzer between 1917-1919, Wilfrid Bitzer between 1954-1957 and Armin between 1958-1960. His grandson, Paul, also served as an alderman between 1977- 1978 (Bitzer, 2014). The building itself was the childhood home of Wilfrid Bitzer who in addition to serving as an alderman was also the Honourary German Consul from 1956 until 1981 (Bitzer, 2014). The Bitzer family was honoured on the German Pioneer's Day in 2012 (Bitzer, 2014). References Bitzer, B. (2014). E-mail to Michelle Drake dated May 15, 2014 regarding the heritage evaluation of 83 Benton Street. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 83 Benton Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Italianate architectural style of the house, including: • hipped roof; • projecting roof eaves; • soffits; • brackets; • cornice; • windows and window openings, including: ■ segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs, including false window openings; ■ 1/1 windows; • centre peak with arched window; • double wood door with glazing; and, • front porch with decorative woodwork. 9 - 19 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Benton Street streetscape. Photos flk 83 Benton St I reet 9 - 20 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE r r rF ✓ y r s' it r e pew I P /r/�,rl�✓�iy i,, ✓ u,��/�/f,/!,,;,fir"/ ,r,,.. ,; ;; „-,;,,,J rd j°�r/ �l�r/(:, ,rr� �r6�%r�,��/w�fF��,�f�%(�/,il��;(.��r,x(�l�J�< a wr 83 Benton Street r ljjj" j k JJr i r� f i If j r 83 Benton Street 9 - 21 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 83 Benton Street Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: June 27, 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: Italianate; soffits; brackets; pediment; brick voussoirs Sub-Committee: unusually long brackets;shape of building; centre peak window 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9 - 22 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable 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 9 - 23 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 23-27 Cedar Street North d 27 A a 1 Iwo 2 33 Municipal Address: 23-27 Cedar Street Legal Description: Plan 369 Part Lot 27 Year Built: 1926 Architectural Style: Early 20th century vernacular with California Mission (Spanish Colonial Revival) influence Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Multiple residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 23-27 Cedar Street North are two storey early 20th century brick row houses built in the Vernacular architectural style with California Mission (Spanish Colonial Revival) influences. The row houses are situated on a 0.2 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Cedar Street North between Duke Street and King Street in the King East Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the row houses. 9 - 24 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 23-27 Cedar Street North is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the row houses. The row houses are rare examples of the Vernacular architectural style with California Mission (Spanish Colonial Revival) influences. The complex is in good condition. The row houses are two storeys in height and feature: rectangular plan; brick construction; flat roof with mission shaped parapet; front gabled porch entries; side symmetrical pedestrian brick and decorative concrete block archways at centre and gable ends; rusticated concrete block foundation; rectangular windows with rusticated concrete sills and lintels; and, interior gabled porch at each entrance. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the row houses makes to the continuity and character of the Cedar Street North streetscape the courtyard created between the two buildings linked by an archway. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 23-27 Cedar Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Vernacular architectural style with California Mission (Spanish Colonial Revival) influences, including: • two-storey height of the row houses; • rectangular plan; • brick construction; • flat roof with mission shaped parapet; • front gabled porch entries; • side symmetrical pedestrian brick and decorative concrete block archways at centre and gable ends; • rusticated concrete block foundation; • rectangular windows with rusticated concrete sills and lintels; and, • interior gabled porch at each entrance. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the row houses and contribution they make to the continuity and character of the Cedar Street North streetscape; and, • The courtyard created between the two buildings linked by an archway. 9 - 25 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos n / fed u v �r 23-27 Cedar Street North to �� xfj i Y r � li Y y r� '(lltl✓ir�,F „wtr r �/ied� �d(i "�' r '� a /gyp//� t, 23-27 Cedar Street North 9 - 26 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Wx., i n i u01//i%�Gi✓iii%//,�////%��1%��% ., .... 23-27 Cedar Street North " I II I � r 0'Y' i 23-27 Cedar Street North 9 - 27 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 23-27 Cedar Street North Period: c. 1926 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: June 6, 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: decorative brickwork;stone stills and lintels; interesting design details; small brick porches 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9 - 28 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: courtyard between buildings; two buildings linked by archway 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 Field Team: row housing—potential associations 9 - 29 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 30 Cherry Street 2/° iAA, j„ z }Y �/ ?I 25' �/ m � A i ��%G 44 n/ Municipal Address: 30 Cherry Street Legal Description: Plan 375 Part Lots 436 & 437 58R-10008 Part 1 Year Built: c. 1895 Architectural Style: Italianate Original Owner: Possibly Henry Maecker Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 30 Cherry Street is a two storey late 19th century brick house built in the Italianate architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.25 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Cherry Street between Walnut 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 semi-detached house. Heritage Value 30 Cherry Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the type of building. The house is a rare example of semi-detached house built in the Italianate architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two 9 - 30 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE storeys in height and features: shallow hip roof; wood soffits, fascia, brackets and frieze; brick construction; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; wood windows, storm windows and shutters; front entrance doors and storm doors; two bay garage; and, one bay garage. The contextual values relate to the two outbuildings (garages) located in the rear yard that complete the site. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 30 Cherry Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Italianate architectural style of the house, including: • two-storey height of the house; • shallow hip roof; • wood soffits, fascia, brackets and frieze; • brick construction; s • segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; • wood windows, storm windows and shutters; • front entrance doors and storm doors; • two bay garage; and, • one bay garage. Photos ,�,,`;,,i, o!!'/�l�/1%a%�f�i!�i%//%l[,dram%,li�✓✓�/!(��G��ijiii?%�/�!i�n/�i/fir/r/ai,1, ,,,,,z.,,,;,,,,,,.., �u i r �q .W i l r iJf�rlYy rV`(�(�(�(fl �!d�'V�m r J/1 rtr% ✓! 1���l�``/���IJf�i�J�`�� r ,,..v � � f�� �✓1 �r'�%/ � ����>< /�l�l !✓l ( °r�/l it/r�/, /;� rrr/t i ��� ire /�//%f�D�l�!/✓.�//I/G 1�/,,: (r/ ✓ 1 % l/�l�� ��I J�'//'' ��%� �rDi, '�� ,h I. ���1 �i 11��.,'r�%t�'��/rlli9- 0 V �� /�/ ri./I,r�lf rr,:n1,��' virs ;`- cy ;r,.,/J�,�r"✓,,i,'fir",;� � llr,r,r"hl/ .,1✓��'Yl ,; � �i,l/,//���1✓� „/ !rr��✓i/. i✓ ��r�/��// 1;r1� ��; „�. .� C � rl�; ,J i n,iu', !� �I' � ,+, � � ✓ic� )r�;r„�/ l��l�����lr"i1/�✓,l,/ J�;i,���,f��/,�r,l /Jr �/�c, J//1 l,0 r 1 ;1,f, j„/t ✓, - prf��r��1� iii/%i„ �//����i����JG �rr � � �lY ' 7 „� 1)� r /!/1 r1�//�c�f� � /✓ �fy/%l sf ✓ r(1 „ r, ,,, r��/ ��j i����//frj �j✓�i r �r 30 Cherry Street 9 - 31 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE N ro //r i�ao�rU �r %�!G/ d`�j��r✓/rl�iivo%//rrd�/1//UG?/��lNl2'�' r. I r ;,/ I v/1 r I�1 '' ✓9 //lr�i/j//�� r r , 30 Cherry Street FIR i IJ i J st , 1% C J f%i '�"`a d✓/r r ,r ri r��G I�^yurarv✓^ � � " u,� ' 1)��' f r 7 //�j' �r/� ri�i ir1; �fl/''!/ �; gray, rD✓/ `� a����� �/J>!� � J ,r/i/r,�//� Ilt� '�/ �i/��Jl/rI /%%r%14� ��/�%�(����//�JG�/ �'r�/�lr�rorri`,a ,.... �I�n fV„��✓l,/���/,/�,��>/!r/I�O� /, �� �1����rr//,;rig,,/!r �;�, I Lf �r/01 r rl� r� ri/Y/i� �r/✓1�/r�%��/`/��fGi����/ %/i�// ,: ,,, ,,,, a�l�r�%:, ��✓ ' �//5�(Grr%f�l/ark/!/ii/i/ r�ir,/�' r �'r/J/�/l�f/��/��/I/I��1 ,. G ? ar ������sl�I"� J�'���lfl/ ' ;alilw�fi S✓/ '/r//✓f/��;,�r�/%J/ �%///r/%��1���r f l�y,�drir I %j�!!/�%���//d rl> �,, r.;a,� J�,'7��,!��.✓% �i'%'r'/%%/�J�i %1Y/r" ��/i�ir :;'rs� /1 �i'�� I!fdr�i//� �rr�r��'/Fff1��✓i ���"il�i r��'6� �It r���i�r�9%/��r� //���/elf/�'1 f ✓i r In y r �,,,%”'✓!,J�y q;l�,Fr ✓ r���,� �111r ri; M X/���+�ff„r, w,u,�°!>;u„ �.Mri�,l l g�/�j�lr!��Ir��/r{ r��J/ 30 Cherry Street 9 - 32 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 30 Cherry Street Period: c. 1895 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: July 23, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: semi; brackets; soffits;segmentally arched windows with voussoirs Sub-Committee: vernacular Italianate 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical,functional or visual link ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x 9 - 33 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes original outbuildings, notable 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Notes Field Team: new porch; some new windows; shutters; painted brick Sub-Committee:shutters may be original 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 9 - 34 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 40 Cherry Street 21 3 `" 24 � r N J t l iiµ, iri�// Municipal Address: 40 Cherry Street Legal Description: Plan 375 Part Lot 434 Year Built: c. 1885 Architectural Style: Berlin Vernacular Original Owner: Possibly George Bucher or Henry Klaehn Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 40 Cherry Street is a one-and-a-half storey late 19th century wood sided house built in the Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.25 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Cherry Street between Walnut 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 house. 9 - 35 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 40 Cherry Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the type of building and the cladding. The house is a rare example of a frame building with wood siding. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a- half storeys in height and features: front gable roof; wood soffits and fascia; horizontal wood siding; flat headed window openings; flat headed door opening with transom; and, front porch. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Cherry Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 40 Cherry Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Berlin Vernacular architectural style of the house, including: • one-and-a-half storey height of the house; • front gable roof; • wood soffits and fascia; • horizontal wood siding; • flat headed window openings; • flat headed door opening with transom; and, • front porch. