Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
HK - 2016-08-02 - Item 4 - HIA - William & Strange Streets
Date: July 19, 2016 To: Heritage Kitchener Committee Members From: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning cc: Subject: Heritage Impact Assessment William Street & Strange Street Water Supply Systems Class EA 25 Strange Street (Strange Street Pumping Station) The Region of Waterloo is undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the most appropriate development option for upgrades to the water supply for the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. The Strange Street Pumping Station located at 25 Strange Street has been identified as the optimum location for a new treatment facility. The necessary upgrades will require the construction of a new building or expansion. As 25 Strange Street is listedon the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been prepared to further inform the EA Study process. Five potential approaches to building the new facility on the Strange Street site have been examined. The enclosed HIA is intended to identify the relative impacts of the 5 options with respect to the heritage attributes and significance of the property. Mr. Kaoru Yajima, Senior Planning Engineer for the Region of Waterloo will be in attendance at Heritage Kitchener on August 2, 2016 to provide a brief overview of the EA Study process and preferred alternative. Committee members are encouraged to review the enclosed HIA and provide any comments directly to Regional and City staff at the Heritage Kitchener meeting. 4 - 1 25 Strange Street Pumping Station Heritage Impact Assessment for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Brian Luey Architect Inc. 302-88 Dunn Street Oakville ON L6J 3C7 June 2016 4 - 2 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 4 ¡«¤®¥#®³¤³² 1Background.........................................................................................................................................3 2Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements.................................................................................4 2.1Present Owner Contact Information........................................................................................4 2.2History of Site Use.....................................................................................................................4 2.3Existing Structures, Significance and Heritage Attributes...................................................5 2.3.1Existing Structures on the Property.................................................................................5 2.3.2Conclusions Regarding the Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Cultural Heritage Resources...........................................................................................................................7 2.4Documentation of Subject Property......................................................................................10 2.5Proposed Development...........................................................................................................13 2.5.1Alternate 1.........................................................................................................................14 2.5.2Alternate 2.........................................................................................................................15 2.5.3Alternate 3.........................................................................................................................16 2.5.4Alternate 4.........................................................................................................................17 2.5.5Alternate 5.........................................................................................................................18 2.6Conservation Options..............................................................................................................19 2.7Summary of Conservation Principles....................................................................................20 2.8Explanation of Proposed Alterations and Demolitions.......................................................23 2.9Recommendations...................................................................................................................23 2.10Qualifications of the Author....................................................................................................24 3Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations.....................................................24 4Mandatory Recommendation.........................................................................................................24 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................25 AppendixAΑCityofKitchener,HeritageImpactAssessment,TermsofReference2013 AppendixBΑStatementofSignificance25StrangeStreet2013 AppendixCΑOntarioRegulation9/06,CriteriaforDeterminingCulturalHeritageValueorInterest AppendixDOntarioMinistryofCultureͷ9źŭŷƷGuidingPrinciplesintheConservationofBuiltHeritage Properties'InformationSheet 2BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 3 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 1 Background Under the provisions of Section 2 the Ontario Planning Act municipal governments shall have regard for matters of Provincial interest such as the conservation of features of significant architectural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. The Planning Act also requires that decisions of Council be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 3 (PPS). Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS requires that significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved. In 2010 the City of Kitchener Council added the property at 25 Strange Street to the list of Non-Designated Historic Properties, recognizing the site for ‘its design, contextual, historic and associative values’. The heritage attributes identified in Appendix A: Statements of Significance 25 Strange Street which form part of the listing documentation are as follows: All elements related to the Art Deco architectural style of the house (sic), including: o rectangular plan; o flat roof with decorative brick cornice; o red brick; o door opening with concrete surround: o window openings with concrete keystones and sills; o building signage that reads “Waterworks”; o date stone that reads “1922”; and o concrete foundation. All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Proximity of an artesian water source; and, o The ability for the water from various wells to flow by gravity to the pump house. The historic and associated values also noted in the Statements of Significance include its relation to the Public Works Commission and the construction company. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, the current owners of the property are undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the most appropriate development option for upgrades to the water supply system for the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. The Strange Street Pumping Station site has been identified as the optimum location for a new treatment facility. The necessary upgrades to the water treatment processes require the addition of new water storage and treatment tanks, chemical storage areas and process and pumping equipment. This results in the need for new building area in the range of 400 to 425 m2. The EA study has further defined five potential approaches to locating the new facilities on the Strange Street site. 3BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 4 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener This Heritage Impact Assessment is intended to identify the relative merits of the five options with respect to the heritage attributes identified in the Statements of Significance which warranted the listing of the property. 2 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements 2.1 Present Owner Contact Information Regional Municipality of Waterloo Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener Ontario Tel: 519-575-4426 2.2 History of Site Use Tremaine’s Map of the County of Waterloo Canada West, produced by Geo. E & G.M. 6 Tremaine, Toronto in 1861 , which is on display at the Kitchener Public Library central branch indicates that the property at 25 Strange Street was part of Spring Valley Farm, 7 owned by Geo. Randall. The Waterloo Township Cadastre in 1861 , compiled by Elizabeth Bloomfield lists Geo. Randall’s occupation as ‘farmer’ with a total holding of 263 acres in the German Company Tract Lots 19/21, Section H. The property is currently identified as Plan 375, Part Lot 270, Part Lot 329 & Part Lot 494. Land Registry records show that parts of Lot 270 were purchase from John Laschatzke by the City of Kitchener in June of 1921 and February of 1922 and 1.45 acres of Lot 494 in February 1922. (Records for Lot 329 were not found on file) According to Vernon’s 9 Kitchener and Waterloo City Directory 1920 , Mr. Laschatzke lived at 35 Strange Street. In March 1892, he had purchased 2 ½ acres of Lot 494 from Stanislaus Nowak (a button maker whose address was listed as 35 Strange Street in the Waterloo County Directory 1886-89). The property which is now 25 Strange Street was purchase by the Kitchener Water Commission for the purpose of constructing a pumping station and a steel reservoir to be fed from artesian wells previously established in the district. The facility remained in the Commission’s ownership until it was assumed by the newly formed Regional Municipality of Waterloo in 1973. 4BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 5 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener Fig.1 PresentDaySiteandEnvirons 2.3 Existing Structures, Significance and Heritage Attributes 2.3.1 Existing Structures on the Property There are two primary structures on the site, the Pumping Station building and a circular steel above ground reservoir. The Pumping Station building located to the south end of the property is constructed with load bearing brick masonry walls and a cast in place concrete roof structure. It was constructed in 1922 by Dunker Bros. in an industrial art deco style. The exterior red brick coursing includes splayed soldier course, flat arch lintels with concrete keystones over window and door openings, a decorative brick cornice line and a cast concrete base course. A cast concrete panel with metal signage letters reading ‘WATERWORKS’ and a date stone ‘1922’ are centred in the cornice bands on the east and north facades respectively. While the basic masonry form of the Waterworks building remains, many of the original exterior architectural features have been replaced or modified in the intervening 90 years since its construction. In 1926, the Commission reported that the parapet walls ‘had to be rebuilt and the coping relaid’ (sic). Subsequent re-roofing and repairs has led to the replacement of the limestone coping with pre-finished metal flashings, the exterior wooden access door has been replaced with insulated metal and all of the window openings have been covered with metal siding. On the north wall is a large sectional 5BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 6 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener overhead door of modern design which replaces the wood and glass hinged doors and transom of the original building. An underground concrete ‘wet well’ extends out from the south wall of the Pumping Station as does a small concrete basement area at the north-east corner which was originally used for coal storage. In 1983 an electrical transformer enclosure was constructed from spilt faced and decorative architectural concrete block on the east face of the building. Directly above the transformer is a chain link fence guard extending from the parapet. The Pumping Station interior is a single space having exposed buff brick walls with green glazed brick wainscoting and red bullnose brick window surrounds. The ceiling is exposed cast-in-place concrete. Much of the original oak millwork remains including the wood and glass partitions of a small office and a water closet in the north east corner of the building. The original manually operated overhead travelling crane is still in place as is the large diesel engine and back-up electrical generator. The reservoir, originally built in 1922 by Horton Steel Works is located to the north of the Pumping Station and was constructed of riveted plate steel sections on a concrete base. It was replaced in 1989. Fig.2SketchPlanofSiteStructuresandUndergroundPiping 6BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 7 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 2.3.2 Conclusions Regarding the Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Cultural Heritage Resources The property and pumping station building at 25 Strange Street have played a significant role in the development of the City of Kitchener. A rapid increase in industrial production during World War I created major water shortages in Berlin (Kitchener). Berlin had previously contracted with the Water Commission of the Town of Waterloo for the supply up to 700,000 gallons of water per day. A contract that was due to expire on July 1 1923. It was in this context that the then superintendant of the Kitchener Water Commission, Marcel Pequegnat provided the commissioners with the financial justification for rd development of a new pump house on the Strange Street site. In the 1921 23 Annual Report of the Commission, the chairman J.C. Breithaupt Esq. Indicated that “The erection of this new Pumping Plant is chiefly for improvement of the service for fire purposes, and it is expected that this Plant will be completed during the present year.” Mr. Pequegnat’s report to the Commission in 1922 described the rationale for the project. “For ten or more years the Waterworks system of Kitchener has been barely sufficient to supply the needs of the City during summer months, so rapid has been its growth and so great has been its demand for water for Industrial purposes. During the last few years the Industrial consumption has been almost 70 per cent of the total consumption of the City. Being an inland city, over five hundred feet above the great lakes, and having no lakes or springs in the vicinity from which to draw an ample supply of suitable water, Kitchener has always had to face a ready water problem.” “In the fall of 1920, and during 1921, the Commissioners drilled several artesian wells in the Strange St. district, with such good results that plans and estimates were prepared for the development of the district. In addition to the wells, which had already been drilled the estimated expenditure for the whole scheme, as will be described forth-with was $150,000. The cost was small compared with the Bridgeport scheme.” “....it was deemed advisable, considering also the tightness of the money market, to construct a modern plant at Strange St. As the work has further developed the Commissioners feel satisfied that it was the proper action to take.” “A site was obtained having a frontage of 225 feet on Strange St. and a depth of 300 feet. It is only 6000 feet from the heart of the City, and is also located, that the water from various wells in the district, can flow by gravity to the Pump well.” 7BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 8 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener Fig.3StrangeSt.reservoirconstructionearly1922Fig.4Pumphousefoundationformworkearly1922 Fig.5ErectionofreservoirsteelJuly221922Fig.6PumpHouseinteriorJuly221922 Fig.7FoundationFormsandPipinginstallation1922Fig.8PumpHouseconstructionJuly221922 8BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 9 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener Fig.9StrangeStreetSiteDecember261922Fig.10WaterCommisionat StrangeSt.SiteOctober1923 Fig.11&12TwoPhotosofStrangeStreetPumpingStationInteriordatedDec261922 Fig.13PhotographofcompletedStrangeStreetFig.14PhotographofcompletedStrangeStreet PumpHousedated1923PumpHousedated1939 9BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 10 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 5 (HistoricphotosfromUofWSpecialCollections) 2.4 Documentation of Subject Property Fig.15NorthFacade2015Fig.16SouthFacade2015 Fig.17WestFacade2015Fig.17ViewfromSoutheast2016 Fig.19Detailofͷ!9whwY{signageFig.20DetailofCorniceBrickwork 10BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 11 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener Fig.21NorthDoorSurroundandDateStoneFig.22TypicalWindowSill,LintelandKeyStone Fig.23TransformerEnclosureFig.24GuardFenceatParapet 11BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 12 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener Fig.25/26Morris5TonhandoperatedtravellingcraneattheStrangeStreetpumpingStation Fig.27/28InteriorOfficePartitionsFig.29PlaqueonInt.SouthWall