Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-15-035 - Listing of Non-Designated Properties of Cultureal Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register Staff Report ��c t R Community Services Department wmkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: April 7, 2015 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: Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 DATE OF REPORT: February 25, 2015 REPORT NO.: CSD-15-023 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-15- 023: • 141 Borden Avenue North; • 40 Bridge Street East; • 255 Carwood Avenue; • 442 Caryndale Drive; • 98 Corfield Drive; • 255 Fischer Hallman Road; • 31 Herbert Street; • 43 Highland Road West; • 135 Highland Road West; • 10 Huron Road; • 825 King Street West; • 300 Lookout Lane; • Old Mill Road (Ferrie Mill); • 1755 Old Mill Road; • 105 Onward Avenue; • 754 Queen Street South; • 834 Queens Boulevard; • 5 Rusholme Road; ***This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 2 - 1 • 44 Rusholme Road; • 285 Simeon Street; • 100 St. Leger Street; • 394 Stirling Avenue South; • 396-398 Stirling Avenue South; • 217 Strange Street; • 265 Weber Street East; • 278 Weber Street East; and, • 49 Woolwich Street. BACKGROUND: The Planning Division and Heritage Kitchener work programs identify the continued development of the Municipal Heritage Register as a project to be completed in 2015. 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. One additional group of proposed property listings will be recommended this year. After 2015, the Municipal Heritage Register will become a core business function with ongoing maintenance and consideration of proposed property listings on a case-by-case basis. 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 Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) 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. 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 40 Bridge Street East, 255 Carwood Avenue, 442 Caryndale Drive, 98 Corfield Drive, 255 Fischer Hallman Road, 43 Highland Road West, 135 Highland Road West, 10 Huron Road, 300 Lookout Lane, Old Mill Road (Ferrie Mill), 1755 Old 2 - 2 Mill Road, 754 Queen Street South, 834 Queens Boulevard, 5 Rusholme Road, 44 Rusholme Road, 100 St Leger Street, 394 Stirling Avenue South, 396-398 Stirling Avenue South, 217 Strange Street, 278 Weber Street East and 49 Woolwich Street 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 141 Borden Avenue North, 31 Herbert Street, 825 King Street West, 105 Onward Avenue, 285 Simeon Street and 265 Weber Street East 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, mailed an information package and invited to participate in Step 3 of the listing process. Step 3 involves the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting scheduled for April 7, 2015 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 property is attached to this report as Appendix `A'. 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 January 20, 2015 inviting owners to attend a Public Open House regarding the Municipal Heritage Register on February 10, 2015. The owners of 43 Highland Road West and 5 Rusholme Road 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 March 24, 2015. Following the public open house, staff received correspondence from one property owner. The owner of 43-45 Highland Road West submitted a comment form asking if there were any other 2 - 3 resources that could be reviewed to learn more about the history of the property. Written comments received from property owners are attached as Appendix `C'. An information package was mailed to all property owners on February 23, 2015. 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 copy of the Statement of Significance 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 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 March 24, 2015. Property owners were also invited to submit comments and attend the April 7, 2015 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 two property owners. The owner of 285 Simeon Street submitted written comments acknowledging the City's efforts to conserve heritage and confirmed support for listing the property. The owner of the Ferrie Mill on Old Mill Road submitted written comments advising that the GRCA does not oppose the listing but wants to ensure that it does not negatively impact their ability to affordably manage public safety on the property. Staff have clarified that listing does not regulate alterations such as removing a portion of the ruin wall. Staff have encouraged the GRCA to maintain open lines of communication with respect to the condition of the ruin wall in order to ensure that the Region, City and GRCA can work together to consider all reasonable options to conserve the ruin wall. CONCLUSION: Identifying specific local cultural heritage resources is a vital first step toward upholding the City's responsibility to protect and conserve its heritage. The subject properties have undergone thorough and objective evaluation through the City's public process for listing non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The result of the evaluation is that the properties meet the City's criteria for listing as non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. REVIEWED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning APPENDIX `A': Statements of Significance APPENDIX `B': Public Open House Materials: • Display Panels • Staff Presentation 2 - 4 • Frequently Asked Questions • Heritage Information Sheet APPENDIX `C': Written comments submitted by property owners 2 - 5 Statement of Significance 141-149 Borden Avenue North el . h m 2 916 i iv ��'° uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuumuum h yy pryry yy p uuuum�uu o''h 0 ' h afl i ii . J1. 0 f' I 12 P Municipal Address: 141-149 Borden Avenue North Legal Description: Plan 655 1, 2, 3, 4 & 33 Part Lot 32 Year Built: 1948 Architectural Style: Mid Century Vernacular Original Owner: Martin Kuchler Original Use: Residential Apartments Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 141-149 Borden Avenue North contains 2 three storey mid-20th century brick apartment buildings built in the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style. The apartment buildings are situated on a 0.60 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Borden Avenue North and Weber 2 - 6 Street East in the Auditorium Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the apartment buildings. Heritage Value 141-149 Borden Avenue North is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the apartment buildings. The apartment buildings are unique examples of the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style. The apartment buildings are in good condition. The apartment buildings are three storeys in height and feature: 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 "Parkview Apts" and "Borden 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 Borden Avenue North streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 141-149 Borden Avenue North resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style of the apartment buildings, 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 "Parkview Apts" and "Borden 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 Borden Avenue North streetscape. 2 - 7 Photos ��Ilill 141-149 Borden Avenue North r i t i v ✓;iii /p� , , ;ir„1ua���urJlor�jYiodw�v ,iii//i'ie,ili 141-149 Borden Avenue North — "Parkview Apts” 2 - 8 i vy ii� l l I �f 7 uMIN FIrN�rt� oir» 141-149 Borden Avenue North — "Borden Apts" 1, �f G ' a i 3% l r�% ., r 141-149 Borden Avenue North 2 - 9 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 141-149 Borden Ave. N. Period: Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: #141 — Borden Apts, #149— Parkview Apts Date: July 11, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team - pair of buildings, similar to apartment buildings at 105-117 Onward Avenue — "Onward Apts" (two buildings attached), look at entrance lights in comparison with other buildings, two detached `H' shaped buildings, red brick, concrete door surround with black vitrolite; Sub-Committee—front is attractive, subtle details (brick headers, etc.), significant with grouping of other similarly designed buildings, notable and unique type of building, unique design CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark No No 2 - 10 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — prominent setting on intersection facing school and parkland INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 11 Statement of Significance 40 Bridge Street West I"]ff 50 3 3 01 4 q IJ 44 "aw/m, I If Municipal Address: 40 Bridge Street West Legal Description: GCT Part Lot 59 Year Built: 1933 Architectural Style: Gothic Original Owner: Emmanuel Evangelical Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 20 Bridge Street West is a early-20 th century brick church built in the Gothic architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.72 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Bridge Street West and Woolwich Street in the Bridgeport West Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church building. Heritage Value 20 Bridge Street West is recognized for its design, contextual and historic and associative values. 2 - 12 The design value relates to the architecture of the church. The church is a notable example of the Gothic architectural style. The church is in good condition. The church features: rectangular plan; side gable roof with offset front projecting gable entrance; multi-coloured brick; brick buttressing with concrete details; ogee shaped stained glass windows in groups of three per bay with brick voussoirs and concrete sills; 1/1 windows in basement; front entrance decorative door surround; front doors; sign above front entrance that reads "Emmanuel Evangelical Church"; cross in gable end; date stone that reads 1933"; chimney; and, concrete foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the church makes to the character of the neighbourhood, including its presence as a landmark within the neighbourhood. The historic and associative values relate to the congregation along with the buildings architect and contractor. The Emmanuel Evangelical Church congregation in Bridgeport (now Kitchener) dates back to as early as 1876 (Bridgeport United, 2014). The congregation bought the property in 1878 to hold Sunday school. A white brick church was built in 1889 and the current church was built in 1933. The church was designed by W.H.E. Schmalz (Kolarisch & Horne, 1984-85). The church was built by Oscar Wiles (Bridgeport United, 2014; Kolarisch & Horne, 1984-85). The one storey addition was constructed in 1958 to serve as an educational wing (Bridgeport United, 2014). The congregation changed their name to Bridgeport United in 1987 (Bridgeport United, 2014). Oscar Wiles founded Oscar Wiles General Contractor in 1927, which later became Oscar Wiles and Sons Ltd. (KW Record, 1982). The company's first job was the former KW Record building at Duke Street and Queen Street (KW Record, 1982). Oscar's five sons: Arthur, Donald, Peter, Bill and Richard assisted with the family business, which built houses, churches, schools and factories. 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 40 Bridge Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Gothic architectural style of the church, including: • rectangular plan; • side gable roof with offset front projecting gable entrance; • multi-coloured brick; • brick buttressing with concrete details; • ogee shaped stained glass windows in groups of three per bay with brick voussoirs and concrete sills; • 1/1 windows in basement; 2 - 13 • front entrance decorative door surround; • front doors; • sign above front entrance that reads "Emmanuel Evangelical Church"; • cross in gable end; • date stone that reads "1933"; • chimney; and, • concrete foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the church and contribution that it makes to the character of the neighbourhood. References Bridgeport United. (2014). History. A short history of Bridgeport United. Retrieved from _htt ://www.bridgeportunited.org/history+ on November 26, 2014. Kolarisch, D. & M. Horne. (1984-85). Historic Property Report. Bridgeport Emmanuel United Church. Photos 1 f Ye I r f L� i J J, i f j �.>%,>��) 40 Bridge Street West 2 - 14 r r r/ �/ ���// % / /���ire v�� �✓i � r 40 Bridge Street West /lffilpt�ur �1U4rxnurYil�ip� ��j snlra�i�sat r r r✓r,�r f/l i rp � r H , r 3 { r r 2 - 15 40 Bridge Street West 4 I � urn w;x✓ ;` � �+;J, N� � r � NJ N ®, r ✓��, 40 Bridge Street West 2 - 16 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 40 Bridge Street West Period: Field Team Initials: GZ/JS Description: Church - Gothic Date: July 23, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes No architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Yes No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes Yes region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Unknown No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 2 - 17 Notes: Field Team — landscaping is unique, church built in to hill, stain glass, arches, triple window pattern, cross with gable end, buttress brick detailing, door surround, stone detail INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — 1 story addition beside HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 18 Statement of Significance 255 Carwood Avenue ✓�//%�////�/,n // 'gym,„« � ���%�'�"/j� Y °° "^"n r�G/f/� fin+"//' ✓f 21 x,03 xi� p lei � .I✓ M r fJ wi 2 54 248 I �4m 3 a Municipal Address: 255 Carwood Avenue Legal Description: Plan 791 Part Lot 7, 58R-5178 Part 1 Year Built: c. 1885 Architectural Style: Ontario Gothic Revival Original Owner: Aaron E. Shantz Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 255 Carwood Avenue is a one-and-a-half storey mid-19th century brick house built in the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.48 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Carwood Avenue across from Caley Court in the Rockway Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 2 - 19 Heritage Value 255 Carwood Avenue is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one- and-a-half storeys in height and features: `T' plan; varied roofline with multiple gables; red brick with decorative details completed in buff brick such as quoining at the building corners and surrounds around the doors and windows; 6/6 flat headed windows; gothic arched windows; front porch including posts and scrollwork; front door between two main floor windows; door located off the side of the front porch; and, stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Carwood Avenue streetscape. Heritage Attributes • All elements related to the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style of the house, including: • one-and-a-half storey of the house; • `T' plan; • varied roofline with multiple gables; • red brick with decorative details completed in buff brick such as quoining at the building corners and surrounds around the doors and windows; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 6/6 flat headed windows; ■ gothic arched windows; • front porch including posts and scrollwork; • doors and door openings, including: • front door between two main floor windows; • door located off the side of the front porch; and, • stone foundation. 0 • 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 Carwood Avenue streetscape. 2 - 20 Photos pv �u ��hniv lyl rofiJinny � r n 1/ r 1/6jd 255 Carwood Avenue �z n R' 1 l 255 Carwood Avenue 2 - 21 u i 255 Carwood Avenue 2 - 22 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 255 Carwood Avenue Period: 1885 Field Team Initials: CM/LB/MD Description: Date: June 9, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — brick quoins; 6/6 windows — original?; aluminum storms; red and yellow brick; gothic; garage tucked in behind CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? 