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Cherry Street streetscape. Photos ago iV ( J "' II�I��IUIUU) 40 Cherry Street 9 - 36 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE �h is i 40 Cherry Street / / i J i1 �� i iii ��✓<ii✓�`�'����� r rf� 40 Cherry Street 9 - 37 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 40 Cherry Street Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: July 23, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: type of building—clapboard on frame? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical,functional or visual link ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 9 - 38 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Notes Click here. 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 9 - 39 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 101-105 Church Street 11 C's rl 21 U� 010111 VA ON AIR 15 Slw % % 101 ..dlµ. /� m % r! 25 15 w „ v a' J� J r J Municipal Address: 101-105 Church Street Legal Description: Plan 382 Lot 22 Part Lot 21 and 23 Plan 393 Part Lot 48 Part Lot 49 58R- 2064 Part 1 Year Built: 1948 Architectural Style: Mid Century Vernacular Original Owner: J.W. Heatley Original Use: Residential Apartments Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 101-105 Church Street is a three storey mid-20th century brick apartment built in the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style. The apartment building is situated on a 0.72 acre parcel 9 - 40 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE of land located on the south side of Church Street between Peter Street and Eby Street South in the Cedar Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the apartment building. Heritage Value 101-105 Church Street is recognized for its value. The design value relates to the architecture of the apartment. The apartment is a unique example of the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style. The apartment is in good condition. The apartment is three storeys in height and features: hipped roof; angled corners; irregular plan; symmetrical full height central projecting gable bay at entrance; addition at rear; red-brown brick; single and paired 1/1 windows with concrete window surrounds (hoods) and concrete sills; metal details; metal door with glazing; and, decorative concrete entrance surround with inscription that reads "City View Apts". The associative value relates to the builder Michael Kraus. Michael Kraus was an entrepreneur with experience in flooring, apartment building and land development (Howitt, 2013). He was also a minister, apostle, district apostle and national leader of the New Apostolic Church. At one point he provided the church office in the Kraus plant and helped to finance and build the New Apostolic Church on Margaret Avenue in Kitchener (Howitt, 2013). His employment history included working in the Baetz furniture factory, building apartments, importing upholstery fabric, manufacturing fabric and carpets and yarn extrusion (Floor Daily, 2014). At the time of his death his company, Kraus Carpet Mills, was the largest Canadian-owned carpet manufacturer (Floor Daily, 2014). According to his obituary "his tireless work and inspiring leadership had an enduring impact on the business and church communities that he served with distinction"(Floor Daily, 2014). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 101-105 Church Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style of the apartment, including: • hipped roof; • angled corners; • irregular plan; • symmetrical full height central projecting gable bay at entrance; • addition at rear; • red-brown brick; • windows and window openings, including: ■ single and paired 1/1 windows with concrete window surrounds (hoods) and concrete sills; • metal details; • doors and door openings, including: • metal door with glazing; and, • decorative concrete entrance surround with inscription that reads "City View Apts". 9 - 41 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE References Floor Daily. (2014). Kraus Carpet Founder Dies. Retrieved on March 20, 2014 from htt ://www.floordaily.net/flooring®news/kraus caret founder dies.asx. Howitt, C. (2013). New boss hoping to take Kraus on magic carpet ride. Retrieved on March 27, 2014 from http://www.therecord.com/news-story/2624936®new®boss®hoping®to®take®kraus®on® magic-caret®ride/. Photos Y(i�Nf✓ pl�i"'.�dui'(ifjufituqulP i%r.rlFir l rrr✓ mmW 1 1 l F � R n, 101-105 Church Street i � m po 2 I 101-105 Church Street 9 - 42 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 101-105 Church Street Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: City View Apartments Date: June 25, 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: red brick; stone window surrounds (hoods);sills;decorative stone; entrance surround Sub-Committee: art deco 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9 - 43 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable 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 _L L Notes Sub-Committee: possible changes to roofline (lack of header between upper windows and roof) 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 Field Team: see apartments on Borden, Onward and Weber 9 - 44 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 32 Duke Street East / 58-60 Frederick Street , 203 32!58-60 ✓�� i//'�./'/ Municipal Address: 32 Duke Street East/58-60 Frederick Street Legal Description: Plan 348 Lot 1 to 3 Part Lot 4 Year Built: 1975-76 (exterior alterations) Architectural Style: Modern Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Commercial Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 32 Duke Street East is a three storey mid-20th commercial building that was reclad to depict the Modern architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.11 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Duke Street East and Frederick Street in the City Commercial Core 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. 9 - 45 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 32 Duke Street East is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a unique example of the Modern architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is three storeys in height and features: flat roof; alloy aluminum Shadopanel (honeycomb) cladding; and, Art Deco influences at the corners. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Duke Street East and Frederick Street streetscapes. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 32 Duke Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Modern architectural style of the building, including: • flat roof; • alloy aluminum Shadopanel (honeycomb) cladding; • Art Deco influences at the corners. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Duke Street East and Frederick Street streetscapes. References City of Kitchener. (1975). Building Permit #367 for interior and exterior alterations at 32 Duke Street East. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, Ontario. 9 - 46 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos ✓ / a » , pr����� , If�YI .n � � '�� V �;�w�� r%� �/�il/�?�lr�yi/iii<✓� r����rrrrtr7ry��m�eiir�llrrl��Gri r,w 32 Duke Street East i r r 1� �" ✓�'J r s Y A F /f r✓ � rr r ' r ���✓ l � f � �� U�I' r�✓r�'/�Jr "a d ,rr rr ,y JJ/✓ r r ,pry'r r r F i .1 �'�J �I��y��',Jfr�JJ b�{fJ�,rJ�r��l�u✓Irir� �r����k�! -fipjlUlfnrrnvNnl ron/„GnuWiu//0//imr�iiGs �” / //rr /%/////rrrr///r/i/ /O i � 32 Duke Street East 9 - 47 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE P eras�! zr t z f�x�t� s.�� �( 1�✓ « ���a��rw �� I i �rb�; iubauu�,eairlm�mti um �xx X ng a�",✓w�.�� � � ,� ,. Y f r ` t Y, 32 Duke Street East 9 - 48 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 32 Duke Street East Period: Field Team Initials: MD/CM Description: 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: original fagade not visible; metal honeycomb cladding; internal corner on Duke Street elevation show modest Art Deco influences(early to mid 20th century)but fagade now in front of building; original building appears to have been one storey(difference in brick shape and size) possibly with a tall chimney; c. 1900; glass block windows on internal side elevation; fire escape Sub-Committee: metal honeycomb cladding; Modern architectural style 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical,functional or visual link ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ visual landmark within the region 9 - 49 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes ❑, city❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Notes Sub-Committee: notable structure because of the 1970s metal honeycomb cladding 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 9 - 50 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 30-32 Duke Street West N 149-1 51 17 I� & l Affil i I -9 6 �I X40 I �^ � d � j y*�G I Ilf .ham' 4+ 10 4 4 '.'. y US l y J r 6(U-62 n �i ."',... Municipal Address: 30-32 Duke Street West Legal Description: Plan 396 Part Lots 3 to 5 Plan 401 Part Lot 8 58R-5891 Part 1 Year Built: 1970-71 Architectural Style: Brutalist Original Owner: Corporation Square Original Use: Office and Theatre Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 30-32 Duke Street West is a ten story 20th century concrete office building built in the Brutalist architectural style. The building is situated on a 1.07 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Duke Street West and Ontario Street in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the office building. 9 - 51 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 30-32 Duke Street West is recognized for its design, contextual and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the office building. The building is a rare example of the Brutalist architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building features: a ten storey office tower fronting Duke Street West; a five storey office tower fronting Ontario Street; flat roof; concrete construction; horizontal bands of concrete and windows; and, concrete plazas and flower boxes. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the office building and plazas make to the continuity and character of the Duke Street West and Ontario Street streetscapes. The associative value relates to the architect of the building. Webb Zefara Menkes Housden Partnership of Toronto designed the building. WZMH was established in 1961 and they are now an award winning international partnership responsible for the design of prominent buildings such as the CN Tower (WZMH Architects, 2014). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 30-32 Duke Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Brutalist architectural style of the office building, including: • ten storey office tower fronting Duke Street West; • five storey office tower fronting Ontario Street; • flat roof; • concrete construction; • horizontal bands of concrete and windows; and, • concrete plazas and flower boxes. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the office building and plazas and the contribution they make to the continuity and character of the Duke Street West and Ontario Street streetscapes. References WZMH Architects. (2014). The First 50 Years. Retrieved from _http:Hwww. zmh.com/overview/histoLv/#1 on February 12, 2014. 