The Strange Street Pumping Station in Kitchener played a critical role in the historic development of the municipality. A clean and adequate source of water for fire protection, industrial and domestic uses was and remains an essential ingredient for the growth of cities. Effective fire protection was prerequisite when major enterprises sought to locate. Fire was a major risk which could devastate an industry or merchant. Industrial water use was by far the dominant consumer during the years of growth between the 1880’s and 1940’s. Both the Kitchener (Berlin) and Waterloo Boards of Trade recognized the importance of a good water system and became instrumental in influencing the municipal councils to initiate improvements. The Strange Street site became and was for some time the primary source of water for the municipal system. It continues to supply water to the core area of the City of Kitchener today. 12BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 13 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 2.5 Proposed Development The Regional Municipality of Waterloo is completing an Environmental Assessment (EA) study to determine the optimum approach to integrating the water supply systems of the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. The study has determined that the preferred approach will be to install a watermain connection between the William Street well site in Waterloo and Strange Street Pumping Station site in Kitchener and provide additional treatment facilities at the Strange Street location.An extensive examination of the site was made to develop the alternatives for development. Calculation of footprint requirements indicate that the treatment equipment would not fit within the existing building and an that expansion would be needed. During the process of identifying alternative layouts of the expansion, those alternatives which would have known conflicts with regulatory policies or could not accommodate treatment plant operating procedures had to be rejected and therefore not included as part of the analysis. (As examples, an alternative requiring the locating of permanent infrastructure in the flood plain would contradict GRCA flood regulation policy or alternatives requiring pump configurations which contravene operating plant procedures and were necessarily discarded.) Five alternative concept schematics were developed as part of the EA and ranked based on technical criteria related to the site and functional requirements for the project including; access for deliveries, existing buried infrastructure locations, the adjacent drainage channel floodway and the site topography as well as construction cost and heritage impact. No detailed design has been completed. The five concept options are described below. 13BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 14 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 2.5.1 Alternate 1 Demolish the existing pumping station building and steel reservoir and construct a new expanded treatment facility generally in the location of the existing pumping station building. Construct a new access road and other site improvements. Fig.30 The EA assessment of Alternative 1 based on the relevant technical criteria placed it in the middle of the five options scoring poorly on heritage retention. 14BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 15 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 2.5.2 Alternate 2 Construct the new expanded treatment facility separate from and immediately behind the existing pumping station building. The existing building would continue to house some of the new plant’s operating equipment. Demolish the existing steel reservoir. Construct a new access road and other site improvements. Fig.31 Alternative 2 was ranked lowest in the EA technical review, with a score of 15 out of 35, having the greatest impact on the existing buried infrastructure, the floodway and access road construction. 15BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 16 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 2.5.3 Alternate 3 Construct the new expanded treatment facility separate from, immediately north of and perpendicular to the existing pumping station building. The existing building would continue to house some of the new plant’s operating equipment. Demolish the existing steel reservoir. Construct a new access road and other site improvements. Fig.32 This alternative ranked poorly in the EA technical evaluation primarily due to the new building’s impact on grading and buried infrastructure. 16BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 17 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 2.5.4 Alternate 4 Construct the new expanded treatment facility connected to the existing pumping station building on the north side. The existing building would function as part of the operating plant reducing the necessary footprint of the new construction. Demolish the existing steel reservoir. Construct a new access road and other site improvements. Fig.33 Alternative 4 ranked second highest with the major concern being the need for excessive excavation at the north end of the site. 17BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 18 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 2.5.5 Alternate 5 Construct the new expanded treatment facility connected to the existing pumping station building on the north and west. The existing building would function as part of the operating plant reducing the necessary footprint of the new construction. Demolish the existing steel reservoir. Construct a new access road and other site improvements. Fig.34 In the EA assessment Alternative 5 scored highest at 29 out of 35 with good relative scores in all categories. 18BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 19 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 2.6 Conservation Options Five conservation options have been considered with regard to the conceptual alternatives proposed for the redevelopment of this site: o Do nothing. o Demolish the Pump House and Reservoir structures and erect a public display outlining the historic significance of the site and structures. o Relocate the existing Pump House superstructure to another location on or off site. o Retain and stabilize the existing Pump House structure until such time as a suitable new use can be found for the building. o Retain the existing Pump House structure, restore and adapt it as part of the new water treatment and pumping station facility. Do nothing: This option provides for the retention of the existing Pump House building in its current position and condition on site with a new structure housing all of the required treatment and pumping facilities erected adjacent to it (Alternates 2, 3). Pro: Retains historic structure and features in their original context. Con: Requires larger new structure. No historic conservation or restoration work would be completed. Historic structure is abandoned with no ongoing use for owner. Heritage features on north wall of building lost to view (Alternate 3). Demolition:The existing structures on site would be completely removed and a new structure housing all of the required treatment and pumping facilities built in the same location on site. A new public display could be erected utilizing salvaged items from the building (signage and date stones, bronze plaque) as well as existing historic photos (Alternate 1). Pro: Information regarding the historic importance of the site and structures is displayed to the public. Some heritage resources are preserved. Con: The true historic context is lost. The building style and form are lost and no longer tangible. Heritage resources are lost. Sense of place is diminished. Relocation:The existing Pump House building superstructure could be dismantled and reconstructed on new foundations in another location on the site or another site (Alternate 1). Pro: The heritage resources are retained. Historic conservation and restoration work completed. Con: The true historic context is lost. 19BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 20 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener Sense of place is diminished. Historic structure is abandoned with no ongoing use for the owner. Significant financial impact with marginal value. Retention and Stabilization: This option provides for the retention of the existing Pump House building in its current position on site with a new structure housing all of the required treatment and pumping facilities (Alternates 2 & 3). Pro: Retains historic structure and features in their original context. Some conservation work completed. Con: Requires larger new structure. Heritage attributes on north wall of building lost to view (Alternate 3 & 4). Historic structure is abandoned with no ongoing use for the owner. Retention, Stabilization and Reuse: This option provides for the retention of the existing Pump House building in its current position on site and housing a portion of the process functions with a new connected structure housing the balance of the required treatment and pumping facilities (Alternates 4&5). Pro: Retains historic structure and features in original context. Historic conservation and restoration work can feasibly be completed. Historic structure has ongoing function and identity as part of the new pumping and treatment facility. Scale of new structure and site impact is reduced. (Alt 5) Con: Symmetrical composition and visual impact of north wall is compromised. 2.7 Summary of Conservation Principles General standards for the preservation, rehabilitation and restoration of historic structures are provided by the Ontario Ministry of Culture publication ‘Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties’ 1. Respect for Documentary Evidence: Do not base restoration on conjecture. Conservation work should be based on historic documentation such as photographs, drawings and physical evidence. Significant historical, photographic and written documentation exists and has been compiled regarding the site, Pump House building and the Steel Reservoir. Where repair and or replacement of building elements is necessary to maintain the physical integrity of the envelope, interventions should conform to good heritage conservation practices and be based on the documented evidence. 2. Respect for Original Location: Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building or structure. Change in site diminishes cultural heritage value considerably. 20BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 21 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener All of the potential alternatives considered in the EA other than option 1 (Demolition) retain the existing Pump House building in its original location on site. Options 2-5 also retain the visual relationship between the historic structure and the street as well as the functional aspects of site access. 3. Respect for Historic Material: Repair/conserve – rather than replace building materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the heritage content of the built resource. Many of the character defining elements of the Pump House remain in place. All elements requiring repair and which are repairable including decorative brickwork, base and window sills, keystones, stone surrounds etc. should be repaired using good heritage conservation practices consistent with the original methods and materials. 