2 - 23 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 No Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No Unknown 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 24 Statement of Significance 442 Caryndale Drive a pp rM1 43S � � . 1 �h fqM Ij�� MM a 43 rWha � 32 1 % 4 %C4 !/ SOTIV J A/ ` ll� %1 j hhsa7 h 44� 448 i � 4,54 1 75 qi i9/ .r hh a* Municipal Address: 442 Caryndale Drive Legal Description: Biehn's Tract Part Lot 8, 58R-12012 Part 4 Year Built: c. 1870 Architectural Style: Gothic Revival Original Owner: Noah Weber Original Use: Farmhouse Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 442 Caryndale Drive is a one-and-a-half storey 19th century brick house built in the Gothic Revival architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.748 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Caryndale Drive between Chapel Hill Drive and Evenstone Avenue in the Doon South 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 442 Caryndale Drive is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Gothic Revival architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: rectangular plan with three by two bays; side gable roof with return eaves; front gable dormer; two end chimneys; red brick including decorative details such 2 - 25 as quoining at the corners and voussoirs above the door and window openings; single bay projecting open porch with deck above; front door with eleven-pane transom and five-pane sidelights; gothic arched door on second floor; original 6/6 double hung windows; and, fieldstone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Caryndale Drive streetscape. Heritage Attributes • All elements related to the Gothic Revival architectural style of the house, including: • one-and-a-half storey height; • rectangular plan with three by two bays; • side gable roof with return eaves; • front gable dormer; • two end chimneys; • red brick including decorative details such as quoining at the corners and voussoirs above the door and window openings; • single bay projecting open porch with deck above; • doors and door openings, including: • front door with eleven-pane transom and five-pane sidelights; • gothic arched door on second floor; • windows and window openings, including: ■ original 6/6 double hung windows; and, • fieldstone 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 Caryndale Drive streetscape. 2 - 26 Photos "' l��r'�fr� rlar�i3 �l���l rill�l��l��/��� r�ii��i�)IxRw��✓� �%f ° ��� �� i r f; �rr :x d / , 442 Caryndale Drive dP�'&'YIBN r x. r I r 11 442 Caryndale Drive 2 - 27 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 442 Caryndale Drive Period: Field Team Initials: GZ/ER Description: Date: September 3, 2012 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Unknown Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Unknown No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Sub-Committee—Ontario Gothic; symmetrical; quoining CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Unknown No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Unknown No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Unknown No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 2 - 28 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes No design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Sub-Committee—asphalt roof; new porch; upper door; windows (?) HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown No within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 29 Statement of Significance 98 Corfield Drive 7 k3, llll 1�1�11111/% 82 7 9 8 ? / 11111111111111111111111111111111111JJJIJJ�JJJJIIJJ J»J Municipal Address: 98 Corfield Drive Legal Description: Plan 1647 Part Block 124 Year Built: c. 1860 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 98 Corfield Drive is a two storey mid-20th century stone house built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.49 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Corfield Drive and Lackner Boulevard in the Idlewood 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 98 Corfield Drive is recognized for its design value. 2 - 30 The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is an example of the Georgian architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: side gable roof; chimneys at gable ends; stone construction; 6/6 windows; square four pane attic windows in gable ends; and, front door surround with columns and pediment. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 98 Corfield Drive resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Georgian architectural style of the house, including: • side gable roof; • chimneys at gable ends; • stone construction; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 6/6 windows; ■ square four pane attic windows in gable ends; and, • front door surround with columns and pediment. Photos I' N II 11!II� i 98 Corfield Drive n i f 98 Corfield Drive 2 - 31 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 98 Corfield Drive Period: c. 1860 Field Team Initials: AH/ER Description: Date: July 16, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or No Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Unknown Unknown landscaping or external features that complete the site? 2 - 32 Notes: Field Team — isolated from street, difficult to see, several outbuildings, one may be original INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? No Yes 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. 2 - 33 Statement of Significance 255 Fischer Hallman Road vp� " I"IFF gyp / ,p, ''ll y "",w ,•,y 'Vk ryhM1IV,�%/ hy4 �1�/ .. [A ��ee. s ,, /A/ " V V W ry // y I ly rT,° f 11-111 IMF" /i °• , q/�NW F 00 ° �. i olr'q a sq p V 9 /V/ % �w+*"" f "Po rq yW V^�W��+ ,. I III 0r"Ww,"N Fog h yva /� , h µHIV y N. BFIyy /�IVW Wh ry Municipal Address: 255 Fischer Hallman Road Legal Description: Plan 1334 Block A, Plan 1018 Part Lot 1, Plan 1019 Part Lot 2, 58R-16118 Part 5 Year Built: 1964 Architectural Style: Modern Original Owner: Waterloo Region District School Board Original Use: High School Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 255 Fischer Hallman Road is a mid-20th century brick school built in the Modern architectural style. The school is situated on a 22.77 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Fischer Hallman Road between Forest Hill Drive and Queen Boulevard in the Forest Heights Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the school. 2 - 34 Heritage Value 255 Fischer Hallman Road is recognized for its design, contextual and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the school. The school is a unique example of the Modern architectural style. The school is in good condition. The school is primarily one storey in height with a small section that includes a basement, ground floor and 2nd floor. The school features: asymmetrical design; flat roof which extends beyond walls; outdoor walkway leading from the parking lot to the main entrance covered by a scalloped roof; four courtyards (one which was converted to interior space in 1970); brick, concrete and steel building materials; stained glass windows in the main foyer; and, rectangular window openings with flat heads. The contextual values relate to the orientation of building, its link to other neighbourhood facilities and its visibility as a neighbourhood landmark. The building is oriented towards Fischer Hallman Road but also provids a functional connection to the parking lot through the use of the outdoor covered walkway. The building is physically, functionally or visually linked to the Forest Heights Pool, Forest Heights Public Library and Fischer Park. The property is an important neighbourhood landmark. The associative values relate to the architect and contractor. The original building was designed by the local architectural firm of Barnett, Rieder and Hymmen (City of Kitchener, 1963). The firm designed numerous institutional and residential buildings across Ontario. In Kitchener, the firm was responsible for the design of several local buildings, including: the Bank of Nova Scotia, Dare Biscuits Limited, Eastwood Collegiate Institute, and the Highland Baptist Church. The original building was built by Ball Brothers Ltd (City of Kitchener, 1963). Ball Brothers General Contractors was founded by Harold and Frank Ball in 1923 (Ball Construction, 2015). The local business grew and was incorporated as Ball Brothers Limited in 1930 (Ball Construction, 2015). The company remains in the Ball family and is responsible for constructing numerous buildings throughout Waterloo Region and the Province. A few local examples include: large portions of St. Mary's Hospital and Grand River Hospital; the Centre in the Square; various buildings at Conestoga College; and, the former Budd automotive plant (The Record, 2012). Heritage Attributes • All elements related to the Modern architectural style of the house, including: • asymmetrical design; • flat roof which extends beyond walls; • outdoor walkway leading from the parking lot to the main entrance covered by a scalloped roof; • four courtyards (one which was converted to interior space in 1970); • brick, concrete and steel building materials; • stained glass windows in the main foyer; and, • rectangular window openings with flat heads • All elements contributing to the contextual value, including: • orientation of the building; • link to pool, library and park; and, • presence as a neighbourhood landmark. 2 - 35 References Ball Construction. (2015). History: Standing the test of time. Retrieved on February 8, 2015 from http://www.b licon.com/index.php/about-us/history/ City of Kitchener. (1963). Building Permit#29748— New High School. The Record. (2012). Jack Ball honoured for building communities, in brick and spirt. Retrieved on February 8, 2015 from http://www.therecord.com/news® story/2598915®jack®ball®honoured®for®building®communities®in®brick®and®spirit/ Photos w ru or.. 255 Fischer Hallman Road �y it r 255 Fischer Hallman Road 2 - 36 `mom 255 Fischer Hallman Road r � ri�� 255 Fischer Hallman Road 2 - 37 � m F r r; 7j;r �f✓' r �r r i + w 255 Fischer Hallman Road + / 255 Fischer Hallman Road 2 - 38 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 255 Fischer Hallman Rd Period: 1964 Field Team Initials: MD/LB Description: Forest Heights C. I. Date: DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No Yes Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Sub-Committee — concrete form canopies and roofs are unique (not pre-fabricated); concrete shell structure; modern architectural style; asymmetry of entry; functional design drives composition and mas by providing canopy that reach to the parking lot; best representation of this style in a school CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or Yes No character of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes Yes Landmark Yes, Yes, Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Neighbourhood Neighbourhood region, city or neighbourhood? 2 - 39 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete Yes No the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 No Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? No Yes 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—association with architect Carl Rieder; representative of modern era of architecture 2 - 40 Statement of Significance 31 Herbert Street ur , I I ,M ������ff/ ,f�llll� .._.. ' Miff mMm w RON, foil MmM, mm 111 mmMmm �f�f .mM , f Mm. Municipal Address: 31 Herbert Street Legal Description: Plan 274 Part Lot 36 & 37 Year Built: 1954 Architectural Style: Mid-Century Vernacular Original Owner: J.H. Becker Original Use: Residential Apartments Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 31 Herbert Street is a three storey mid-20th century brick apartment built in the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.12 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Herbert Street between Pine Street and Union Street East in the K-W Hospital 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 31 Herbert Street is recognized for its design and contextual values. 2 - 41 The design value relates to the architecture of the apartment building. The apartment building 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; rectangular plan; multi coloured rug brick; concrete banding; ribbon of three 1/1 windows; symmetrical fagade; concrete entrance surround with the inscription "Avalon Court"; metal door with glazing, transom and sidelights; concrete detail around window above entrance, including "1954" datestone; and, concrete foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Herbert Street streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 31 Herbert Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style of the apartment, including: • flat roof; • rectangular plan; • multi coloured rug brick; • concrete banding; • ribbon of three 1/1 windows; • symmetrical fagade; • concrete entrance surround with the inscription "Avalon Court"; • metal door with glazing, transom and sidelights; • concrete detail around window above entrance, including 1954" datestone; 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 Herbert Street streetscape. 2 - 42 Photos �r,l�(��tsw�io�hsvv»uum>rl��NV� 1�s��tv�d�� �i fh uVm � w�f wuwmumi�wrwi rill • �I9'UYYffi/1m/�,o, ��r r�a� // i 31 Herbert Street VitiPi, �u } 1 1 , IVi I /�/�,✓/I j/�llJ�����lJ��t� ��, rv�1l %i /nij�/,/ ^r w 31 Herbert Street 2 - 43 x 1 any rrr >+r r/ir pa 31 Herbert Street 2 - 44 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 31 Herbert Street Period: 1954 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: Date: August 6, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team - 6-plex; example of smaller scale mid-century apartment building; concrete banding (sills, headers, entrance surround, etc); original windows; unusual pattern CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No 2 - 45 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team —first in a grouping of small apartment buildings INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 46 Statement of Significance 43-45 Highland Road West `% p mo 29 8 OF r 012 5,9 - A % r /% Municipal Address: 43-45 Highland Road West Legal Description: Plan 335 Part Lots 17 & 18, 58R-4823 Parts 1 & 2 Year Built: c. 1850-1865 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: Samuel Waite Original Use: Farmhouse Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 43-45 Highland Road West is a two storey mid-19th century building designed in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.31 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Highland Road West between Garden Avenue and Queens Boulevard in the St. Mary's Hospital Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the residential building. Heritage Value 43-45 Highland Road 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 rare example of a farmhouse converted to an apartment built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is in 2 - 47 good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: `L' plan; side gable roof with return eaves; gable dormer on front fagade; stucco; front porch with shed roof, posts, brackets and frieze; front porch with hipped roof, posts, brackets and frieze; window openings; and, door openings. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Highland Road West and Garden Avenue streetscape. The setting is also noteworthy because the building has a large setback from Highland Road West. The building is also a unique neighbourhood landmark. The historic and associative value relates to previous owners including James Potter and Henry M. Schneider. James Potter was an early settler in the area who farmed and owned a hotel. James Potter came to Berlin (now Kitchener) in 1833 and acquired the farm `Maple Grove' near Highland Road and Queens Boulevard in 1864 (Shea, 1989). He resided at the farm until 1893 when he sold it to Henry M. Schneider (Shea, 1989). James Potter's occupation is listed as a farmer in 1852, 1871 and 1881. Circa 1853 James also bought a hotel at the corner of King and Queen (Noonan, 1975). James also partnered with Mr. Simpson of the Simpson Furniture Company (Noonan, 1975). Henry M. Schneider farmed the land from 1893 until 1947 (Shea, 1989; Shantz, 1980). Shortly after Henry sold the farm, the land around the farmhouse was developed as a subdivision and the farmhouse was converted to apartments (Shea, 1989; Vernons, 1952). Heritage Attributes • All elements related to the Georgian architectural style of the building, including: • two storey height; • `L' plan; • side gable roof with return eaves; • gable dormer on front fagade; • stucco; • front porch with shed roof, posts, brackets and frieze; • front porch with hipped roof, posts, brackets and frieze; • window openings; and, • door openings • All elements contributing to the contextual value, including: • Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Highland Road West and Garden Avenue streetscape; • Large setback from Highland Road West; and, • Unique neighbourhood landmark. References Noonan, G. (1975). A History of Kitchener. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Shantz, C. (1980). Historic Property Report: 43-45 Highland Road West. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, Ontario. Shea, P. (1989). Historic Buildings Inventory: 43-45 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, Ontario. 2 - 48 Vernon's. (1952). City of Kitchener-Waterloo (Ontario) Directory. Vernon's: Hamilton, Ontario. Photos r, %mr te/// r� ���f 43-45 Highland Road West ! 4 y Iii I i J 43-45 Highland Road West 2 - 49 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 43-45 Highland Rd W Period: 1850s Field Team Initials: GT Description: elongated Ontario Gothic/ Georgian Date: September 6, 2011 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — an architectural mixture of Georgian and Ontario Gothic, porches appear original; Sub-Committee—design is unique CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Unknown Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Unknown Yes region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No 2 - 50 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — large setback from street; very unique neighbourhood landmark INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — not in original condition; Sub-Committee — porch detail original, stucco not original, doors not original HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Yes Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 51 Statement of Significance 135 Highland Road West 170 117 1 k" Y %%% j 'm a � /' � r v '�/, i I II�w'I IL�J IL"t F. l: l I 1 l..1C 11 � H `` �'"I p glyj alp lh ll„ a s "m FIN 9 i �I I A 'Vi r/ o1 �i X IIh4 NIql �,r,"' 5 I 1 , ,.r �� '�� qp ��... lip ���j�j hi r- 4 716 M,G ('AR FAI C1 I4,:F:1_7P11BLVC CI (VN NIS 0,0> 1/00/ /a/l/om"ok SIN "IN Municipal Address: 135 Highland Road West Legal Description: GCT Lot 17 Part Lot 96 Year Built: 1958 Architectural Style: Modern Original Owner: Highland Baptist Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 135 Highland Road West is a two storey mid-20th century church built in the Modern architectural style. The church is situated on a 2.06 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Highland Road West between Patricia Avenue and Vancamp Avenue in the St. Mary's Hospital 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 135 Highland Road West is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the church. The church is a unique example of the Modern architectural style. The church is in good condition. The church is two storeys in height and features: `L'-shaped plan; varied roofline including: very shallow, almost horizontal, 2 - 52 gable roof and a flat roof; asymmetrical composition; brick, metal and stone materials; covered walkway; bell tower; and, windows and window openings, including stained glass windows. The importance of Modern architecture and the building at 135 Highland Road West are described in the book "Images of Progress 1946-1996: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region."The book indicates that: "Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region presents fifty buildings constructed between 1946 and 1996, designed by architects of local, national, and in some cases international renown. It is our collective hope that the general public will gain a better understanding of the role architecture has played in the development of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. In presenting architecture of high quality, we expect to raise public appreciation for well-designed buildings, such that people will begin to understand how their lives can be enriched by the buildings they use on a daily basis."(Mannell, 1997, p. 7). "Images of Progress: 1946-1996 brings attention to the fine modern architecture of the Waterloo Region, promoting awareness of the architectural heritage of the last fifty years. Much of this work reveals the energy associated with the first appearance of an explicitly modern architecture in the Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge area in the 1950s and `60s. This period of `high' modernism (particularly in the City of Kitchener) produced more than half of the projects presented. The architecture of this period is open, diverse and confident in its handling of form and technology, not at all surprising given the optimistic spirit of Canadian society between the Second World War and the Centennial."(Mannell, 1997, p. 9). "This church design explores asymmetrical composition, and the manipulation of modern and traditional materials as decoration. Support facilities meet the projecting house of worship to form an `L'-shaped plan. A covered walkway from the drive to the entrance encloses the third storey of a small courtyard. A masonry bell tower occupies the court, a tall brick `L' against which bells hang as sculptural shapes. Small punched windows in the south fagade allow jewels of sunlight to fill the church during morning services, while vast panels of stained glass on the north dissolved the enclosure and colour the view to the street."(Mannell, 1997, p. 47). The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Highland Road West streetscape. The historic and associative value relate to the history and growth of the Baptist church in Berlin (now Kitchener) and the architect of the building. The Highland Baptist church website provides a brief history. A few excerpts are provided below: "Highland Baptist Church was born out of the desire of a group of men and women who wished to worship and do mission together— in their own language. Back in the days before World War 1, when Kitchener was called Berlin, the only Baptist church in town (now Benton Street Baptist Church) conducted their services in German. However, as the city became more diversified, people were moving into the area who did not speak the German language. At the instigation of a concerned group within Benton Street congregation, and after some initial research it was decided to begin a new English speaking Baptist church."(Highland Baptist, 2014). 2 - 53 "Following the Second World War, there was an emphasis within the Baptist Convention to plant new churches in developing areas. Kitchener-Waterloo was such an area." (Highland Baptist, 2014). "Since the King Street congregation was outgrowing its space and the buildings were in need of major repairs, the church was faced with a major decision. These were their options: Enlarge their present facility? Plant a new congregation?Relocate to a new area of the city? As they considered these options, circumstances combined to allow for both options two and three. Property was bought in the Breithaupt Park area to become home to a new congregation with 37 charter members sent out from King Street. A new property on Highland Road was also purchased as a new location for the King Street congregation. A gift of land and the sale of the King Street property to the Imperial Bank facilitated these developments. In September 1958 the cornerstone was laid for Highland Baptist Church and following an intense building program the dedication of this new building was held on April 5, 1959. A series of special opening celebration services were held throughout the month of April." (Highland Baptist, 2014). The historic and associative values relate to the architect of the building as well as the original and present use of the building. The building was designed by the architect Barnett & Rieder. The firm designed numerous institutional and residential buildings across Ontario. In Kitchener, the firm was responsible for the design of several local buildings, including: the Bank of Nova Scotia, Dare Biscuits Limited, Eastwood Collegiate Institute, and the main branch of the Kitchener Public Library. The building was designed as a church and continues to operate as a church. Heritage Attributes • All elements related to the Modern architectural style of the church, including: • two storey height of church; • "L'-shaped plan; • varied roofline including: very shallow, almost horizontal, gable roof and a flat roof; • asymmetrical composition; • brick, metal and stone materials; • covered walkway; • bell tower; and, • windows and window openings, including stained glass 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 Highland Road West streetscape. References Highland Baptist. (2014). History. Retrieved on June 19, 2014 from htt ://highlandbaptist.ca/about-us/history/. Mannell, Steven (Ed.). (1997). Images of Progress 1946-1996 Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region. The Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery: Kitchener, Ontario. 2 - 54 Photos �d ,fp, 135 Highland Road West 135 Highland Road West 2 - 55 I 135 Highland Road West 2 - 56 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 135 Highland Road West Period: 1958 Field Team Initials: GT Description: church Date: September 6, 2011 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team - stone exterior with glazed tile details in contrasting colour; stained glass fagade element; flat roof at front with multiple gables at rear; interesting modern "bell tower" CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or Yes Yes character of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes Yes Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes, Yes, region, city or neighbourhood? Neighbourhood Neighbourhood 2 - 57 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness Unknown No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team - very unique building in the neighbourhood INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team —very good condition; well landscaped HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes No 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? Yes Yes 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—association with architect Carl Rieder 2 - 58 Statement of Significance 10 Huron Road 4 . . r/r'r / %WINS y '' , a';,. m...-•,.,.,,.,,.....�°,,..+.���„�y/%%/r�// r/°iiiiiiii / ., - 5 X' oi0ii iiiii�io��/ ,� R �� v 7..�°,. iiioao��� Municipal Address: 10 Huron Road Legal Description: Plan 1521 Part Lot 3 & 8, 58R-4715 Parts 1, 2 & 5 Year Built: Petersburg Grand Trunk Railway Station (1856); Peter Martin House (1820); Shantz Barn (1810), Shuh Barn (Unknown), Dry Goods and Grocery Store (c. 1830); Tailor Shop and Post Office (c. 1870); Weavery (c. 1845), Sawmill (Unknown), Repair Shop (Unknown), McArthur House (c. 1835); Seibert House (c. 1850), Sararas House (c. 1840); Bricker Barn (c. 1845), Freeport Church (1861) Architectural Style: Various Original Owner: Various Original Use: Various Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 10 Huron Road is a re-created heritage village designed to represent life in 1914 rural Waterloo County. The buildings are situated on a 55.28 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Homer Watson Boulevard between Manitou Drive and Huron Road in the Trillium Industrial Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the buildings associated with Doon Heritage Village. 2 - 59 Heritage Value 10 Huron Road is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the re-created village along with the architectural styles, designs, materials and methods of construction of the various buildings located within Doon Heritage Village. The buildings contribute to the living history of the village and have evolved, and will continue to evolve, over time. The primary value rests with those buildings that were relocated from other areas of the City, Region and Province, including: the Petersburg Grand Trunk Railway Station, the Peter Martin House, the Shantz Barn, the Shuh Barn, the Dry Goods and Grocery Store, the Tailor Shop and Post Office, the Weavery, the Sawmill, the Repair Shop, the McArthur House, the Seibert House, the Sararas House, the Bricker Barn, and the Freeport Church. The primary value also rests with the Limerick Cemetery located beside the Freeport Church, which was relocated from Waterloo Township (now Cambridge) in 1966. A number of reproduced buildings contribute to the design value of the re-created village, including: the Harness Maker building, the Printing Office, the Blacksmith Shop, the Meat Market and the Fire Hall. The Waterloo Region Museum Guide Book provides the following information about some of the buildings: Railway Station Originally located at Petersburg, Waterloo County. Constructed in 1856. Original owner, the Grand Trunk Railway. Gift of Canadian National Railway, 1968. Peter Martin House Orginally located in Waterloo Township, Waterloo County. Constructed about 1820. Original owner, Peter Martin. Gift of the Waterloo Regional Heritage Foundation, 1974. Shantz Barn The Shantz Barn, originally built in 1810, features a large drive floor and a mow, which would be used to store hay and straw. The rack-lifter (the circular disks mounted on the inside of the south wall) made it possible to lift the loaded hay rack high in the air, allowing the farmer to pile the hay or straw into very tall mounds. Originally located on the "Old Shuh Farm", Kitchener, Waterloo County. Gift of the County of Waterloo, 1957. Shuh Barn The Shuh Barn, like all bank barns, features an easily accessible upper level that was used to store feed, bedding for animals and machinery and a lower level, which housed the livestock. Originally located on the "Old Shuh Farm'; Kitchener, Waterloo County. Gift of the County of Waterloo, 1957. Weavery Originally located at the Thomson Family farm, Waterloo Township, Waterloo County. Constructed about 1845. Original owner, Jacob Z. Detweiler. Gift of the Caryndale Congregation, Swedenborgian Church, 1973. Dry Goods and Grocery Store 2 - 60 Originally located in Delaware, Middlesex County. Constructed about 1830. Gift of A.R. Goudie, 1957. Tailor Shop and Post Office Originally located at Wellesley, Waterloo County. Constructed about 1870. Original Owner, George Bellinger. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Mattiussi, 1969. Sawmill Originally located on the Bartholomew Property, Strasburg, Waterloo County. Gift of the Pannill Veneer Co., 1967. Repair Shop Originally located on the "Old Shuh Farm", Kitchener, Waterloo County. Gift of County of Waterloo, 1957. McArthur House Originally located in Ekfrid Township, Middlesex County. Constructed about 1835. Original owner, the McArthur Family. Gift of Donald Sinclair, 1962. Seibert House Originally located in Kitchener, Waterloo County. Constructed about 1850. Last owner, the Seibert Family. Gift of the City of Kitchener, 1964. Sararas House Originally located in Wilmot Township, Waterloo County. Constructed about 1840. Original owner, Nicholoas Sararas. Gift of the Pennsylvania-German Folklore Society, 1970. Bricker Barn The Bricker Barn is a good example of a Pennsylvania overshot bank barn. The structure is built into the side of the hill, and features a ramp allowing easy access to the upper level of the barn. The overshot, or overhanging feature, on the opposite side of the barn provides shelter for livestock and equipment. Originally located in Waterloo Township, Waterloo County. Constructed about 1845. Original owner, Abraham and Mary Thoman. Gift of John Steckley, 1976. Freeport Church Originally located at Freeport, Waterloo County. Constructed in 1861. Original owner, the United Brethren Church. Gift of the United Church of Canada, 1962. The contextual values relate to pastoral setting of the property and the historic and physical linkages to Cressman Woods (now Homer Watson Park), the Grand River, the Pioneer Memorial Tower and Huron Road. Features that contribute to the setting include: bridges, roads, pathways, fencing, the Wagon Shed, Jubilee Park, Limerick Cemetery, gazebo, willow greens, Schneider Creek, historic gardens and livestock. The above listed built features contribute to the setting but are not of primary value and therefore are not heritage attributes. Notice by the owner at least 60 days prior to demolition or removal of these built features is not required. The historic and associative values relate to local interest in open air museums, living history museums and efforts to create an Ontario pioneer village museum, which led to the eventual 2 - 61 creation of Doon Pioneer Village (now Doon Heritage Village), located on the property now known as the Waterloo Region Museum. Dr. A.E. (Dusty) Broome was local physician who in 1951 was inspired by an open air museum in Holland and prepared a proposal in 1953 to establish an Ontario pioneer village museum in Waterloo County (Tivy, 2006). His proposal was supported by Kitchener, Waterloo, Galt, the County of Waterloo and the Waterloo Historical Society. A meeting among local representatives from various heritage organizations led to the presentation of a brief to the Province about the development of an Ontario Rural Life Museum (Tivy, 2006). Faced with competition from other municipalities, the County of Waterloo agreed to donate land for the museum to the Province (Tivy, 2006). In the end, the Province did not fund the museum. Instead the Ontario Pioneer Community Foundation was formed and in 1955 they partnered with the Grand Valley Conservation Authority (now the Grand River Conservation Authority) to expropriate property and access funding from the Province based on the GVCAs mandate to preserve historical resources it its watershed (Tivy, 2006). In 1957, the OPCF received it charter, moved four structures to the site and hosted a public ceremony with a barn raising to dedicate Doon Pioneer Village (Tivy, 2006). The decision to reflect early life in rural Waterloo County to the year 1914 was made in 1983-84 (Tivy, 2006). Doon Pioneer Village was the first re-created village in the Province and today provides a unique link between the Waterloo Region Museum and the Doon Heritage Village. Heritage Attributes The primary heritage value of 10 Huron Road resides in the following heritage attributes: • the Railway Station; • the Peter Martin House; • the Shantz Barn; • the Shuh Barn; • the Weavery; • the Dry Goods and Grocery Store; • the Tailor Shop and Post Office; • the Sawmill; • the Repair Shop; • McArthur House; • the Seibert House; • the Sararas House; • the Bricker Barn; and, • the Freeport Church. References Tivy, M. (2006). The local history museum in Ontario: An intellectual history 1851-1985. PhD Thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. Waterloo Region Museum. (n.d.). Waterloo Region Museum Guide Book. 2 - 62 Photos �, i, , i.,%r„� ✓ /,�//,iii/ � „ ,, Peter Martin House, 10 Huron Road f �� xlr,/>�YDrr������ rd� / Y 'r ' ri �Jlv-” ,rrn r�' ;✓ D/ r f/r�J , r � (01 /�'f u r Shantz Barn (right) and Shuh Barn (left), 10 Huron Road 2 - 63 n w� r" dY�jY Weavery, 10 Huron Road a Jo / glf Dry Goods and Grocery Store, 10 Huron Road 2 - 64 Tailor Shop and Post Office, 10 Huron Road kf I } x'` �/ ✓ F m Repair Shop, 10 Huron Road 2 - 65 N I " , Seibert House, 10 Huron Road �fIVi"+ ' V II + •„ / p a I / Freeport Church, 10 Huron Road 2 - 66 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 10 Huron Road Period: 1914 Field Team Initials: MD/LB Description: Doon Heritage Village Date: November 14, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 2 - 67 INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? No No Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 68 Statement of Significance 825 King Street West fi f'Mr,% Municipal Address: 825 King Street West Legal Description: GCT Lot 15 Part Lot 7 Year Built: 1938 Architectural Style: English Gothic Original Owner: St. Mark's Lutheran Church Original Use: Church Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 825 King Street West is a mid-20th century brick church built in the English Gothic architectural style. The church is situated on a 0.58 acre parcel of land located on the south west corner of King Street West and Green Street in the K-W Hospital Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church. 2 - 69 Heritage Value 825 King Street West is recognized for its design, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the church. The church is a notable example of the English Gothic architectural style. The church is in good condition. The church features: original cruciform plan; steeply pitched roof with a simple cross at the apex; brown brick; ornamental buttresses capped with stone; windows and window openings with stone sills and brick voussoirs, including: stained glass windows, leaded glass windows, flat-headed windows and lancet windows; cast Indiana stone details; and, double door entrance with semi-circular cast stone surround with quoins. The historic and associative values relate to the First English Lutheran Church (now St. Mark's Lutheran Church), the architect and the building contractor. The First English Church was founded in 1913 to provide the first English-language services in the area (Beglo, n.d.). The current property was purchased in 1918 when the church membership totaled 475 (NWRACO, 2013). The church name was changed from First English Lutheran Church to St. Mark's Lutheran Church in 1938 along with the dedication of the present church building (Beglo, n.d.; NWRACO, 2013). Additions to the building include: 1958 parlor and offices; 1959 parish hall; and, 1973 extension to the building (NWBACO, 2013). Bernal A. Jones was selected to design the building. B.A. Jones first worked with Frank Darling in the firm of Darling & Pearson from 1908 to 1922 and later moved to Kitchener to work with W.H.E. Schmalz in the firm of Schmalz and Jones from 1922 to 1926 (Hill, 2009). B.A. Jones opened his own practice in 1926 and continued until his retirement in 1952 (Hill, 2009). During that time, B.A. Jones was responsible for the design of many buildings such as the1922-23 Kitchener City Hall (with W.H.E. Schmalz), the 1932 St. Matthew's Lutheran Church chapel and parish hall, the 1932-33 Public Utilities Building, the 1936-37 Church of the Good Shepherd and several buildings at the Freeport Sanitorium (Hill, 2009). The church was built by Ball Brothers Limited, a local building contractor. The company was founded as a partnership between Harold and Frank Ball in 1923, which became incorporated in 1930 and is now known as Ball Construction Ball Construction, 2014). The company is owned by the third generation of the Ball family (Ball Construction, 2014). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 825 King Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the English Gothic architectural style of the house, including: • original cruciform plan; • steeply pitched roof with a simple cross at the apex; • brown brick; • ornamental buttresses capped with stone; • windows and window openings with stone sills and brick voussoirs, including: • stained glass windows, • leaded glass windows, • flat-headed windows, and • lancet windows; • cast Indiana stone details; and, • double door entrance with semi-circular cast stone surround with quoins. 2 - 70 References Ball Construction. (2014). History. Retrieved on October 14, 2014 from http://www.b licon.com/index.php/about-us/history/. Beglo, J. (n.d.). English Gothic and the Architecture of Lutheranism. Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800 to 1950: Jones, Bernal Ambrose. Retrieved on October 14, 2014 from http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.orb/architects/view/173. North Waterloo Region Branch Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (NWRACO). (2013). Newsletter. 9(6): 4. Photos � Olir _iii mR!�Il �� I� ,��+ � �IYIdG'ti({4�l WLWWiJNdP/Wlll nll�UV/WA'Aw'G(�4'�U4Lkilbp7hbIIV1� yy. ♦nlMS➢�WMW�W/1?�I//!/IWU!ISVdIJk�'MfNCL4Gmft!NUIWWW@IWINIhINII froi ��fj���11 �� lu IhY�i�ll�U�lll'��RI�fJNfunfiNN�W(�fNnmIIV� r /� ���'�� /�l � �i II�V'GG�;foli��IVI��IIIIIIIi�f�IN�fhYBU���fI�fI�IING4 fo1I0111UIIVI�IV W�WlflmllihlMl�VI�I��IW16.. 8�',II�OW�VVNW�I 825 King Street West 2 - 71 i J" �F Vr 825 King Street West �I l 825 King Street West 2 - 72 1 t � i ^ r 825 King Street West 2 - 73 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 825 King Street West Period: 1938 Field Team Initials: CM/LB Description: St. Mark's Lutheran Church Date: June 20, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — gothic detail; stained glass; cast stone details; addition (1950) works well with original church building CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No 2 - 74 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 75 Statement of Significance 300 Lookout Lane ,Mkk'Y s.P. :UK ,1.7 y , , t y , 6 cYaCw ', 5msy hQ 'Y9 .. i I , i 0 , y , Municipal Address: 300 Lookout Lane Legal Description: Beasleys Broken Front Concession Part Lot12 Year Built: 1926 Architectural Style: N/A Original Owner: Waterloo County Pioneers Association Original Use: Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 300 Lookout Lane features the Waterloo Pioneer Memorial Tower which was built in 1926 and a pioneer cemetery. The tower and cemetery are situated on a 1.16 acre parcel of land located adjacent to the Grand River at the end of Lookout Lane in the Pioneer Tower West Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the tower and cemetery. Heritage Value The Waterloo Pioneer Tower is a National Historic Site listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places. The design/physical, contextual, historic/associative values are described in the statement of significance on the Canadian Register of Historic Place. The statement of significance indicates that: 2 - 76 "Description of Historic Place Built in 1926, Waterloo Pioneer Memorial Tower commemorates the arrival of the Pennsylvania-German pioneers to the Waterloo region between 1800 and 1803. The 18.9 metre high tower is located along the banks of the Grand River in Waterloo Regional Municipality, Ontario. The tower's random-coursed fieldstone, tapered "Swiss" copper roof, and the Conestoga wagon weather vane reflect the German speaking European origin and farming lifestyle of these early settlers. It has a simple well- proportioned profile, a tapered cylindrical shaft of random coursed fieldstone supporting a moulded concrete cornice under a hexagonal gallery platform. The designation is confined to the footprint of the building. Heritage Value The Waterloo Pioneer Memorial Tower is a Classified Federal Heritage Building because of its historical associations, and its architectural and environmental values. Historical Value: The tower represents the theme of the commemoration of ethnic German pioneer settlers in Ontario and is also a very good early example of a regional commemorative structure. This building is visible symbol of the rise of German-Canadian nationalism during the 1920s, which resulted from anti-German sentiment, and cultural sanctions imposed on the community during the First World War. The tower was an opportunity for German-Canadians to express their historical contribution and loyalty to Canada in the form of German-Canadian nationalism as well as a method for the community to re- establish its self worth. The Pioneer Memorial Tower is also associated with W.H. Breithaupt, a prominent engineering consultant in Kitchener (previously named Berlin), who has been recognized as the initiator of the scheme. Architectural Value: The Waterloo Pioneer Memorial Tower is a very good example of a well-scaled design of simply detailed construction with a picturesque aesthetic. The tower shows excellent quality of craftsmanship and materials as evidenced by the cut fieldstone, and by the work on the tower's entrance and observation deck. Environmental Value: The Pioneer Memorial Tower was erected near the earliest focus of Pennsylvanian- German settlement. The tower stands in a grassed area enclosed by a locked fence. The property also contains a small pioneer cemetery. The area surrounding the tower is mixed agricultural and urban development with wooded areas on the west shore of the river. The tower is a landmark to both residents and tourists by virtue of its prominence and significance. Sources: Marilyn E. Armstrong-Reynolds, Waterloo Pioneers Tower, 437 Tower Road, Kitchener, Ontario. Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office Report 88-078; Waterloo Pioneer Tower, Kitchener, Ontario, Heritage Character Statement 95-034. Character-Defining Elements The character-defining elements of the Waterloo Pioneer Memorial Tower should be respected. Its very good aesthetic and functional designs, and excellent quality of craftsmanship and materials, such as: 2 - 77 - the building's form and massing which consists of a tall slightly tapered cylindrical tower clad in multi-coloured and textured local fieldstone; - the building's sturdy construction of self-standing exterior wall with concrete inner core; - the building's clean lines and subtle ornamentation and picturesque silhouette; - the steeply pitched "Swiss-style"roof sheathed in copper; - the decorative ironwork placed around the exterior of the platform; - the six stone corbels decorating the moulded concrete cornice; - the original glazed windows of the tower, with limestone lintels and plain lug sills; - the front portico and entrance, framed by a cut limestone lintel of classical design; - the Conestoga wagon weather vane. The manner in which the Waterloo Pioneer Memorial Tower is compatible with the picturesque setting of Waterloo Regional Municipality and is a symbol of the region, as evidenced by: - its overall scale, design and materials that harmonize with its mixed agricultural and urban setting. - its role as a memorial to the early German settlers of Ontario, which makes it a symbol of the region and well-known to residents and visitors."(Parks Canada, 2015) References Parks Canada. (2015). Canadian Register of Historic Places — Waterloo Pioneer Memorial Tower. Retrieved on January 21, 2015 from http://historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/dace® lieu.aspx?id®3297. Photos Ome err oiisi( 300 Lookout Lane 2 - 78 r H f �,�i r �O p�y�� w r � �' o,✓�, 7l� a � ✓pfd(l�Y / p i 300 Lookout Lane 2 - 79 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 300 Lookout Lane Period: 1926 Field Team Initials: ER/AH Description: Date: July 16, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Unknown No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown No detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes Yes Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes Yes region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Yes Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? 2 - 80 Notes: Sub-Committee - cemetery INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 81 Statement of Significance Ferrie Mill — Old Mill Road 't t I ° V /moo 'Q 6W .