9 - 52 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos U , ppll f , �,,,,, ,��, � ➢tl �I��'�;��IIIIIIHIU1INc+r���,. n�a�,� ��,,�„ �/D/1�11dJJJJJ k�r�IM� 1, 1 ,� �O/iiiIIIS�BNIIV6 U 1 � f I 30-32 Duke Street West a I I J I : r u� Jo, 30-32 Duke Street West 9 - 53 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 30-32 Duke Street West Period: 1971 Field Team Initials: MD/CM Description: Date: June 11, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: brutalist influences; heavy use of concrete, banding with glazing and concrete; further research on architecture and architect; shorter tower has stilts on Ontario Street Sub-Committee: concrete and concrete forms 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical,functional or visual link ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? 9 - 54 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ that complete the site? Notes Sub-Committee: front and size plazas and flower boxes FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE INTEGRITY N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Site Does the structure occupy its original site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Sub-committee: architect—Webb Zerafa&Menkes 9 - 55 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 42 Francis Street North r/ % Wr, 4'J Municipal Address: 42 Francis Street North Legal Description: Plan 374 Part Lot 120 & 121 Year Built: 1901 Architectural Style: Queen Anne Original Owner: Daniel Hibner Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 42 Francis Street North is a two storey early 20th century brick house built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.17 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Francis Street North and Duke Street West in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 9 - 56 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 42 Francis Street North is recognized for its contextual, historic and associative values. The house is an example of the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: cross gabled roofline; soffits, frieze and brackets; wood shingles in gable ends; brick construction; flat headed window openings; large picture windows on front elevation with semi-circular and flat headed stained glass transoms and stone sills; 1/1 windows with brick voussoirs and stone sills; square stained glass window on front elevation; flat headed door opening with wood door on main floor and wood storm door on second floor; and, rusticated stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Francis Street North streetscape. The contextual values also relate the historic and visual link between the home of Daniel Hibner at 42 Francis Street North and the D. Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd. down the street at 283 Duke Street West. The historic and associative values relate to the original owner, Daniel Hibner. He founded a furniture factory in 1887 adjacent to the railway at what is now the corner of Duke Street West and Breithaupt Street (Noonan, 1975). The factory was called the D. Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd. and operated until circa 1935 (Noonan, 1975). He was also Mayor of the town in 1894 and long term park commissioner (Noonan, 1975). He was a member of the first Board of Park Commissioners and therefore instrumental in the creation of Victoria Park. Hibner Park at the intersection of Young Street, Ahrens Street and Maynard Avenue is named after him because he donated the funds to purchase a fountain for the park (Noonan, 1975). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 42 Francis Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the house, including: • two-storey height of the house; • cross gabled roofline; • soffits, frieze and brackets; • wood shingles in gable ends; • brick construction; • flat headed window openings; • large picture windows on front elevation with semi-circular and flat headed stained glass transoms and stone sills; • 1/1 windows with brick voussoirs and stone sills; • square stained glass window on front elevation; • flat headed door opening with wood door on main floor and wood storm door on second floor; and, • rusticated stone foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Francis Street North streetscape; and, • The historic and visual link between the home of Daniel Hibner and the D. Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd. 9 - 57 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE References Noonan, G. (1975). A History of Kitchener. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Photos r a n� x I Ilp p, it 1 A 42 Francis Street North 9 - 58 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 42 Francis Street North Period: 1901 Field Team Initials: LB/SL Description: Date: June 2, 2008 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement,finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Field Team: red mortar with brownstone/beige brick and stone foundation; stone window sills; original windows(no storm windows) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical,functional or visual link ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 - 59 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: large lot Sub-Committee: visual link from house to former D. Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd. at 283 Duke Street West FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE INTEGRITY N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Site Does the structure occupy its original site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Notes Field Team: pressure treated decks added on rear, missing front lower and upper porches 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Field Team: possible connection to D. Hibner and warehouse district Sub-Committee: 1910 and 1918 Vernon's Directories confirm home of D. Hibner; 1901 Berliner Journal confirms D. Hibner built home on Francis Street North 9 - 60 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 40 Gage Avenue hmiilll��l r�� '�j NII'�n �x 40, cr� Municipal Address: 40 Gage Avenue Legal Description: Plan 402 Part Lot 20 58R-4848 Part 1 Year Built: 1890 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: Possibly J. Schmidt Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 40 Gage Avenue is a one-and-a-half storey late 19th century brick house built in the Georgian architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.11 acre parcel of land located on the north west corner of Gave Avenue and Waverly Road 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 house. Heritage Value 40 Gage Avenue is recognized for its design and contextual values. 9 - 61 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Georgian architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: side gable roof; full width front porch with hipped roof; brick construction with stucco; original 2/2 windows; and, chimney at rear. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Gage Avenue streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 40 Gage Avenue resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Georgian architectural style of the house, including: • side gable roof; • full width front porch with hipped roof; • brick construction with stucco; • windows and window openings, including: ■ original 2/2 windows; • front door opening; and, • chimney at rear. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Gage Avenue streetscape. Photos f i is 1 C&bAYt 40 Gage Avenue 9 - 62 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4Y y l rr„= 40 Gage Avenue / ILu 1 �e J i' 0 j//// iii i��oi�/�//?✓ e �a 40 Gage Avenue 9 - 63 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 40 Gage Avenue Period: c. 1890 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: July 17, 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: early farmhouse in area; some Mennonite Georgian characteristics; stucco applied over brick on rear addition and main house (exposed at base of column); detailed chimney brickwork at rear; original windows on principle elevation Sub-Committee: notable older example of Georgian;small 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 ❑? 9 - 64 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 Field Team: built close to road; similar to 35 Strange Street 9 - 65 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 38-40 Irvin Street f � uuuuuuN pill r��� imuuuuuuumuuu ° 1001 muuu _11 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 40 n � �� uuuuuuuuuuuuuVUUUUUUUUW 44 Ip �� imuuuumuuuuuu 31 bhp c 48 I r§` 41, Municipal Address: 38-40 Irvin Street Legal Description: Plan 32 Part Lot 15 Year Built: c.1890s Architectural Style: Vernacular Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 38-40 Irvin Street is a two-and-a-half storey late 19th century brick duplex built in the Vernacular architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.14 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Irvin Street between Lancaster Street and Scott Street in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the duplex. Heritage Value 38-40 Irvin Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the type of building. The building is a rare example of a late 19th century duplex built in the Vernacular architectural style. The duplex is in good condition. The 9 - 66 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE duplex is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: square plan; hipped roof; two storey entry porch; symmetrical fagade; and, rectangular windows. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Irvin Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 38-40 Irvin Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Vernaculr architectural style of the house, including: • square plan; • hipped roof; • two storey entry porch; • symmetrical fagade; and, • rectangular windows. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Irvin Street streetscape. Photos l 38-40 Irvin Street 9 - 67 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE uu"u"u 38-40 Irvin Street 9 - 68 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 38-40 Irvin Street Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB/ML Description: Date: April 18, 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: double house; porch Sub-Committee:grand; double balcony 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9 - 69 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Sub-Committee:elevated 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: openings intact; newer windows; dormer new Sub-Committee: railing height; chimney gone 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 9 - 70 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 3571 King Street East Ward 2 r' 3571 4� Municipal Address: 3571 King Street East Legal Description: Closed Street Plan 135 Lot 176 Plan 987 Lot 17 Part Lot 18 Plan 990 Lot 2 Part Lot 1 and Plan 1411 Block B Year Built: 1966 Architectural Style: Utilitarian Original Owner: County of Waterloo and Department of National Defence Original Use: Emergency Measures Building Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 3571 King Street East was built in 1966 as a cold war bunker. The building is situated on a 1.23 acre parcel of land located on the south side of King Street East between Stonegate Drive and the Freeport Bridge in the Centreville Chicopee Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the bunker. 9 - 71 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 3571 King Street East is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historic and associative values. The design and physical values relate to the design and construction of the bunker. The building was built underground and capable of being completely self-sufficient with no outside requirements for power, water or sewage (Waterloo-Wellington Museums and Art Galleries, 1992). The building is 5720 square feet and located primarily underground. The building was constructed with concrete and concrete block featuring 10 inch exterior concrete and metal doors. The building was designed for a fallout protection factor of 500 meaning that the inside radiation dose would be 1/500 of the outside dose. The contextual value relates to the setting of the bunker as it was built into the topography of the land in order to be underground and in close proximity to a water source, the Grand River, in order to be self-sufficient. The historic and associative values relate to the architect who designed the building and the broader national program established by the Department of National Defence. The building was designed by the firm of Webb Zerafa Menkes and Matthews (Webb Zerafa Menkes and Matthews, 1965). Today, WZMH Architects is an award winning international partnership responsible for the design of prominent buildings such as the CN Tower (WZMH Architects, 2014). Canada's federal civic defence organization was established in the early days of the Cold War to develop strategies to protect civilian population and infrastructure in the event of nuclear war (Burtch, 2011). Three phases of civil defence were identified starting with the "self- help" stage in 1948-1954, followed by the "evacuation" stage in 1954-1959, and ending with the "national survival" stage in 1959 (Burtch, 2011). The national survival stage expressed the importance of government continuity and encouraged the public to build fallout shelters (Burtch, 2011). The local need for the emergency measures building was first contemplated in 1961 with potential candidate buildings being the basements of either the Mutual Life of Canada building or the police building (County of Waterloo, 1961). The Township of Waterloo agreed to donate a parcel of land on Highway 8 at Freeport to be used for the emergency measures building in 1962 (County of Waterloo, 1962). Ed Witmer and Sons Ltd. were retained in 1964 to construct the emergency measures building (County of Waterloo, 1964). The building was built as a co- operative venture by the County of Waterloo and the Department of National Defence commonly referred to as MEGHQ (Municipal Emergency Government Headquarters) Freeport or Waterloo County MEGHQ (Waterloo-Wellington Museums and Art Galleries, 1992). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 3571 King Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Cold War bunker building, including: • Exterior entrance with stairs; • Concrete; • Concrete block; • Metal doors; and, • Surface equipment (e.g. fire escapes, communication conduits, etc.). • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Setting of the bunker into the topography; and, 9 - 72 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE o Locating in close proximity of the Grand River. References Burtch, A. (2011). Give Me Shelter: The Failure of Canada's Cold Civil Defence. UBC Press: Toronto, Ontario. County of Waterloo. (1961). Minutes of a meeting of the co-ordinating committee for emergency measures in the County of Waterloo held at 20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, Ontario on August 30, 1961. County of Waterloo: Kitchener, Ontario. County of Waterloo. (1962). Letter to Mr. Charles Stager, Clerk-Treasurer, County of Waterloo from B.F.C. Houston, Co-ordinator for Civil Defence and Emergency Measures in the County of Waterloo dated August 20, 1962. County of Waterloo: Kitchener, Ontario. County of Waterloo. (1964). Addendum to Minutes of January 31, 1964. County of Waterloo: Kitchener, Ontario. Waterloo-Wellington Museums and Art Galleries. (1992). Waterloo-Wellington Drive Tour Museums &Art Galleries. Graphic Services, University of Waterloo: Waterloo, Ontario. Webb Zerafa Menkes and Matthews. (1965). Site Plan A-1 K692: EMOHQ Waterloo County. Kitchener, Ontario. WZMH Architects. (2014). The First 50 Years. Retrieved from _http:Hwww. zmh.com/overview/histoLy/#1 on February 12, 2014. Photos ur v /G i 3571 King Street East 9 - 73 APPENDIX A STATEMENTS OFSIGNIFICANCE } � 3571 King S r e East i 3571 King S r e East 9 - 74 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 3571 King Street East Period: Field Team Initials: MD/LB/CM Description: Emergency Measures Building Date: July 16, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 9 - 75 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Sub-Committee: building built in to land;why was this location chosen? Hospital?Water? Rail?City limits? 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 Field Team: cold war bunker; relationship to the broader national program established by the Department of National Defence 9 - 76 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 201 Lancaster Street East ..................... ..._ 1 „ S17 r 210"V1 5 Ell INN 4, M••uhl. IJ'/ �Y f.l I i f Municipal Address: 201 Lancaster Street East Legal Description: Plan 364 Part Lot 6 Year Built: c. 1917 Architectural Style: Berlin Vernacular Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 201 Lancaster Street East is a two storey early 20th century concrete block house built in the Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.07 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Lancaster Street East between Irvin Street and Hohner Avenue in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 9 - 77 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 201 Lancaster Street East is recognized for its physical and contextual values. The physical value relates to the construction material. The house is a rare example of rusticated concrete block construction in the Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Lancaster Street East streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 201 Lancaster Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Berlin Vernacular architectural style of the house, including: • two-storey height of the house; • rectangular plan; • shingled front gable with return eaves; • rusticated concrete block construction; • front gable porch; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 1/1 hung windows; ■ Picture window with rectangular transom; • door openings; and, • concrete parged foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Lancaster Street East streetscape. 9 - 78 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos �i 201 Lancaster Street East i d 201 Lancaster Street East 9 - 79 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 201 Lancaster Street East Period: Field Team Initials: LB/CM/ML Description: Date: April 18, 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of ❑ ❑ ❑ 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: vernacular but with formed concrete block 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 9 - 80 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: porch a new addition 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 9 - 81 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 304 Louisa Street 'I,3 6 Municipal Address: 304 Louisa Street Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 456 and 457 Year Built: 1948 Architectural Style: Mid Century Vernacular Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Apartments Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 304 Louisa Street is a three storey mid-20th century brick apartment built in the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.39 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Louisa Street between Margaret Avenue and St. Leger Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the apartment building. 9 - 82 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 304 Louisa Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the apartment. The apartment is a unique example of the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style. The apartment is in good condition. The apartment is three storeys in height and features: flat roof; "H" plan; multi coloured rug brick; brick banding; window openings with brick voussoirs and concrete sills; symmetrical fagade; concrete and vitrolite entrance surround with the inscription "Buckingham Apts"; concrete detail around windows above entrance; and, concrete foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Louisa Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 304 Louisa Street resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style of the apartment, including: • flat roof; • "H" plan; • multi coloured rug brick; • brick banding; • window openings with brick voussoirs and concrete sills; • symmetrical fagade; • concrete and vitrolite entrance surround with the inscription "Buckingham Apts"; • concrete detail around windows above entrance; and, • concrete foundation. ■ All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Louisa Street streetscape. 9 - 83 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos r� I Fi�r1' f h� I r I l/ 304 Louisa Street r � u A� � 4 WJ �AEI r pp � r gftI 1 r � G yuW I VI�iY< �Y C� m ' I&I'Affil 11 u �° 304 Louisa Street 9 - 84 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE _,rc u i�011 i o �� a wuNmon�w muWWWWmtowmmn�µ u�wiww�oa♦'u� iur, u ilt ii � � �����%i,. . mww mwm�,wumuwumtwww,wmmwwuww�uw '4 � i I iu�iuwwmi�wmoiu�uu i�ure�»�wummurcaai�or�mw�i�uuwirvmio� i�,waw� u�ro�iuuui�w. �� mauuummmuuuuwwupm�ru�aurwu of l� l� wwuuwn' ii„ ,.ouwuun�"� � �� i � ' m��um / �/ � mauuuu��w�ywummumim ummiiu��inrnumw�w!aivuuum�i�mw�nnv,�va IN II lry I illpli q � (IIIIIIf J/�l ��/�` IIIIIIIM}pry,�q�llillli�l���,�k,�lllll uu!4IWIVUWW NI @10101100 I1�d l � � / l u �»n�ac uuwuwun� n�uuuouiiumiuuwn�r��reuuumwwi�monuwuwm umi nnoo I 01 .✓/.� a q' lY.11,x,���{���."1:� �� i'a����� IOI�LLI mumr': X01 4o Y i 4NkU) i i.,�,�l/��✓ ,� v r,; 1, �! i �. VIII III�I a u �rrrruoioummu � ,� I �,,,. ,,,,` iw�w fii'° oinii' ruin uiuuiooumiiuomi� uriiruulumm�i,, S i uumi - imi �OON�NI i wxwuiu �omum� i io � luu mm imu m um n i uu�oummi � �� im�yuuum� i i �, mu iuw r„ u 304 Louisa Street r a i 304 Louisa Street 9 - 85 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 304 Louisa Street Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Buckingham Apts Date: August 7, 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: rug brick; concrete sills and entrance surround; vitrolite around door;subtle brick banding 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9 - 86 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable 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 Field Team: same design as found on Onward,Weber and Borden 9 - 87 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 87 Margaret Avenue �i 9 dyed o"wry N �P '6 1 212 / Municipal Address: 87 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 175 Year Built: 1941 Architectural Style: Vernacular with Gothic and Art Deco influences Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 87 Margaret Avenue is a three storey mid-20th century brick apartment built in the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences. The apartment is situated on a 0.20 acre parcel of land located on the north west corner of Margaret Avenue and Breithaupt Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the apartment building. 