� i •' b�oii/�i�y//r�/// /ice//imp%i � Legal Description: Part of Biehns Unnumbered Tract 58R-226 Part 7 Year Built: 1839 Architectural Style: N/A Original Owner: Adam Ferrie Original Use: Mill Condition: Ruins Description of Historic Place The Ferrie Mill ruins are situated on a 5.63 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Old Mill Road between Mill Park Drive and Pinnacle Drive in the Lower Doon Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the mill ruins. Heritage Value The Ferrie Mill is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historic and associative values. In terms of the design and physical value, the Ferrie Mill is a rare example of a mill ruin constructed with limestone. The ruins feature: limestone construction; one storey corner with window opening; and, date stone that reads "Donn Mills 1839'. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the mill ruins make to the character of the area, including the setting and link to the adjacent creek and home at 1795 Old Mill Road. The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the property and building. Adam Ferrie bought the John Bean Junior farm of 300 acres around 1834 and cleared 2 - 82 100 acres to build a house, barns and a mill beside the stream (Shantz, 1980). Adam operated a large grist mill, saw mill, and oatmeal and barley mill (Shantz, 1980). Adam's house is located at 1795 Old Mill Road and is more commonly known as the Homer Watson House and Gallery. The mill burnt in 1898. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of the Ferrie Mill resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the ruins, including: • limestone construction; • one storey corner with window opening; and, • date stone that reads "Donn Mills 1839'. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • the contribution that the mill ruins make to the character of the area; and, • the setting and link to the adjacent creek and home at 1795 Old Mill Road. References Shantz, C. (1980). Heritage Property Report. Ferrie Mill—Lower Doon. Photos ?p ` 4 r ms go: Ferrie Mill —Old Mill Road 2 - 83 i� i 5 Ji 4 Ferrie Mill —Old Mill Road t, r Ferrie Mill —Old Mill Road 2 - 84 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: Ferrie Mill Period: Field Team Initials: MD/LB Description: Date: November 14, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or No No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or No No detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes Yes Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 2 - 85 Notes: Sub-Committee—"Old Mill Road", stone retaining wall INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and No No design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? No No HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 86 Statement of Significance 1755 Old Mill Road .""„ 1[7062 A6 " P 1768 175 5 'ti 763 h�hllh 5 0 IN I� ,^IV 061 58 I i I Municipal Address: 1755 Old Mill Road Legal Description: Plan 578 Lot 127 Year Built: 1873 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: John L. Beyer Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 1755 Old Mill Road is a one storey late 19th century brick house built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.20 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Old Mill Road between Mill Park Drive and Roos Street in the Lower Doon Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 2 - 87 Heritage Value 1755 Old Mill Road is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable and representative example of a building from the original village of lower doon built in the Georgian architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one storey in height and features: side gable roof with return eaves; gable end chimneys; brick construction; central entrance door; flat headed rectangular window openings with 6/6 window style and brick voussoirs; square window in gabble ends; and, fieldstone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Old Mill Road streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1755 Old Mill Road resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Georgian architectural style of the house, including: • side gable roof with return eaves; • gable end chimneys; • brick construction; • central entrance door; • flat headed rectangular window openings with 6/6 window style and brick voussoirs; • square window in gabble ends; and, • fieldstone 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 Old Mill Road streetscape. References Shantz, C. (1980). Historic Property Report: 1755 Old Mill Road. LACAC: Kitchener, Ontario. 2 - 88 Photos ii n Il�ll 1755 Old Mill Road 91 f e UIINb N ¢ 'laT � l r f r r i 1755 Old Mill Road 2 - 89 w° Gi liop4.�� "11 , r 1755 Old Mill Road 2 - 90 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 1755 Old Mill Road Period: 1873 Field Team Initials: ER/AH Description: Date: July 16, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or No No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Sub-Committee— notable in lower doon and representative of original village CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Unknown No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 2 - 91 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Sub-Committee—aluminum soffit and fascia; new windows HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown No within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Unknown Yes 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—association with original village of lower doon 2 - 92 Statement of Significance 105-117 Onward Avenue 35� �t5 HIP 168 ��78 IF .............................. /;m/g A5 Municipal Address: 105-117 Onward Avenue Legal Description: Plan 655 Part Lots 34 to 38, Plan 299 Part Lots 20 and 21, Plan 654 Part Lot 1, Lot 76 of Streets and Lanes, 58R-1 1555 Part 1 Year Built: 1949 Architectural Style: Mid Century Vernacular Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Apartments Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 105-117 Onward Avenue is a three storey mid-20th century brick apartment built in the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style. The apartment building is situated on a 1.19 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Onward Avenue 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 apartment building. Heritage Value 105-117 Onward Avenue is recognized for its design and contextual values. 2 - 93 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; multi coloured rug brick; brick banding; window openings with brick voussoirs and concrete sills; symmetrical fagade; concrete and vitrolite entrance surround with the inscription "Onward Apts"; concrete detail around windows above entrance; and, concrete foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the apartment makes to the continuity and character of the Onward Avenue 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; • multi coloured rug brick; • brick banding; • window openings with brick voussoirs and concrete sills; • symmetrical fagade; • concrete and vitrolite entrance surround with the inscription "Onward 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 Onward Avenue streetscape. 2 - 94 Photos V r " p �4 i i i r m� a rr �i„srm U r- 105-117 Onward Avenue ry/ X 49 ` py i A f i riQti �� `4 a,✓� N I 9 ✓ i°wl rP�Y�r1l�!Nl�1dg 105-117 Onward Avenue 2 - 95 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 105-117 Onward Ave Period: 1949 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Onward Apts Date: July 11, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — "nautical" lights at three entrances, two setback `H' shaped buildings joined by a rectangular building with limited setback; Sub-Committee —front is attractive, design details, similar to other buildings (collection) CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? 2 - 96 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — also under consideration as a streetscape/landscape/area (Onward Avenue between Weber and King and some adjacent areas) INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Yes Yes 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 also 141-149 Borden Avenue North and 265 Weber Street East 2 - 97 Statement of Significance 754 Queen Street South 4 111 M 11 0 111 7�8 0 . .... . .. . .. . 8 767 775 Municipal Address: 754 Queen Street South Legal Description: Plan 158 Lot 13 Year Built: 1945 Architectural Style: Mid-Century Vernacular Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Apartment Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 754 Queen Street South is a 2-storey mid-20th century apartment designed in the Mid-Century Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.10 acre parcel of land on the west side of Queen Street South between Brock Street and Highland Road West in the Victoria 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 754 Queen Street South is recognized for its design and contextual values. 2 - 98 The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a unique example of a low rise apartment building designed in the Mid-Century Vernacular architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is 2-storeys in height and features: low pitched hip roof; square plan; varied brick colour; windows and window openings, including: 6/1 windows with concrete sills; two front projecting bays with hipped roofs, 6/1 windows and concrete sills; ogee shaped concrete front door surround; decorative concrete sign that reads "FAIRHOLME APTS"; and, concrete parged foundation. The contextual values relate to the continuity and character of the street. The building contributes to the continuity and character of the Queen Street South streetscape. The overall design of low rise apartment in terms of form and height is compatible and complimentary to the surrounding neighbourhood that is primarily characterized by 1.5 and 2-storey single detached dwellings. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 754 Queen Street South resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Mid-Century Vernacular architectural style, including: • low pitched hip roof; • square plan; • varied brick colour; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 6/1 windows with concrete sills; • two front projecting bays with hipped roofs, 6/1 windows and concrete sills; • ogee shaped concrete front door surround; • decorative concrete sign that reads "FAIRHOLME APTS"; and, • concrete parged foundation. 2 - 99 Photos iA r- b Ya. prRry�.w. A4i � ieuumu� a, n��wst�rr��r?���'�°m�'pdxr�rr�yrrtrw s, � lit 1 754 Queen Street South t I r I I I I 754 Queen Street South 2 - 100 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 754 Queen Street South Period: Field Team Initials: LB/CM/MD Description: Date: July 10, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team: west elevation — brick replaced CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 2 - 101 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown No within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes 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: similar to building at 217 Strange Street 2 - 102 Statement of Significance 834 Queens Boulevard 0i 82 A ' ' /s, /gpg K4 Nod i Municipal Address: 834 Queens Boulevard Legal Description: Plan 312 Lot 8 Year Built: 1929 Architectural Style: Queen Anne Vernacular with Art Deco details Original Owner: William Arnold Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 834 Queens Boulevard is a two storey early 20th century building designed in the Queen Anne Vernacular architectural style with Art Deco details. The building is situated on a 0.10 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Queens Boulevard between Spadina Road and Highland Road in the St. Mary's Hospital Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the residential building. Heritage Value 834 Queens Boulevard is recognized for its design and contextual values. 2 - 103 The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The design, composition and craftsmanship of the Queen Anne Vernacular architectural style with Art Deco details are attractive. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: varied roofline with multiple gables; brick construction; front projecting bay with gable roof flanked by an angled wall and angled chimney both with subtle brick details; window openings with concrete sills; and, front porch with brick guards and piers and a decorative fan in gable end. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Queens Boulevard streetscape. Heritage Attributes • All elements related to the Queen Anne Vernacular architectural style with Art Deco details of the building, including: • two storey height; • varied roofline with multiple gables; • brick construction; • front projecting bay with gable roof flanked by an angled wall and angled chimney both with subtle brick details; • window openings with concrete sills; and, • front porch with brick guards and piers and a decorative fan in gable end. • All elements contributing to the contextual value, including: o Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Queens Boulevard streetscape. Photos Y 4 I r'Y� ✓ �Gd 7rlli 7� r s � r r r r r 834 Queens Boulevard 2 - 104 , %f G ���✓�� iii i✓i�li�rrlrp✓%✓��ri�j �i�l "�/ r. �'�/� ! 'I�HH e✓ ✓%��iii��ii�r rr%i�✓�/!✓ �i,��j !�l//i �,,,/ ' ,/ � r//IXI�r�,✓t/I!l�Gl�l,.%/ ,' /,:i i,!!�%OD%/iii%r%///l�i%����/����/f�i , p�� r..al� j;i / pl/ i,,.aiu��ii rp, �/i r%/✓i i//i✓�il�i�✓!ii/,pli'�/� ,/rlG� �l�r,1�! G� �� � ((( �,. ip,z-: � �/�i -.., a,�� ��,I �/ ,✓/ ,, /r .;i������������f,r�� � (� �r,'� /��;,� � �✓i�1���r�% 1����r/,�,i�f �� �� �� f ��j��Y/��i�ll�ll�J',�;����N✓g,�� � � �� y ��//i ��s!ti°�r ✓;' �i ✓��,�,,, / � Y ��jy��,� �p i r � �ri� � 1, l �,,' O�,f lrfy��iG �7`�� //'� p� � r � ! l�1�� �i� � !h �'` ✓ f l�' I Y f � f �J 834 Queens Boulevard 2 - 105 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 834 Queens Boulevard Period: 1930s Field Team Initials: GT Description: brown brick 2.5 storeys Date: August 25, 2011 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No No architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown No detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — attractive brick detail; chimney and dormer on front gable angled at 45 degrees; nice detailed fan woodwork on front porch gable CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? 2 - 106 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness Yes No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team —this entire section of street has similarly, well kept, attractive homes and landscaping; small detached garage looks period INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? No Yes 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 —the streetscape as a whole (within this period) may be more significant than this particular house on its own 2 - 107 Statement of Significance 5 Rusholme Road //////IFOR///// rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrffii /// 219 III ..... ... ....... I I I I . II YYII ryryII % / � �� 1111111 III° IICI � VIII ..,,,, .......................... � '�41 VIII III)J .,.,i..,...,.. �� � Illh II�I� /�i �Illlh �� ql�l ql�l �i VIII 270 Municipal Address: 5 Rusholme Road Legal Description: Plan 352 Lot 41 & 51 Year Built: c. 1953 Architectural Style: Modern Original Owner: D.S. McKay Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 5 Rusholme Road is a one storey mid-20th century brick bungalow built in the Modern architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.54 acre parcel of land located on the corner of Dunbar Road, Rusholme Road and Union Boulevard in the Westmount Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the bungalow. Heritage Value 5 Rusholme Road is recognized for its contextual, historic and associative values. 