9 - 88 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 87 Margaret Avenue is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the apartment. The apartment is a unique example of the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences. The apartment is in good condition. The apartment is three storeys in height and features: hipped roof; angled corners; full height central projecting bay at entrance; red-brown brick; 6/6 rectangular windows with rusticated concrete sills; wood door with glazing, decorative sidelights and transom; full length verandas at rear for each storey with central brick pillars; concrete parged foundation; and, garage at rear. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue and Breithaupt Street streetscapes. The associative value relates to the builder Michael Kraus. Michael Kraus was an entrepreneur with experience in flooring, apartment building and land development (Howitt, 2013). He was also a minister, apostle, district apostle and national leader of the New Apostolic Church. At one point he provided the church office in the Kraus plant and helped to finance and build the New Apostolic Church on Margaret Avenue in Kitchener (Howitt, 2013). His employment history included working in the Baetz furniture factory, building apartments, importing upholstery fabric, manufacturing fabric and carpets and yarn extrusion (Floor Daily, 2014). At the time of his death his company, Kraus Carpet Mills, was the largest Canadian-owned carpet manufacturer (Floor Daily, 2014). According to his obituary "his tireless work and inspiring leadership had an enduring impact on the business and church communities that he served with distinction"(Floor Daily, 2014). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 87 Margaret Avenue resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences, including: • hipped roof; • angled corners; • full height central projecting bay at entrance; • red-brown brick; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 6/6 rectangular windows with rusticated concrete sills; ■ 1/1 rectangular windows with rusticated concrete sills; • wood front door with glazing, decorative sidelights and transom; • full length verandas at rear for each storey with brick pillars; • concrete parged foundation; and, • garage at rear. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue and Breithaupt Street streetscapes. 9 - 89 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE References Floor Daily. (2014). Kraus Carpet Founder Dies. Retrieved on March 20, 2014 from htt ://www.floordaily.net/flooring®news/kraus caret founder dies.asx. Howitt, C. (2013). New boss hoping to take Kraus on magic carpet ride. Retrieved on March 27, 2014 from http://www.therecord.com/news®story/2624936®new®boss®hoping®to®take®kraus®on® magic®caret®ride/. Photos ! l�ep�rou�:ji✓9/r%��d 9rr iu L: //f// �l �p?�" A 4 I y I a u 1 87 Margaret Avenue 9 - 90 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE jjjjjjjjjjj � �I i °�J �+Jf''7i�i�r �"` /'l%'i�/✓f� 'u 6" / rl //'"; j �� a d r7. �f;�'�i It;�iif .V r r (( !AF ,�, � l/ ✓ , r � / u k � rbusilru j U�I . q, �1 tow. 87 Margaret Avenue i i 4i r 'mig 9 r 87 Margaret Avenue 9 - 91 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 87 Margaret Avenue Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: August 7, 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: verandah at rear; garage; angled corners; projecting bay; multi coloured brick; concrete sills; rusticated stone foundation Sub-Committee: rear balconies 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 ❑? 9 - 92 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: garage 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 9 - 93 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 100 Margaret Avenue 2 112 'W11-115 h fj , f or 1r % / Municipal Address: 100 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Plan 34 Part Lot 2 Year Built: 1939 (original); 1940 (addition) Architectural Style: Vernacular with Gothic and Art Deco influences Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 100 Margaret Avenue is a three storey mid-20th century brick apartment built in the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences. The apartment building is situated on a 0.15 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Margaret Avenue between Breitahupt Street and Wellington Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the apartment building. Heritage Value 100 Margaret Avenue is recognized for its design, contextual and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the apartment. The apartment is a unique example of the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences. The apartment is in good condition. The apartment is three storeys in height and features: hipped 9 - 94 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE roof; angled corners; symmetrical full height central projecting gable bay at entrance; red-yellow brick; three storey glass blocks at center with concrete sill; glass blocks on angled corners with concrete sills; 1/1 rectangular windows with concrete sills; Gothic shaped double wood doors with glazing and concrete quoin surround; and, parged concrete foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape. The associative value relates to, W.H.E. Schmalz, the architect who designed the apartment. W.H.E. Schmalz was a native of Berlin (now Kitchener) and son of former Mayor W.H. Schmalz (Waterloo Region Generations, 2014). W.H.E. Schmalz graduated from the University of Toronto and was known as the Twin Cities' dean of architects (Waterloo Region Generations, 2014). He, along with B.A. Jones, designed the 1922 Kitchener City Hall (Hill, 2009). The firm of Schmalz & Jones maintained an office until 1926 (Hill, 2009). W.H.E. served with the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in 1916; served with distinction on the Waterloo Historical Society, the Ontario Historical Society, the Ontario Pioneer Community Foundation and the Waterloo County Hall of Fame; and, held office in, or was a long-time member of, the Chamber of Commerce, the Kitchener Parks Board, the K-W Hospital Board, the Kiwanis Club, the Kitchener Musical Society, the Kitchener Young Men's Club, the Kitchener Racing Canoe Club and the Lutheran Church (Waterloo Region Generations, 2014). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 100 Margaret Avenue resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences, including: • hipped roof; • angled corners; • symmetrical full height central projecting gable bay at entrance; • red-yellow brick; • windows and window openings, including: ■ three storey glass blocks at center with concrete sill; ■ glass blocks on angled corners with concrete sills; ■ 1/1 rectangular windows with concrete sills; • doors and door openings, including: ■ Gothic shaped double wood doors with glazing and concrete quoin surround; and, • parged concrete foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape. References Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofar chitectsincanada.orb/architects/view/173 on March 14, 2014. 9 - 95 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Waterloo Region Generations. (2014). William Henry Eugene Schmalz. Retrieved from htt ://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?person) =131192&tree=generations on March 14, 2014. Photos 1 V j I1, l ri II / v' , e 100 Margaret Avenue r J � I 100 Margaret Avenue 9 - 96 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 100 Margaret Avenue Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: August 7, 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: projecting central bay; multi-coloured brick, glass block; angled corners; concrete sills and door surround 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9 - 97 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: group of three east side of Margaret; close together at same setback 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 9 - 98 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 104-106 Margaret Avenue O _ r n Municipal Address: 104-106 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Plan 34 Part Lot 2 and 3 Year Built: 1939 (original); 1941 (addition) Architectural Style: Vernacular with Gothic and Art Deco influences Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Apartments Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 104-106 Margaret Avenue is a three storey mid-20th century brick apartment built in the Tudor architectural style. The apartment building is situated on a 0.15 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Margaret Avenue between Breithaupt Street and Wellington Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the apartment building. Heritage Value 104-106 Margaret Avenue is recognized for its design, contextual and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the apartment. The apartment is a unique example of the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences. The apartment is in good condition. The apartment is three storeys in height and features: hipped roof; angled corners; symmetrical full height central projecting gable bay at entrance; red-yellow 9 - 99 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE brick; three storey glass blocks at center; glass blocks on angled corners; 1/1 rectangular windows with concrete sills; Gothic shaped double wood doors with glazing and concrete quoin surround; and, parged concrete foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape. The associative value relates to, W.H.E. Schmalz, the architect who designed the apartment. W.H.E. Schmalz was a native of Berlin (now Kitchener) and son of former Mayor W.H. Schmalz (Waterloo Region Generations, 2014). W.H.E. Schmalz graduated from the University of Toronto and was known as the Twin Cities' dean of architects (Waterloo Region Generations, 2014). He, along with B.A. Jones, designed the 1922 Kitchener City Hall (Hill, 2009). The firm of Schmalz & Jones maintained an office until 1926 (Hill, 2009). W.H.E. served with the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in 1916; served with distinction on the Waterloo Historical Society, the Ontario Historical Society, the Ontario Pioneer Community Foundation and the Waterloo County Hall of Fame; and, held office in, or was a long-time member of, the Chamber of Commerce, the Kitchener Parks Board, the K-W Hospital Board, the Kiwanis Club, the Kitchener Musical Society, the Kitchener Young Men's Club, the Kitchener Racing Canoe Club and the Lutheran Church (Waterloo Region Generations, 2014). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 104-106 Margaret Avenue resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences, including: • hipped roof; • angled corners; • symmetrical full height central projecting gable bay at entrance; • red-yellow brick; • windows and window openings, including: ■ three storey glass blocks at center with concrete sill; ■ glass blocks on angled corners with concrete sills; ■ 1/1 rectangular windows with concrete sills; • doors and door openings, including: ■ Gothic shaped double wood doors with glazing and concrete quoin surround; and, • parged concrete foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape. References Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofar chitectsincanada.orb/architects/view/173 on March 14, 2014. 9 - 100 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Waterloo Region Generations. (2014). William Henry Eugene Schmalz. Retrieved from htt ://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?person) =131192&tree=generations on March 14, 2014. Photos r ��/ P ;kv nt✓+u r r� r✓ � � .'u: /!if� iii IIVNVr�� r a*n , r ✓ � as h,� ✓ fr � u �, ✓urn'av�i'Ilr�r✓ ,'/S� ,�., r ;,;pry Ali r ar� 0 CP o u r w G r �W ���i✓�r IK l�7 ��f r /����i �` ���✓ ��/� 7�r"�µ�� �� yµ7° � � , t ,;r✓ u� �✓e n �w i� f r pHtSyry �`� 3 r�C i,Y�i ✓` iYy(✓�'dr r� r � �d/li�l!! I'e"r i�l k ( u v., � r"n rr 1/r-r alb '� �Yr'r'i r�r L`m!l(�� r✓ H v ,� /r r1 � t ✓ra � I t�^Ir�Y✓/r ✓ I� � � '�rv/�U�l,7 + xr� yr/1i I r l 9 r✓ '� �q ✓1 r N �7;7u a m/ u i I ii r Il%7✓1��� ! Mfr��,�NµdFi `µ✓'�d h��l l�r✓µt�y, / rvi r.��J„ X71 y� / � i�vCTrtii ! 104-106 Margaret Avenue 9 - 101 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ux { Y � Y •r K ' h , r IIIi� 'It i�rf UI w, � sir ✓r✓ I� � .r rk r `� �. �, ✓Rmv, i av tip✓�i �� r'�'x� � �� �.,,�� t Uf�yr�l�f�+�l�ll f,�'wru✓ rk r .uiPlr h r✓ I.nl! 104-106 Margaret Avenue ��� � ,y✓r rF'�u/ ¢"y"`T,'Ytt,�i�" �luf� j�� �I i I� p r{F��J�k ('�if��l d�'k�l�l�� � III I � ✓��>� `f �f f ofd� „'I�tl �d�✓J✓irk �XV`�i'yv� t'/ f>q� `kki If � i P' ✓ � � >� ✓ 7y"�,�ra" lilt�y � �,.,,, �� a ,k ktf �°✓//���v�'fr�l Wi �1 i�"p-1m '¢... y i ✓ � ray n��m,� ��.,� �������,/�` n��� � hh✓ ¢ � ;r�f� P i xry ��� ¢ / ' ✓ rlk �d/ t��`a � dl ���fin! w✓f� / rm � /d 7 � a � � d ,fix ,ur��i� ��!✓Jy'f r<h'�� ��'y/ it 1 ✓ ✓+f� rtk � / A , u I �p^ryIry 104-106 Margaret Avenue (left) and 100 Margaret Avenue (right) 9 - 102 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 104-106 Margaret Avenue Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: August 7, 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: projecting central bay; multi coloured brick;glass block; angled corners; concrete sills and door surround 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9 - 103 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: group of three along east side of Margaret Avenue; close together at same setback 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 9 - 104 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 112 Margaret Avenue 112 j' 0 k k �' ,w, "" � ;, ,•, Y Gh .y, k 4 9�5 /� i„• R .� i. //�i/� mow.^ Municipal Address: 112 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Plan 34 Part Lot 3 and 4 Year Built: 1941 Architectural Style: Vernacular with Gothic and Art Deco influences Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Apartments Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 112 Margaret Avenue is a three storey mid-20th century brick apartment built in the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences. The apartment building is situated on a 0.14 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Margaret Avenue between Breithaupt Street and Wellington Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the apartment building. Heritage Value 112 Margaret Avenue is recognized for its design, contextual and associative values. 9 - 105 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The design value relates to the architecture of the apartment. The apartment is a unique example of the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences. The apartment is in good condition. The apartment is three storeys in height and features: hipped roof; angled corners; symmetrical full height central projecting gable bay at entrance; red-yellow brick; pair of 8 pane wood frame windows in centre with rusticated stone stills; 3/1 rectangular wood frame windows with rusticated stone sills; 6/1 rectangular wood frame windows with rusticated stone sills; Gothic shaped double wood doors with glazing and rusticated stone quoin surround; and, rusticated stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape. The associative value relates to, W.H.E. Schmalz, the architect who designed the apartment. W.H.E. Schmalz was a native of Berlin (now Kitchener) and son of former Mayor W.H. Schmalz (Waterloo Region Generations, 2014). W.H.E. Schmalz graduated from the University of Toronto and was known as the Twin Cities' dean of architects (Waterloo Region Generations, 2014). He, along with B.A. Jones, designed the 1922 Kitchener City Hall (Hill, 2009). The firm of Schmalz & Jones maintained an office until 1926 (Hill, 2009). W.H.E. served with the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in 1916; served with distinction on the Waterloo Historical Society, the Ontario Historical Society, the Ontario Pioneer Community Foundation and the Waterloo County Hall of Fame; and, held office in, or was a long-time member of, the Chamber of Commerce, the Kitchener Parks Board, the K-W Hospital Board, the Kiwanis Club, the Kitchener Musical Society, the Kitchener Young Men's Club, the Kitchener Racing Canoe Club and the Lutheran Church (Waterloo Region Generations, 2014). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 112 Margaret Avenue resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Vernacular architectural style with Gothic and Art Deco influences, including: • hipped roof; • angled corners; • symmetrical full height central projecting gable bay at entrance; • red-yellow brick; • windows and window openings, including: ■ pair of 8 pane wood frame windows in centre with rusticated stone stills; ■ 3/1 rectangular wood frame windows with rusticated stone sills; ■ 6/1 rectangular wood frame windows with rusticated stone sills; • doors and door openings, including: ■ Gothic shaped double wood doors with glazing and rusticated stone quoin surround; and, • rusticated stone foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape. 9 - 106 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE References Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofar chitectsincanada.orb/architects/view/173 on March 14, 2014. Waterloo Region Generations. (2014). William Henry Eugene Schmalz. Retrieved from htt ://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson. hp?person) =131192&tree=generations on March 14, 2014. Photos I w a, w 4� I 6 wr I f M1 I�"II rr"a 112 Margaret Avenue 9 - 107 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE "a I L �p r� I y Q"uY 4 112 Margaret Avenue 9 - 108 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 112 Margaret Avenue Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: August 7, 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: projecting central bay; multi coloured brick; glass block; angled corners; concrete sills and door surround 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9 - 109 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: group of three along east side of Margaret; close together at same setback 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 9 - 110 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 136-140 Margaret Avenue uumuuuuuuuuuuu �m mn uuu m a.r� a VVVVVVVVVIIII0IIIIIV00Iml 4 , ���J%%c���j%�� �� �I,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII n IIIIIIIIIIIIIII uuuuuun uuu uumlm VI �.Grp d '140 � ������..,� i i/ r .. m ,,,_.�........... ... ,... "" m�uuuum II uuuuuum0000,11,11111111111110001,1111,111111111111I uuuuu uml°I .......... � umppum Municipal Address: 136-140 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Plan 376 Lot 455 Part 453, 454 and 456 Year Built: 1947 (chapel); 1964 (chuch) Architectural Style: Modern (1964) Original Owner: Grace Lutheran Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 136-140 Margaret Avenue is a one storey mid-20th century church built in the Modern architectural style. The church is situated on a 1.07 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Margaret Avenue between Louisa Street and Adam Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church. Heritage Value 136-140 Margaret Avenue is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the 1964 church. The church is a unique example of the Modern architectural style. The church is in good condition. The church is one storey in height and features: gambrel roof; irregular plan; vaulted second storey set upon low linear first 9 - 111 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE floor base; symmetrical full height windows on second storey; overhang entry with stone facing pillars; single pane rectangular stain glass windows on sides; stone and vertical board cladding; and, 1964 date stone. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue and Louisa Street streetscapes. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 136-140 Margaret Avenue resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Modern architectural style of the house, including: • gambrel roof; • irregular plan; • vaulted second storey set upon low linear first floor base; • windows and window openings, including: • symmetrical full height windows on second storey; • single pane rectangular stain glass windows on sides; • overhang entry with stone facing pillars; • stone and vertical board cladding; and, • 1964 date stone. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue and Louisa Street streetscapes. Photos a�. 136-140 Margaret Avenue 9 - 112 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE fit , w K � l p'rvrt d r u r ) i1ii�il�/°r 136-140 Margaret Avenue 1 4 hw f 136-140 Margaret Avenue 9 - 113 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. w� r i 136-140 Margaret Avenue 9 - 114 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 136 Margaret Avenue Period: 1947/1964 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Grace Lutheran Church Date: August 15, 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: 1947 date stone; 1964 date stone Sub-Committee: primary interest is 1964 building; roofline 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9 - 115 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ *1 features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ *2 taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N L _L Notes Sub-Committee: *1 —1947= No, 1964 =yes; *2—1947= No, 1964= N/A 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 Field Team: Grace Lutheran Church since 1947 9 - 116 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 148 Margaret Avenue a D4 111�f� a ii Municipal Address: 148 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 451 and 454 Year Built: 1947 (original); 1955 (garage converted to den); 1969 (addition); 1974 (turret and bay window) Architectural Style: Tudor Revival Original Owner: George Kreutner Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 148 Margaret Avenue is a two storey mid-20th century house built in the Tudor Revival architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.30 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Margaret Avenue between Louisa Street and Adam Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 148 Margaret Avenue is recognized for its design, contextual and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Tudor Revival architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: irregular plan; hipped roof with front gable; central tower with conical roof; stained glass windows; half-timber detailing; stone and brick cladding; bay window; rectangular windows; wood door with glazing and transom; wood garage door with wood man door; and, concrete foundation. 9 - 117 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape. The associative value relates to the builder Michael Kraus. Michael Kraus was an entrepreneur with experience in flooring, apartment building and land development (Howitt, 2013). He was also a minister, apostle, district apostle and national leader of the New Apostolic Church. At one point he provided the church office in the Kraus plant and helped to finance and build the New Apostolic Church on Margaret Avenue in Kitchener (Howitt, 2013). His employment history included working in the Baetz furniture factory, building apartments, importing upholstery fabric, manufacturing fabric and carpets and yarn extrusion (Floor Daily, 2014). At the time of his death his company, Kraus Carpet Mills, was the largest Canadian-owned carpet manufacturer (Floor Daily, 2014). According to his obituary "his tireless work and inspiring leadership had an enduring impact on the business and church communities that he served with distinction"(Floor Daily, 2014). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 148 Margaret Avenue resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Tudor Revival architectural style of the house, including: • irregular plan; • hipped roof with front gable; • central tower with conical roof; • windows and window openings, including: • stained glass windows; • bay window; • rectangular windows; • half-timber detailing; • stone and brick cladding; • wood door with glazing and transom; • wood garage door with wood man door; and, • concrete foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape. References Floor Daily. (2014). Kraus Carpet Founder Dies. Retrieved on March 20, 2014 from htt ://www.floordaily.net/flooring®news/kraus caret founder dies.asx. Howitt, C. (2013). New boss hoping to take Kraus on magic carpet ride. Retrieved on March 27, 2014 from http://www.therecord.com/news-story/2624986®new®boss-hoping-to®take®kraus-on- magic-caret®ride/. 9 - 118 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos Illl � 4qA � df " r 1 � � h a � s BE 148 Margaret Avenue r, "fix �m 148 Margaret Avenue 9 - 119 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ,�iu � �s � �� jy�gVpry� ✓'�A� �^�n � ��,� pp � r p a 44id, d t x W �" ✓ i� /w � 20)r� 148 Margaret Avenue V 1 h �q �o �Olrnmy� W 1 h, i r e i Y 148 Margaret Avenue 9 - 120 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 148 Margaret Avenue Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: August 15, 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: tudor;turret; stone base; leaded glass windows 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ original outbuildin s, notable 9 - 121 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: matching pillars for light 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 9 - 122 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 41 Pandora Avenue North F, „ 45 arN � r j ii 3:5 r ...,,......,,...... Municipal Address: 41 Pandora Avenue North Legal Description: Plan 129 Lot 52 Part Lot 51 Year Built: c. 1922/1923 Architectural Style: Arts and Crafts Original Owner: Clayton Peterson Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 41 Pandora Avenue North is a one-and-a-half storey early 20th century brick house built in the Arts and Crafts architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.12 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Pandora Avenue North between Duke Street East and Weber 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 house. Heritage Value 41 Pandora Avenue North is recognized for its design and contextual values. 9 - 123 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Arts and Crafts architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: unusual composition; rooflines plus clay tile like roof material; large central gable dormer with grouping of 6 windows; large brackets under roofline of porch; brick construction; grouping of four 6/1 wood frame windows; grouping of five 10 paned windows; grouping of windows on side elevations; two rectangular bay projections; rusticated stone lintels and sills; and, rusticated concrete block foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Pandora Avenue North streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 41 Pandora Avenue North resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Arts and Crafts architectural style of the house, including: • unusual composition; • rooflines plus clay tile like roof material; • large central gable dormer with grouping of 6 windows; • large brackets under roofline of porch; • brick construction; • windows and window openings, including: • grouping of four 6/1 wood frame windows; • grouping of five 10 paned windows; • grouping of windows on side elevations; • two rectangular bay projections; • rusticated stone lintels and sills; and, • rusticated concrete block foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Pandora Avenue North streetscape. 9 - 124 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos 'WIIIIIWiif r/ yi /� � � r r X1'1 h r q J � a�i JiWNWG� ni i �� �+.�Ulj,/✓� reP r iN �'d rFaryr!! �°f/!'/��f� Vi;� >Y r��/�/��1��1�%�'�I�jll��%1l"�����/�if%rl J��/�%%il�,fwru � iJG .Ys✓M� � I�J 1NlkrY� mr 1�, �/�✓��N'�ra i{�w r�: ��r%'f1�I�J/�jt%��1�//�%���1'��rJl�� ��rr���(�t� ���� ra,�,,.,. ,���;�f/Jq°��1� ,w'u,�._, ,mow �� r 41 Pandora Avenue North "°✓n Wow ,IOW.�M? "'��ro'tl; i t t r r., r d 41 Pandora Avenue North 9 - 125 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 41 Pandora Avenue North Period: Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: June 13, 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: unusual composition; rooflines plus clay tile roof material;windows; extensive use of stone (lintels, sills,etc.) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 - 126 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Field Team: matching garage 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: original windows 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 9 - 127 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 79-81 St. George Street 01111 mj101p0III uu 1111111111111� r, 3'¢ Municipal Address: 79-81 St. George Street Legal Description: GCT Sub Lot 17 Part Lot 205 Year Built: 1887 Architectural Style: Italianate Original Owner: John Sage Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 79-81 St. George Street is a two storey late 19th century brick house built in the Italianate architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.29 acre parcel of land located on the south side of St George Street between Peter Street and Hebel Place in the Cedar Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 79-81 St. George Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. 9 - 128 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The design value relates to the architecture of the semi-detached dwelling. The building is a unique example of the Italianate architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: hipped roof; decorative wood soffits and brackets; buff brick; symmetrical front fagade; one storey bay windows; front porch; segmentally arched 1/1 windows with brick voussoirs; wood front with glazing, transom and brick voussoirs; and, wood storm door. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the St. George Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 79-81 St. George Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Italianate architectural style of the house, including: • hipped roof; • decorative wood soffits and brackets; • buff brick; • symmetrical front fagade; • one storey bay windows; • front porch; • windows and window openings, including: ■ segmentally arched 1/1 windows with brick voussoirs; • doors and door openings, including: • wood front door with glazing, transom and brick voussoirs; and, • wood storm door. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the St. George Street streetscape. 9 - 129 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos M � r 1 s ( 1 �0d1 Y f,u I �✓��%��� 1�7 ����1%Ii✓`r i r�/i��/r /�✓/i��j/l�r�����f ✓ r `l $ �y'�, l�r, �✓Lr�i'/ y r, rJir�l�✓�/�/ 1 ' � ��1limf, 79-81 St. George Street Yr✓ i i F r r /✓ l✓l✓ I / / /�Wl'I fir; � l�✓��/f� �%; y I I�ui�N iY uuiiq ` 79-81 St. George Street 9 - 130 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE �r,�+e�"�ar /r y/���io/%��✓r'�� %fit >jl��l� r l "" A r r r ✓ " ` Bpi/rr �I%/r l� / 1 ' o�i s a i wrr✓✓/!� „ �f �i�//� �>'�r/�f��� III'. ���'''"� � �✓`iii,. ,r� � � fim r�/J �� r r�r��//�//�i r ��/��>�"'����11'�4'd�m�� r,. rr ri, �i rx�r F»� '✓>rw�ul a /r�fi�/r/��P %� U�/''������+�fl��ed��rSwii/// r,r,�/�,, ;� r r�.��td���lr�ar�✓,F�rrt,V4�!+�w" �r�i...r//�/IP/�%/i;�/����������6�1��f/`i�%i/,�,�� I��dl�a'tir,(xll gym+� -rr�`�C,Pyat/ i � ;rra/j/%/a;r�//i�r oir/r��//�ill,����,,,,✓ruin/ �//�j/��� 79-81 St. George Street 9 - 131 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 79-81 St. George Street Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Date: June 27, 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: semi; rare; yellow brick;wood soffits and brackets;segmentally arched windows; front door with transom Sub-Committee: rare Italianate semi/duplex 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 ❑? 9 - 132 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 9 - 133 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 82-84 Waterloo Street IN SKI //r l 1 TO ry � ti n v, Municipal Address: 82-84 Waterloo Street Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 417 Year Built: 1923 Architectural Style: Vernacular Original Owner: Walter F. Nowak (grocer and butcher) Original Use: Grocer and Butcher Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 82-84 Waterloo Street is a two storey early 20th century brick building constructed in the Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.07 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Waterloo Street between Shanley Street and Louisa Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park 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. 9 - 134 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 82-84 Waterloo Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the type of building. The building is a rare example of a low rise commercial residential building. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: flat roof with parapet at front; brick construction; decorative concrete floral motif date stone; original window openings with concrete sills; decorative brickwork; and, arched entrance to upper floor. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Waterloo Street streetscape. The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the building. The original owner was Nowak-Poleczny Co, which was a grocery and butcher (Vernon's, 1923-24). W.F. Nowak was the founder of Kitchener Packers, which was once the largest independent meat packer in Waterloo Region (KW Record, 1989). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 82-84 Waterloo Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Vernacular architectural style of the house, including: • flat roof with parapet at front; • brick construction; • decorative concrete floral motif date stone; • original window openings with concrete sills; • decorative brickwork; and, • arched entrance to upper floor. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Waterloo Street streetscape. References K-W Record. (1989). Obituaries: Walter Nowak founded meat packing company. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Nowak, M. A. Memories of my father. Vernon's. (1923-24). City of Kitchener-Waterloo (Ontario) Directory. Vernon's: Hamilton, Ontario. 