2 - 108 The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house and property make to the character of the intersection. The setting of the intersection is an important piece of the Plan of Westmount subdivision conceived by Talmon Henry Rieder and his partners in the Westmount Improvement Company. The book entitled "Westmount: The Tie That Binds The Twin Cities:An Illustrated History of Westmount's 100 Years" describes the importance of the setting. A few excerpts are provided below. "...an orderly and attractive layout of curving streets interspersed with the more usual and less imaginative gridiron plan. The winding streets were a radical feature at this time in suburb design. Rieder's combination of the curvilinear with the familiar grid design produced a unique hybrid. Some streets, including Union Boulevard, Rusholme Road, parts of Claremont Avenue, and Belmont Boulevard, were 80 feet wide and intended to be boulevards." The other wide junction occurred where Union Boulevard, Dunbar Road, and Rusholme Road converged and created an open expanse with a pleasing vista in several directions. This intersection remains as Talmon Rieder had envisioned it in 1914, though it would be the subject of discussion, review, and minor change some 80 years later. The plan contained some unusually shaped pieces of land which formed three triangular sections, a unique feature created by corners that were rounded off rather than all at right angles. The much smaller triangular piece, almost a village green, remains today where Rusholme Road and Union Boulevard meet in front of what was to be a 1950s dream home."(Mavor, 2011, pp. 32) The historic and associative values relate to the Plan of Westmount subdivision, the buildings architect, the Kitchener Auditorium and the building itself. As noted under the contextual value, the subdivision was conceived by Talmon Henry Rieder and his partners in the Westmount Improvement Company. In addition to the Westmount Improvement Company, T.H. Rieder also played an instrumental role in the rubber industry. He began as a bookkeeper in 1899 for the Berlin Rubber Company but soon moved to the position of general manager for the Merchants Rubber Company in 1903 (Region of Waterloo Museums, 2015). By 1907 T.H. Rieder became the vice-president and director of the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company controlling five rubber footwear factories (Region of Waterloo Museums, 2015). He was president of the largest rubber company in Canada, the Consolidated Rubber Company, from 1917-1919 (Region of Waterloo Museums, 2015). The bungalow was designed by the local architect William Stuart Jenkins. In 1945 W.S. Jenkins formed a partnership with Sherman W. Wright in Kitchener (Hill, 2015). Jenkins and Wright were best known for their designs of municipal arena complexes in several Ontario towns and for the restoration in 1952 of`Woodside', the home of William Lyon Mackenzie King (Hill, 2015). The bungalow was purposely designed and built as a `dream home' which was raffled to boost funds for the construction of the new auditorium. A newspaper article (Kitchener Waterloo Record, 1950) in 1950 indicated that "A $40,000 completely furnished six-roomed bungalow, which will be built in Westmount, will be raffled off and proceeds used to aid the $200,000 Memorial Auditorium Fund. The money is needed to complete and furnish the $1,000,000 structure." The construction of the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium was approved during the December 3, 1945 municipal election by a majority vote on a Memorial Auditorium By-law that would allow the City to borrow the money for a new auditorium as a living memorial to Kitchener 2 - 109 men and women who served in the first and second world wars (The Record, 2008). The auditorium was also designed by the same architect as the bungalow. At the time of construction, the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium was the third largest arena in Ontario after Maple Leaf Gardens and the Ottawa Civic Centre (The Record, 2008). The bungalow was featured as an example of a modern house in the publication "Kitchener Centennial: 1854-1954". The bungalow featured what was described as the newest trends in house design (Mavor, 2011). It is important to conserve the heritage attributes of the bungalow. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 5 Rusholme Road resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the character of the Dunbar Road, Rusholme Road, and Union Boulevard intersection; • Curvilinear lot line; • Open expanse with pleasing vistas; • Unusual lot shape created by rounded corners; • Bungalow house, including: • One-storey height; • Asymmetrical plan; • Broad, gently pitched roof; and, • Stone, brick and siding. References Hill, R. (2015). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved on February 4, 2015 from http://www.dictionaryofar chitectsincanada.orb/copyright. Kitchener Waterloo Record. (1950). Dream house raffle to boost $200,000 auditorium fund. Kitchener Waterloo Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Mavor, S. (2011). Westmount: The tie that binds the twin cities: An illustrated history of Westmount's 100 years. Friesens Corporation: Altona, Manitoba. Region of Waterloo Museum. (2015). Region Hall of Fame Inductees. Retrieved on February 4, 2015 from http://www.waterlooregio museum.co02L2gjgnztqI I-of-fam e/i n d uctees- -to-r/. The Record. (2008, February 9). Flash from the Past. The Record: Kitchener, Ontario. 2 - 110 Photos k x r r 5 Rusholme Road Il�0' j f 6) 5 Rusholme Road 2 - 111 r' / i a i mill 5 Rusholme Road 2 - 112 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 5 Rusholme Road Period: Field Team Initials: GZ/JS Description: Date: August 26, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No No architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Unknown No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Unknown No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable No No landscaping or external features that complete the site? 2 - 113 Notes: Field Team — setting is noteworthy due to strange intersection; Sub-Committee —also located in the Westmount Cultural Heritage Landscape INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 No Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes No 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? Yes Yes 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 — use is significant because dream home for the Aud 2 - 114 Statement of Significance 44 Rusholme Road .. . ��IN��� �� lr�^ I „ „ T7 12 r � ^4„„h„„” „„”„ � „„ I , „✓ ' „h �� ha„„4„„ I I� �V �� .. . . �.�..,,. . rr�r�� .. ,,,, Municipal Address: 44 Rusholme Road Legal Description: Plan 352 Part Lot 13 & 14 Year Built: 1937 Architectural Style: Tudor Original Owner: Fred W. Snyder Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 44 Rusholme Road is a two storey mid-20th century house built in the Tudor architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.59 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Rusholme Road between Westmount Road and Dunbar Road in the Westmount Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 2 - 115 Heritage Value 44 Rusholme is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable example of the Tudor architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two storeys in height and features: irregular plan; varied hip rooflines; parapeted gable; copper trim; cedar shingles; stone cladding with corner quoins; tall, narrow casement windows in groups with multi-pane glazing with stone sills and voussoirs; cast stone front door surround with Tudor arch and wood paneled door; chimney; stucco and cinder block attached garage (City of Kitchener, 1937); and, solarium. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Rusholme Road streetscape. The historic and associative values relate to the original owner, architect, builder and later significant owners. The original owner was Frederick W. Snyder who was a founding member of the Westmount Golf Club and its president when the house was constructed in 1937 (Mavor, 2011). The house was designed by local architect W.H.E. Schmalz (Mavor, 2011). He also designed the 1922 Kitchener City Hall and he has been described as "the Twin Cities dean of architects" (Mavor, 2011). The house was built by local builder Lincoln Stroh (City of Kitchener, 1937). He described himself as a "builder of exclusive houses" (Mavor, 2011). A.R. Kaufman of the Kaufman Rubber Company purchased the house in 1949 and Jane and James T. "Sam" Hill, president of the Economical Insurance Company, purchased the house in 1973 (Mavor, 2011). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 44 Rusholme resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Tudor architectural style of the apartment, including: • irregular plan; • varied hip rooflines; • parapeted gable; • copper trim; • cedar shingles; • stone cladding with corner quoins; • tall, narrow casement windows in groups with multi-pane glazing with stone sills and voussoirs; • cast stone front door surround with Tudor arch and wood paneled door; • chimney; and, • solarium • 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 Rusholme Road streetscape. 2 - 116 References City of Kitchener. (1937). Building Permit Number 325: house, attached garage and conservatory. Kitchener, Ontario. Mavor, S. (2011). Westmount: The tie that binds the twin cities: An illustrated history of Westmount's 100 years. Friesens Corporation: Altona, Manitoba. Photos J A� M p r NNE v ✓1 woJti�iIIIII�IIINWGXB?�u""'� Ill ,••••«a�M'ewmm%ww"�R'i0(NfNW1��iILU oVf'�ou�o"` f u� 44 Rusholme Road r �Jfy�r�J�/ � �% � `�r N�SYI�,, I'J I`r rr�u i r�F rr'<ly rr%y f �rry, "r^r 'r✓ r afif �✓ � �l '�.,/ r J rrf// r ,,r1�le(l� i�y�, h ',i i;� (�`((� � � i m I r iriM'�I,, {e h .y r ilr r" I t^" / W �r 44 Rusholme Road 2 - 117 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 44 Rusholme Road Period: Field Team Initials: JS/GZ Description: Date: July 24, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Unknown No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Yes Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — more photos in winter may be helpful (thick tree coverage) CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Unknown No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 2 - 118 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Sub-Committee—also located in proposed Westmount Cultural Heritage Landscape INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that Yes No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — newer glass atrium is visible; Sub-Committee —conservatory is original HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 119 Statement of Significance 285 Simeon Street f 'f ............. 144 8 �J4 �11' u00111,11I <J9 `85 86 78 OUR I-Al,"(01-FAIIIIJA A<J 87 8f' fKI Municipal Address: 285 Simeon Street Legal Description: Plan 386 Lots 1 to 3, 58R-18236 Part 1 Year Built: 1950 Architectural Style: Modern (Contemporary) Original Owner: W. Stuart Jenkins Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 285 Simeon Street is a one storey mid-20th century house built in the Modern (Contemporary) architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.18 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Simeon Street between Stirling Avenue North and Weber Street East in the Auditorium 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 285 Simeon Street is recognized for its design, contextual and associative values. 2 - 120 The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a unique example of the Modern (Contemporary) architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is one storey in height and features: irregular plan; long linear asymmetrical fagade; flat roof with wide eave overhang; yellow brick and stone cladding; stone chimney; large picture windows with concrete sills; ribbon windows with concrete sills that wrap around the building corner; floor to ceiling windows; breezeway; and, single bay attached garage. The contextual value relates to the notable landscaping and mature trees which contribute to the setting of the house. The associative value relates to the original owner who was also the architect for the building and the builder. The building was originally owned and designed by William Stuart Jenkins of the architectural firm of Jenkins and Wright. William Stuart Jenkins and Sherman W. Wright formed a partnership in 1945 and opened an office in Kitchener (Hill, 2009). They were best known for their designs of municipal arena complexes in several Ontario towns, including the Kitchener Auditorium, and for the restoration in 1952 of Woodside, the home of William Lyon MacKenzie King (Hill, 2009). The building was built by Oscar Wiles (City of Kitchener, 1948). Oscar Wiles founded Oscar Wiles General Contractor in 1927, which later became Oscar Wiles and Sons Ltd. (KW Record, 1982). The company's first job was the former KW Record building at Duke Street and Queen Street (KW Record, 1982). Oscar's five sons: Arthur, Donald, Peter, Bill and Richard assisted with the family business, which built houses, churches, schools and factories. Heritage Attributes • All elements related to the Modern (Contemporary) architectural style of the apartment, including: • irregular plan; • long linear asymmetrical fagade; • flat roof with wide eave overhang; yellow brick and stone cladding; • stone chimney; • windows and window openings, including: • large picture windows with concrete sills; • ribbon windows with concrete sills that wrap around the building corner; • floor to ceiling windows; • breezeway; and, • single bay attached garage. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Landscaping and mature trees. References City of Kitchener. (1948). Building Permit #8623 — 285 Simeon Street. City of Kitchener: 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. 2 - 121 KW Record. (1982, July 3). Workers at $900 weekly force developer to quit. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Photos 2 v k ^M / 5 i n r � l t � l 11/��/�i ; �/,i gl,�e✓ 285 Simeon Street r f or r. 1' f i nkr r 285 Simeon Street 2 - 122 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 285 Simeon Street Period: 1950 Field Team Initials: CM/MD/LB Description: Date: July 4, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — modern home, likely-architect designed CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 2 - 123 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team —very large lot, mature trees; Sub-Committee: lot recently severed INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 124 Statement of Significance 100 St, Leger Street OR fd Municipal Address: 1OO St. Leger Street Legal Description: Plan 125 Lot 4 Year Built: o. 1880 Architectural Style: Ontario Gothic Revival Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 100 Et. Leger Street is a one-and-one-half storey |ah* 19"' century brick house built in the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.18 acre parcel of land located on the east side of St. Leger Street between Louisa Street and VVeUin0h»n Street North in the Mount Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes tothe heritage value is the house. Heritage Value The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house isa rare example ofthe Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style in the surrounding neighbourhood. The house is in good condition with a high level of integrity. The house is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features: a side gable roof with a centred gable with pointed arch window above the front door; a symmetrical front fagade with a central front door flanked by 8/8 windows on either side; yellow brick construction; original window openings with brick voussoirs; 8/8 windows; stone foundation; and, one-storey rear addition. The contextual values relate to the setting of the house which is oriented to face Breithaupt Street. 2 - 125 The associative and historic values relate to an early owner, Louis Dumart. He is listed in the 1910 Vernon's directory as the owner of 100 St. Leger Street and a butcher at Dumarts Ltd. The property stayed in the Dumart family from about 1910 until 1952. Dumarts Ltd. was a local meat packing business. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 100 St. Leger Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style of the house, including: • a side gable roof with a centred gable with pointed arch window above the front door; • a symmetrical front fagade with a central front door flanked by 6/6 windows on either side; • yellow brick construction; • original window openings with brick voussoirs; • 6/6 windows; • stone foundation; and, • one-storey rear addition. • 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 Eby Street streetscape. Photos a. `N r, t f } S Y 100 St. Leger Street 2 - 126 i r w°„ r b Y N MINE w�ri�N�'/Avr t � 100 St. Leger Street 2 - 127 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 100 St. Leger Street Period: 1880 Field Team Initials: LB/MD Description: 1.5 storey Ontario Gothic Cottage Date: July 11, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or No No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — rare in inner City urban context (Ontario Gothic Cottage style) CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable 2 - 128 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — orientation to the site, not facing St. Leger Street INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — high degree of integrity HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Unknown Yes 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. 2 - 129 Statement of Significance 394 Stirling Avenue South F„ O 1 2 23 1 j :7 JIQP •4 '�r y U65 394 o �I JJJJJJ w " IIIIJIIIII� , �� IlliiOOR` W7 Municipal Address: 394 Stirling Avenue South Legal Description: Plan 128 Lot 13 Year Built: c. 1914 Architectural Style: Stick Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Condition Description of Historic Place 394 Stirling Avenue South is a two-and-a-half storey early 20th century house built in the Stick architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.22 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Stirling Avenue South between Russel Street and Mill Street in the Mill Courtland Woodside 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 394 Stirling Avenue South is recognized for its design and contextual values. 2 - 130 The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable, rare and unique example of the Stick architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two-and-a-half storeys in height and features: steeply pitched false front gable roof with steeply pitched cross gable roof; decorative trusses in gable ends with brackets; round window in false front gable; overhanging eaves with brackets; yellow brick and wood shingle wall cladding; cobblestone front porch; original window openings and windows; original door openings and doors; and, cobblestone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Stirling Avenue South streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 394 Stirling Avenue South resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Stick architectural style of the house, including: • steeply pitched false front gable roof with steeply pitched cross gable roof; • decorative trusses in gable ends with brackets; • round window in false front gable; • overhanging eaves with brackets; • yellow brick and wood shingle wall cladding; • cobblestone front porch; • original window openings and windows; • original door openings and doors; and, • cobblestone 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 Stirling Avenue South streetscape. 2 - 131 Photos a w Y A 1 p T�f rF �;rJ 394 Stirling Avenue South tai i f %%iii 4 b 1 l r, 394 Stirling Avenue South 2 - 132 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 394 Stirling Avenue South Period: 1914 Field Team Initials: ML/LB/CM Description: Date: April 5, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or No Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — notable for style and use of cobblestones and extensive covered of wood shingles, wooden detailing at gable peak missing from one of the side gables CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No 2 - 133 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team —very similar design to adjacent 396 Stirling Avenue South INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 134 Statement of Significance 396-398 Stirling Avenue South Pop, s 1y'll I I III�'p gryp"�q1 / Ily y1 '�y nom"n1 'y'1y 4 � x'11 41 .•.,'� N ly Oil gll,l � mUII 11, I I I �tf.3:. yily I 1 1 r I I. I y,ll d� y I y I I hi 4 11 .`w.0 by 11 I �1 1 .....y 1 I I y I y 1yh '' II. 4 1 r RO 1 li "f ap '• 4 1 4 1 1 .n ��^ I., :. I 1 r Ily ✓�� 1 '1 h:,.,• 'll. 'i,l y Al �➢y wl y 1 I 4 1 h I,i « 1 4 4yl y' 'I y'11 ,ww .ay 1 441 h 6�a'y 4ry 41 "»w' 111 by 4 YI 0 4 y1y y1 1y y,1y n�„In 4 '4 y .,. 4 1 4 h 4 14y 4,y .:ply I, 111xy 1 11`'Iy l �il;�, ��a l('''4,1y4 Iry 0 38,11 42 4 nw y1y 'ly �11yh �u � yv q11 h ylly ly 11,., 4'11 4 `'�I � �°n I I I 1, y1y y�11 /� w�q�y ,1y y y ly a 41 h 41 l� 1 y I. I Municipal Address: 396-398 Stirling Avenue South Legal Description: Plan 128 Lot 12 Year Built: c. 1914 Architectural Style: Stick Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Condition Description of Historic Place 396-398 Stirling Avenue South is a two-and-a-half storey early 20th century house built in the Stick architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.22 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Stirling Avenue South between Russel Street and Mill Street in the Mill Courtland 2 - 135 Woodside 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 396-398 Stirling Avenue South is recognized for its design and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the house. The house is a notable, rare and unique example of the Stick architectural style. The house is in good condition. The house is two-and-a-half storeys in height and features: steeply pitched false front gable roof with steeply pitched cross gable roof; decorative trusses in gable ends with brackets; round window in false front gable; overhanging eaves with brackets; red brick and wood shingle wall cladding; cobblestone front porch with square tapered columns; original window openings and windows; original door openings and doors; and, cobblestone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Stirling Avenue South streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 396-398 Stirling Avenue South resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Stick architectural style of the house, including: • steeply pitched false front gable roof with steeply pitched cross gable roof; • decorative trusses in gable ends with brackets; • round window in false front gable; • overhanging eaves with brackets; • red brick and wood shingle wall cladding; • cobblestone front porch with square tapered columns; • original window openings and windows; • original door openings and doors; and, • cobblestone 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 Stirling Avenue South streetscape. 2 - 136 Photos 396-398 Stirling Avenue South r 396-398 Stirling Avenue South 2 - 137 a r 1, 396-398 Stirling Avenue South 2 - 138 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 396-398 Stirling Avenue South Period: 1914 Field Team Initials: ML/LB/CM Description: Date: April 5, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular Yes No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — notable for architectural style and use of cobblestones; Sub-Committee - shingles CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No 2 - 139 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — contextual connection to 394 Stirling Avenue South INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team —garage double bay HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 140 Statement of Significance 217 Strange Street sJ�, uu . uuuuu a mu a�uuum�uuu umuu � 'hu � i Municipal Address: 217 Strange Street Legal Description: Plan 431 Part Lot 1 Year Built: 1944 Architectural Style: Mid-Century Vernacular Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Apartment Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 217 Strange Street is a 2-storey mid-20th century apartment designed in the Mid-Century Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.08 acre parcel of land on the corner of Glasgow Street and Park Street in the K-W Hospital 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. 2 - 141 Heritage Value 217 Strange Street 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 a low rise apartment building designed in the Mid-Century Vernacular architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is 2-storeys in height and features: low pitched hip roof; square plan; varied brick colour; windows and window openings, including: 6/1 windows with concrete sills; two front projecting bays with copper hipped roofs, 6/1 windows and concrete sills; ogee shaped front door and concrete front door surround; decorative concrete sign that reads "WESTVILLE APTS"; and, concrete parged foundation. The contextual values relate to the continuity and character of the street. The building contributes to the continuity and character of the Strange Street streetscape. The overall design of the low rise apartment in terms of form and height is compatible and complimentary to the surrounding neighbourhood that is primarily characterized by 1.5 and 2-storey single detached dwellings. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 217 Strange Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Mid-Century Vernacular architectural style, including: • low pitched hip roof; • square plan; • varied brick colour; • windows and window openings, including: ■ 6/1 windows with concrete sills; • two front projecting bays with copper hipped roofs, 6/1 windows and concrete sills; • ogee shaped front door and concrete front door surround; • decorative concrete sign that reads "WESTVILLE APTS"; and, • concrete parged foundation. 2 - 142 Photos 217 Strange Street y l i of J 1' 217 Strange Street 2 - 143 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 217 Strange Street Period: Field Team Initials: LB/MD Description: Date: July 2, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes No details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team - varied brick colour; smooth brick; windows (6/1); glass block; concrete sills; concrete door surround; "Westville Apts"; Sub-Committee— low rise multiple residential building CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No 2 - 144 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown No within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes 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: similar to building at 754 Queen Street South 2 - 145 Statement of Significance 265 Weber Street East 2 ?S4"4 ; 1 F1' I I I �L,L.I I I I I T Ahl CH A:91 IFFY y' / 2 C, 1104 i "mmu", Y " 11 dnv" Municipal Address: 265 Weber Street East Legal Description: Plan 339 Lot 17 and 18 Part Lot 16 and 19 Year Built: 1950 Architectural Style: Mid Century Vernacular Original Owner: M. Kraus Original Use: Residential Apartments Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 265 Weber Street East is a three storey mid-20th century brick apartment built in the Mid Century Vernacular architectural style. The apartment is situated on a 0.36 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Weber Street East between Simeon Street and Borden Avenue in 2 - 146 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 apartment building. Heritage Value 265 Weber Street East 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 "Eastview 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 Weber Street East streetscape. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 265 Weber Street East 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 "Eastview 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 Weber Street East streetscape. 2 - 147 Photos I r i y I J; f t i 265 Weber Street East 4 % 1 1 u r iir � l JI 265 Weber Street East 2 - 148 ' /%r�/l/0j /y r//%�r/viii ra,, 1 r r r / /,iii/ ,lii i r t, r ri rN 265 Weber Street East 2 - 149 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 265 Weber Street East Period: 1950 Field Team Initials: CM/MD Description: Eastview Apts Date: July 12, 2013 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Field Team — lights at entrance appear to differ among the 4 buildings— perhaps some are replacements, includes garage CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character Yes Yes of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping No No noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness No No 2 - 150 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? No No 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? Yes Yes 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. 2 - 151 Statement of Significance 278 Weber Street East 1211,n I% 2 82 278 2 2e , %f 2 92 t' 6.5 Z�/�����j""h Vi,µ ,i f 2=;4ic. ,,,.,�/ / / /� ""„•'M Municipal Address: 278 Weber Street East Legal Description: Plan 336 Part Block A & B Year Built: 1929 Architectural Style: Collegiate with Gothic influences Original Owner: Public School Board Original Use: School Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 278 Weber Street East is a two storey early-20th century building designed in the Collegiate architectural style with Gothic influences. The building is situated on a 4.73 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Weber Street East between Simeon Street and Borden Avenue North in the Auditorium Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the school building. 2 - 152 Heritage Value 278 Weber Street East is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The building is a notable example of the Collegiate architectural style with Gothic influences. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: flat roof; red brick; stone banding, window surrounds and door surround, including sign that reads "SHEPPARD"; semi-circular entrance with double doors, sidelights and transom; flat headed window openings; and, stone foundation. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Weber Street East streetscape. The setting and orientation of the building is noteworthy as it is located parallel to Weber Street East with a substantial setback from the road providing ample room for mature trees and a long walkway leading to the front stairs. The building is considered a neighbourhood landmark. The historic and associative values relate to the public school system and a local educational leader. Sheppard Public School was the sixth public school in Kitchener. The school was named after Frederick William Sheppard who was active in education from the 1870s through to 1928 (Noonan, 1975). He was an assistant to Jeremiah Suddaby in the Model School for Teachers in Training and a public school inspector from about 1904 until 1928 (Noonan, 1975). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 278 Weber Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the Collegiate architectural style and Gothic influences of the school, including: • flat roof; • red brick; • stone banding, window surrounds and door surround, including sign that reads "SHEPPARD"; • semi-circular entrance with double doors, sidelights and transom; • flat headed window openings; and, • 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 Weber Street East streetscape; • Orientation of the building parallel to Weber Street East; • Substantial setback from Weber Street East; • Mature trees; • Walkway; and, • Front stairs. References Noonan, G. (1975). A History of Kitchener. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. 2 - 153 Photos Q, 1 �r 1 278 Weber Street East 1 , t r ' i r I 1 Wj r ,r;i i %r l i li uII l� f uv i %f 278 Weber Street East 2 - 154 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 278 Weber Street East Period: 1929 Field Team Initials: Description: Sheppard P.S. Date: 2011 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular Yes Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? Notes: Sub-Committee - architectural style is collegiate; design details CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or Yes Yes character of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes Yes Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes, Yes, region, city or neighbourhood? Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Completeness No No Does this structure have other original outbuildings, 2 - 155 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes: Field Team — nice stately old buildings and focal point of neighbourhood INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 No Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes No 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? Yes Yes 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—still functions as a school; neighbourhood school 2 - 156 Statement of Significance 49 Woolwich Street . �+ fit. I . .... 1 60 t .. r 1 µ_, �...._.n_.... I. 56 4�N� 5r _ 1 f Municipal Address: 49 Woolwich Street Legal Description: GCT Part Lot 59, 58R-17146 Part 1 Year Built: c. 1904 Architectural Style: Queen Anne Revival Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 55 Woolwich Street is a two storey early 20th century brick building built in the Queen Anne Revival architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.20 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Woolwich Street between Bridge Street West and Hillcrest Lane in the Bridgeport West 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 55 Woolwich Street is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historical and associative values. 2 - 157 The house is an example of the Queen Anne Revival architectural style. The house is recognized for its attractive and unique design, composition, craftsmanship and details. The house is in good condition with many intact original elements. The house features: steeply pitched gable rooflines; `L' shape plan; yellow brick construction; wrap around verandah with pickets, posts and brackets; front bay window; 1/1 hung wood windows with decorative brickwork; wood storm windows; wood soffits, eaves and brackets; and, granite stone foundation. The historic and associative value relates to the original size of the property as Lot 59 of the German Company Tract within the Village of Bridgeport. It is likely that Lot 59 of the German Company Tract was originally founded in 1815 by John Brubacher who was married to Catharine Sherk. Later property owners included: Jacob S. Shoemaker, a miller, (1820); Jacob Shoemaker, a miller, and Samuel Brubacher (1861); Peter Shirk, a miller (1881); Peter Shirk, a miller, and Moses Hunsberger, a farmer (1901); and, Shirk and Snider, millers, and John G. Hahn, a farmer (1921). The property appears on the Tremaine Map of the County of Waterloo in 1861 and is owned by E. & J.B. Eby who were the Proprietors of the Lancaster Mills. Contextually, the house is recognized as a neighbourhood landmark and represents one of the last remaining farmhouses in the area. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 49Woolwich Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Queen Anne Revival architectural style of the house, including: o steeply pitched gable rooflines; o `L' shape plan; o yellow brick construction; o wrap around verandah with pickets, posts and brackets; o windows and window openings, including: ■ front bay window; ■ 1/1 hung wood windows with decorative brickwork; ■ wood storm windows; o doors and door openings; o wood soffits, eaves and brackets; and, o granite stone foundation. References James Fryett Architect. (2008). 55 Woolwich St. Kitchener, Ontario Conservation Plan. 2 - 158 Photos Yr e r r a � � t o , 49 Woolwich Street !1 ON?/ �alr'fl rr i11iYlr�g �(I� ryYri 1117! t ��(rfrf �j ri V / i� aye,; w; � w�uvuuuw'wvu��u+auwwuu�uuwurrxa� ,am . rte xwn� aW 49 Woolwich Street 2 - 159 I{ I f 1✓ / r r � b � r I i r aJl @✓lei/ � ��� a �����`'�", `� ° f��V1Pr�//�!U/�%%%�'�� ��ilrv�i 49 Woolwich Street . ((f� � >¢ °rr�iw, J r✓f �r/% �/ii a r!((l �>>J!I���/��l '���/� 1^ „ s u r, 49 Woolwich Street 2 - 160 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 55 Woolwich Street Period: c. 1904 Field Team Initials: EG/SB Description: 2 Storey Yellow Brick House Date: 2007 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular No Yes architectural style? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular No No material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or Yes Yes details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Unknown No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or Unknown Unknown detail noteworthy? CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character No No of the street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping Yes Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? Yes No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the Yes Yes region, city or neighbourhood? Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Yes Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? 2 - 161 Notes: Field Team —was one of the first houses on the street and later homes built of different styles with smaller lots and less setback from street, retains original building; Sub-Committee— one of the only farmhouses in the immediate area INTEGRITY FIELD EVALUATION TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials and Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that No No have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — only major feature missing is the upper verandah railing and balustrade; Sub-Committee—aluminum soffits, asphalt shingles HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE& FIELD EVALUATION SIGNIFICANCE TEAM SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Unknown Unknown within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No 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? Yes Yes 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 - home originally built and occupied by Richard Quickfall whose family was from Floradale, the Quickfall farm in Floradale was pictured on a historic map in City Atlas, Floradale Farm called "Evergreen Farm," which may explain the tall evergreen trees on this property; Sub-Committee - neighbourhood landmark; one of the last original farmhouses in the area; may have been first house on Woolwich Street Additional Research: property originally part of much larger lot known as Lot 59 within the German Company Tract; originally founded in 1815 by John Brubacher who was married to Catharine Sherk. Later property owners included: Jacob S. Shoemaker, occupation: a miller, 2 - 162 (1820); Jacob Shoemaker, occupation: a miller, and Samuel Brubacher (1861); Peter Shirk, occupation: a miller (1881); Peter Shirk, occupation: a miller, and Moses Hunsberger, occupation: a farmer (1901); and, Shirk and Snider, occupation: millers, and John G. Hahn, occupation: a farmer (1921). The property appears on the Tremaine Map of the County of Waterloo in 1861 and is owned by E. & J.B. Eby who were the Proprietors of the Lancaster Mills 2 - 163 a tl m , • 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 � 1 ® • 1 luu>Imluu • 1 i tl , i • 1 1 � • 1 IVml�iiiiiuull 1 1 • , 1 1 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 o C} i U .x 3 tU 0 'c cu i � 0 ' � uuuuuuuu 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 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 c W iQ -c %%/ "'11111 mllllll' m "� �uuuuuumu -0 -c ■� � � ,� ������/ R3 /,,, uuu uuuuuuuuuuuuu u L 2 '" / "iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� �iw O � � ��� ��j,O/�; � IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � „rrrr ,�,,, m uuuuuuuu C'7 f 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, / / i i 00 i / / i / U Is- LM Q Q �. ■ O q 41 (1) � 0 T- > N (B 3 p Q cu cu, �- a� cu o C © ccu 0 0), 7 cu CL 70 cu C U �; iiii _ c o it �? -0 O © c W > w N N N O cu 0 d -C 3f AW NN N L L L C) a N 'C N _ a) (n N Z C D Q � to a O O O � 'O O Q LL f� Q a i r .,,,,,,..,,,, ,,,,,, /i / -C -C 5 / 4 46 � O p " c q � O lit � CL uj � � � PL LM 4t7 a) C3 sv s C3} C3 a) cu iii o a) = v) U C7 C O D c c to U ■ p CU p O s to C c 0) 0) c v) 4J a) +. �1 C 0) a) 0) 4 0- c (/) m 0 0 0- o a) cu a) 5) E' 4- �c our '+- cn a) .- ai o 4 o 0 , aa)i 0) 0) c c 0- 0- -0 a) U � C cu o '� _ Q o 0 o © a w U) 0 /% ° c N c a ._ m _� � a) , 0-'F LO �s � U) T - N "' m m 2 2 g ;;;; "I'illmmuuuuuuuuuu 11 E E �s a) � 2 0 s a) o �� � �� � CU c — Q1 ui"'i"muuuuuuuuuui ,,,N � .�} ; i Q) a) Q r CL i�O „,;, R3 " w O O (7 0/,/;/""”,„ L ,_ O ;U 0 o s o a ,,, j p ) i CU (0, co � Z :E / Vuuuo 0 0 o 0 0 0 0// muuuuum uuuuuuuuu ' iii ���thi i�llllllll°IIII' � W (7 O o E Lu LL .o a N U (D h W W `o m rI� y m IAI�I ,>ii, a � � s IIIIIIII 'I n V lilll � A IIIIIIIIV� v a " u�4-j -4-1 1 d axi a w <° Q z y W O � = . c a 03 � M 0.'$ cn M o CIO 0. 0 4-j CD Q C: m d cn d� m U V c a C3 O a c o- C7 (n D j>> d U D 0 0 of " / i / / z3 / / / / / / / / / / / / / aii%/ .. _ J Q a) t R3 C13 ( , . - .... in pm CD C/) om 0 p �- q�j 3 % QD �- i ._ -E-� cr Q o (� Q c -0 O QJ ;, 4-j -'-j -p-j O �� -C -C N q , Ali '' a �I�iiii �� �I ���� �uuuuiu I uuu�� a � t up uu t III 0110 m�111111""" ���� 1111111011 �I � l II �I . � t ® � 1 1 1i ► ► II � U ► / / III ' IIIIIII�II n I V�lum������ 1 �I IIIIIIIIIIU 1 1 1 1 ' INE / , / 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) uu ! G / {r I w I , a✓�;�'Y r � ��ir rcr� <� i I V r Y //o �rRlll�l 'I �I !a i ATM' r r °l� MI I' II i i�X lu, y It 2 Hr , U r mm u lllllluum�� w U I I �n°"' imnnni ul° I� U 1111111 uumm arr'� moo I i r v w luu / o / / / / i / i a , , / Sri / / At � �} s.. ' X s.. •L + 2. .., , 0 � C ,,,,,q ,, p cu 4.4 -L tU M O ?, Jc c !/3 — C: �c •> N p #-' , N N •N _ p L. #�+ +, U �0 -� i3. U (U N r . -�--� �t3 � / cu cn � ) CU - cu �-.� / ; + C: O to Z3 R3 _ ■— D L.C:L � � mm IV u p„ , iii lllllluum�� w w I I ���������� Rio VU � Mxbhf V �nm" imnnni ul° i� �� U 1111111 uumm arr'� ��y� s �J� � �v�� ,� � ��, ,�, ,. ������ i �NN� � � � � �J>v�2�r�ie � �„ wl,,, � � ... moo ��r, ,i yw"r�«Hr> �r `` �, i i r ii��� v „� Y, ,�1 r� a °, ✓� luu �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 , i�... cm cU - iii /dial J! CIL Nm -�-► .— CL � E: z3. C� to +r d d (U tJ 0, 03. cn — :R cu C].. cu cn cn � s.. 0 ' � .00C cu 0 p � cU IN IN m L, �— �, Q -ii E O p �. 4 Q o s.. cn cn U N cry Illm U E (U N � N Co (U C: .�.., . cu 0 — 0 IN s.. , C Q ._ : EE 4-4 co h 17 0 0 0 0 � co IN _ cu tU U '— W cm —E t/) ,x'37 4- 0 ch 1 / / t ► / II Ell iffill 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t 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" " El cu r„ i L / L February 10, 2015 Municipal Heritage Register Frequently Asked Questions Q1. 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. Q2. Are heritage approvals required for listed properties that apply for a building permit to conduct interior or exterior work to the building? No. Q3. 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. Q4. 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. Q5. 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; • 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. 2 - 185 February 10, 2015 Q6. 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. Q7. 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. Q8. 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. Q9. 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. Q10. 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. 2 - 186 February 10, 2015 Q11. 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. Q12. 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. Q13. 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. Q14. 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. Q15. 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. Q16. 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. 2 - 187 February 10, 2015 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 PPS 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 2 - 188 February 10, 2015 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 2 - 189 <A Municipal Heritage Register Comment Form Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Thank you in advance for providing your input. Please return (by email, mail or fax) to the address listed below by March 24, 2015. Separate letters are also welcomed. 3 y5- IV/X yOct k4UZ Sr.:A.,T GCS Jo,-f6 iw/=p OA) '7-41 % /C 3 6,u c 7j I"�� s'�t 7— CA- p`i o !4 Page 21/2 03 1 Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments contained on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and nm/nrhpr ncrcnnat information will be kept confidential. Name: Signature: Address: Email: t Phone: Date: To learn more about the municipal heritage register,you can check the webpage at: http://www.kitchener.ca Please Direct All Questions, Comments,and Forms to: Michelle Drake, MASS, MCIP, RPP Heritage Planner Community Services Department City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 61h Floor Berlin Tower Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 Email: michelle.drake @kitchener.ca Fax: 519-741-2624 Page 2/2 2 - 191 - Municipal Heritage Reg Lc Comment Form Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Thank you in advance for providing your input. Please return (by email, mail or fax) to the address listed below by March 24, 2015. Separate letters are also welcomed. a& jA- /?A a,� 46 C W4r W/& g�- 4�4 A x ' f 2 4 �. IIJJ�2— t } Page 3./2 2 - 192 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 *' Phone:519.621.2761 Toll free: 866.900.4722 Fax:519.621.4844 Online:www.grandriver.ca March 19, 2015 Michelle Drake, MAES, MCIP, RPP Heritage Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 michelle.drakekitchener.ca Dear Ms. Drake: RE: Ferrie Mill, Old Mill Road, Kitchener— Municipal Heritage Register This letter is in response to the Municipal Heritage Register notice to listing a property owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) in the registry. The GRCA is not opposed to the listing of the Ferrie Mill on the Municipal Heritage Register provided that the proposed acknowledgement of heritage significance does not negatively impact the GRCA's ability to affordably manage public safety on this property. Some of the walls of the Ferrie Mill are quite high, and as the mortar degrades, the walls may become unsafe. The GRCA is not in a position to commission the work of stonemasons to restore this structure. When the time comes to address the stability of this wall, the GRCA would like to ensure that they have the ability to address the safety of this property with financially feasible options. For example, the GRCA may consider removing the upper portion of the walls so that their height and the potential for falling limestone does not become a hazard to the public. In doing so, the GRCA understands that this may impact heritage attributes, namely the one storey corner with window opening and the date stone that reads "boon Mills 1839". In this instance the GRCA would propose that, with the assistance of existing municipal funding for heritage structures, the wall could be lowered to a height that still preserves a portion of the window ivluuironbeir of d;uuiriscrwfli iri Or kivilo, irr°iuira°scn0irig Oirilairlo'ra '0 Coiru„na irva[J uiru A uOhoiruYucs uuuu 11ruc 61rand A (',�inn��auin�lla�u1 ¢�II3�ir Ferrie Mill, Old Mill Road, Kitchener—Municipal Heritage Register opening, and the date stone could be preserved and installed in a monument adjacent to the wall. With sufficient funding assistance, a plaque noting the historical significance of the site may also be considered. As a conservation authority that has a Canadian Heritage River designation, the GRCA has an understanding and appreciation for sites with historical significance. The GRCA asks only that the historical significance of this site be contemplated in concert with public safety and without placing unnecessary additional financial burden on the conservation authority. Sincerely, Samantha Lawson, MCIP, RPP Manager of Property 2 - 194