9 - 135 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos u uypp 4 J 14 mill r nli h e 1 f/ r 82-84 Waterloo Street 9 - 136 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 82-84 Waterloo Street Period: c. 1930 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 ❑ ❑ 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: 1930;decorative floral motif datestone; roofline; brickwork above windows Sub-Committee: notable as a type of building with main floor commercial and upper floor residential 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 9 - 137 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE original outbuildings, notable 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: alterations at main floor 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 Sub-Committee:original use significant because we are slowly losing these types of buildings in residential neighbourhoods; "ma and pa"or"five and dime"; require additional research on the property but also want to understand the history of these types of buildings and if they are being lost across Ontario 9 - 138 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 130 Weber Street West )y ii /,/ � F�/� @ � r J1 ww Or t F j I 3q h `s 135 �/ �� dpi �1/ ��. e/ '131 �g polm.' g��� "8.2 Municipal Address: 130 Weber Street West Legal Description: Plan 376 Part Lot 157 to 159 Year Built: c. 1919 (original building demolished); 1946 (existing building) Architectural Style: Industrial Vernacular with subtle Art Deco influences Original Owner: Charles Doerr Original Use: Charles Doerr's grocery store and Dare Foods factory Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 130 Weber Street West is a two storey early 20th century brick building built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with subtle Art Deco influences. The building is situated on a 0.59 acre parcel of land located on the north east corner of Breithaupt Street and Weber Street West in the Mt. Hope Huron Park 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. 9 - 139 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Value 130 Weber Street West is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with subtle Art Deco influences. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: flat roof; concrete floral motifs and banding; original window openings either with concrete sill or concrete window surround; angled corner with entrance facing intersection; and, concrete door surround. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Breithaupt Street and Weber Street West streetscapes. The setting is historically linked with the original home of Charles Doerr, the founder of C.H. Doerr Co. Ltd., the grocery store that preceded Dare Foods (Stantec, 2011). The house was converted to apartments in 1942 to house factory workers in response to industrial growth near the train station (City of Kitchener, 1942; Stantec, 2011). The historic and associative values relate to the original owner, Charles Doerr, of Dare Foods and the architect of the 1946 building, B.A. Jones. The business began in 1892 when C.H. Doerr started making cookies at the back of his store (DeRuyter, 2004). The original plant opened in 1919 at the corner of Weber and Breithaupt (Moyer, 1979). A fire destroyed the original building in 1943 and the company moved to their current location on Kingsway Drive (KW Record, 1995). B.A. Jones was the architect for the building constructed in 1946 (City of Kitchener, 1946). B.A. Jones attended the Toronto Technical School and worked as a draftsman for Frank Darling, in the office of 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). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 130 Weber Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with subtle Art Deco influences, including: • flat roof; • concrete floral motifs and banding; • original window openings either with concrete sill or concrete window surround; • angled corner with entrance facing intersection; and, • concrete door surround. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Breithaupt Street and Weber Street West streetscapes. References City of Kitchener. (1942). Building Permit#3045 (136 Weber Street West). Kitchener, Ontario. 9 - 140 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener (1946). Building Permit#5282 (136 Weber Street West). Kitchener, Ontario. DeRuyter, R. (2004, May 8). Dare sets its sights on the global stage. Kitchener Waterloo Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.orb/architects/view/173 on October 4, 2013. KW Record (1995, October, 25). Then and now. Kitchener this week: Kitchener, Ontario. Moyer, B. (1979). Kitchener Yesterday Revisited: An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd: Kitchener, Ontario. Stantec. (2011). Draft Report Heritage Impact Assessment Weber Street Widening Kitchener Ontario. Stantec: Kitchener, Ontario. Photos i 130 Weber Street West 9 - 141 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE r d �u iiiii � �� VrPY � uMutll l ��11l�III�IIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIU➢1�� I�111111�11�11�111111����1��Il��011�����1������� �� 0 130 Weber Street West 9 - 142 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ( i/ j r f i �n�miU�uG��i✓� �0A6+ID�rm�rt��'�vNJr'r , o. 130 Weber Street West (Weber Street Elevation) cu r ,1/ / �Iii��r ✓ r/�/ / r / � / / �r r//✓�� �%��/� �/pi/��,,J�11��I� r /��r �/�//1 il✓ o r /r � j r r r r//ii <�i//���/�i�l��/ � +r I/ / 130 Weber Street West (Breithaupt Street Elevation) 9 - 143 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 130 Weber 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: red brick; floral motifs; angled corner;door surround 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 9 - 144 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 9 - 145 , • 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 r / j o / r %/% ouu uuuuuuuu� iii% rrr ,, �Iu / /iii..... rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. / r/ / r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII %"„<; „ IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� m VumII IIIIII IIIIII WE 11............ IIIIII/% /iii j rr .... .../ /iii / /i � / " � � j/ //� � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIMIII � / � uuuuuuuuum aa N AD / ///i� � � ulullllllllllllllllllllll m uum uuu �j 3 .� (� � N uuu uuuuuuuuuuuuu 3 � N N O" 4 = uuuuuuul�uuuuuum Lm th s s /////a Q) 3 m i o C} .x U 3 10 c cu (n tU U 0) ■� — E w- t) ' mluuuuuumi q) 3 N +. uuuuuuuuu m°1uuuuuuuuo lu C33 U? U p w m 2r 0 p f3 i " S3 (B � c ^� C i p cumw mllllV y- N N Q 3 � Q C3? / f/ 6} Vuuuuuuuum ■� L' (.j � � Q � �,,, D � m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NN �� uuuuuuuu '?' Q 0 , 0 CS 16 m 9? m 0 � to => T w O Qj O 0 c W i5- -c %%/ "'11111 mllllll' m "� �uuuuuumu -0 -c ■� � � ,� ������/ R3 /,,, uuu uuuuuuuuuuuuu u L 2 '" / "iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� �iw O � � ��� ��j,O/�; � IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII r T' N Clr5 IIIIII �!!!!! 9-149 JI l gyp, tl� � h , III %„ CAI. l / ' J { l , rr /✓r p y F� I a IIII ill m�l ' li llllllllV MO. r i IIIIIIIII j n � � ' �4 lluu^HIV � Joie �i IVIIIIIII �.� V „� �II � trt, ; J, A t i uuuuuuulllllm J�/ �j/, /l�/r •. t � pp ;� Yw, „,,,,, IRS l / l / , as i i r i ........... iiiii U 9 0) ,"C R LM Q Q �. Q 0 cu N 4— (ll ■ O q 41 (1) � 0 = D s. L N cB 3 p Q cu cu, �- a� cu o C © ccu ° .2 n,, 7 CL U -r%, cu c ca 70 0 _ c it �? C A cu a 4 a � u� > 0 O c D D U U U R3 CL 70 70 -a C0)U Cdr i Rif X4) cu (D , V 0) (n N L L L C) a N ±. N _ a) (n N Z C D Q � to a O O O O O O � L L L. LL f� Q a w 19t Z, Z 9-151 / ��j✓% 101 �� � j� ��j.,,r�iiiiiiiii%„ .^�"� r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r .......... ON i <; / it rrr iii' rr ,,,,,, ,, rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrr� i ���iiiiU��//iiiiiiiiiiiiii/////// iii / ....."; ,,,,,,,,,,,, "" / ;;;;� ;, %iii/// � liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii/r /// %%iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii „ � ������ •�' ,;; ,,,, > c S C i a) ++ cu ' to rrrrrrrrrrr �- -- Z 0 to ta 1-0 N c s b cU N 4O=- C5 s r 2 �;,,,, t/S ZI) N c [L 4 N th � U� � — sv � — N "C3 � f2. m (� -C + 4C to c 0) ? Q c 4 0- rrrrrrr 5 _ C C ° — L T-O i O �? r/ N E C) UT e 0- r 0 s.. o o Q) N #mil E CL 0 ° m 0 ai r vi cn ����° — o n - _ �. Q s u� 0 a �? cn N cn c�u cis 0) c i C3 — c7 L- �- +. 3 +r 3 N �tS S rii o O O (7 C 0 � is ■� Z O U 'f} C) - � 0 O Sur li.luo "ouumuiiiuuuuuuuul oil rrr/ "�/ N .� Q/ ��„ 0 5 0 �// 1111D, �' �; ,,, N rrr ��� uuuuo // muuuuuu uuuuuuuuu 9-152 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 9 - 153 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 9 - 154 ���thi i�llllllll°IIII' 1 W F y d 6((fifif lip VI / N Illl������lllllllllu��� � ° a "' �uuuuilllllllll - ° Q F Q N o U � ............ Z h W W 9 - 155 Ig `o C CL El m IlViiu��° n -- o v a o u� Q v, Q C: v, W 03 w o � � o L c � d o a), CIO = m d o CD U V c a (n D � d U D • • 9 - 156 of " j/ / i / / z3 / / / / / / / / / / / / / J Q (1) t CL a- 4-' q) ■ 3 U) cr cn cn cb (U Q) Q Co 0 Q CZ Co 4-4 0 CL 157 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 1 ✓ / , / j rrrrrr,. / / J r / / / / / r r / / / r , / / / r/ / / / rrr / / %r r r /iiorrrr�// r i / / / /iii rr / / „ rrrrr o/ I. rrr/r -- /// C�r s.. 4-j 70 CU - o 4-- CIO ca C �1-- Z3 / . -}-+ N CU N mmmmmo a) rrrr i, 9 160 Jlllii i J r r m y iy w I r w f, r s � 1 F Yy. v w' i � � 1 IF f 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 / o / / / / i / i a , , / Sri / / At � �} 0 s.. ' + 2. .., , � C ,,,,,q ,, D O cu 4.4 -L Jc c tU M O ?, !/3 U — C: �c > • N p #-' , ■ •O ,,,.N N •N _ p s.. '� 4 +� U �Q rL cu cn CU - cu N r . -�--� �t3 � / � ) �-.� / ; + C: O to Z3 R3 _ ■— D L.C:L - 163 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 IN �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 - 166 IIIIIIII� ► I mull UmoI�ll Mill 1 ► 1 1 1 ► 1 1 ► /%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/ •/iii„ / �j r / ,, rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr / / / / / / / / / ,,, rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr „ , / / / / / / / , / / olio / / / / / / /rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr/�// / �, o i / r r/ r r ir i / i , r r/ r / rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r//rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrr///rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr , IMF CZ ( ;; CD • X cn cn CN LO cq" cu r„ i L / L 168 April 10, 2014 Municipal Heritage Register Frequently Asked Questions 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. The majority of properties have also completed Step 2. Information packages will be sent to owners within the next two weeks. Owners are encouraged to participate in the process by contacting staff, submitting written comments and attending the June Td Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. Q2. 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. Q3. Are heritage approvals required for listed properties that apply for a building permit to conduct interior or exterior work to the building? No. Q4. Will the heritage status 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 designated vacant heritage buildings. Similar to normal property standards requirements, designated vacant heritage buildings are required to maintain a minimum level of maintenance. Q5. 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. Q6. What happens if I want to develop my property and require 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; 9 - 169 April 10, 2014 • 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. Q7. 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. Q8. 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. Q9. 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. 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. 9 - 170 April 10, 2014 Q12. 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. Q13. 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. Q14. 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. Q15. 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. Q16. 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. 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. 9 - 171