4. Respect for Original Fabric: Repair with like materials. Repair to return the resource to its prior condition, without altering its integrity. Where these elements have been damaged or removed (for example the infilling of window openings with metal siding) they should be replaced with new materials to meet current building code requirements and consistent with the historical appearance of the original building. 5. Respect for the Buildings History: Do not restore to one period at the expense of another period. Do not destroy later additions to a building or structure solely to restore to a single time period. No significant additions have occurred to the Pump House building since it was originally constructed in 1922. Where possible consideration should be given to removing new elements (for example the transformer, transformer enclosure and roof level safety barrier fence) which detract from the building’s historic appearance yet have no relevant historic significance of their own. 6. Reversibility: Alterations should be able to be returned to original conditions. This conserves earlier building design and technique. e.g. When a new door opening is put into a stone wall, the original stones are numbered, removed and stored, allowing future restoration. Where alterations or additions to the building are necessary care should be taken to preserve as much as possible the existing building fabric in place and to alter or add in such a way as to minimize modification of existing components. Where existing components are to be altered or removed, documentation of the existing conditions is to be completed and original materials stored. 7. Legibility: New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings or structures should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. The design of new structures on the site should be consistent with current style, materials, methods and trends while respecting the form and scale of the retained historic Pump House. The new structure should be designed to enhance and reinforce the historic character of the old. 21BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 22 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 8. Maintenance: With continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. The long term maintenance of any structure is highly dependent on its continued beneficial use. Funding for regular upkeep of a non-functional building is difficult to justify. For operational reasons it is necessary for all of the functional requirements of the proposed water treatment facility to be housed in a contiguous building. For this reason proposed development alternatives which maintain the existing Pump House as an entirely independent structure would require that a new purpose be found for the building. Alternatives Rankings Relative to Conservation Principles ConservationPrincipleAlternate1Alternate2Alternate3Alternate4Alternate5 DemolitionNewWTPNewWTPMergeNewMergeNew &BuildNewParallelPerpendicularWTPInlineWTPBehind 1.Documentary5 Evidence 2.Respectfor5 OriginalLocation 3.Respectfor 5 HistoricMaterial 4.Respectfor3 OriginalFabric 5.Respectfor 3 BuildingHistory 6.Reversibility5 7.Legibility4 8.Maintenance2 322934 TOTAL32 22BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 23 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 2.8 Explanation of Proposed Alterations and Demolitions Proposed site development Alternatives 1, 2 & 3 would result in the existing Pump House building being either entirely demolished or left untouched and functionally abandoned. Alternatives 4 & 5 would retain the existing building as a functioning part of and physically connected to the new treatment facility. The alterations and demolitions proposed in Alternative 4 are as follows: A rectangular addition to house the new processes would enclose a portion of the north wall of the existing Pump House. The addition would conflict with the large overhead door surround and date stone on the north wall. Exterior window openings would have the painted metal siding closures removed and replaced with new window units fabricated to match the original steel frame windows. The existing electrical transformer would be relocated and the masonry enclosure and chain link safety barrier fence removed from the east side of the building. Alterations to the building interior are required to allow for any new functions contemplated in the existing Pump House. The alterations and demolitions proposed in Alternative 5 are as follows: An ‘L’ shaped addition to house the new processes would enclose portions of the west and north wall of the existing Pump House with the enclosed facade sections retained on the interior of the new facility. Recessed sections of the new building envelope will retain the large overhead door surround and date stone on the north wall and assist in maintaining recognition of the rectangular form of the original structure. Exterior window openings would have the painted metal siding closures removed and replaced with new window units fabricated to match the original steel frame windows. The existing electrical transformer would be relocated and the masonry enclosure and chain link safety barrier fence removed from the east side of the building. Alterations to the building interior are required to allow for any new functions contemplated in the existing Pump House. 2.9 Recommendations Recommendations with respect to the conservation of the cultural heritage resources at 25 Strange Street are as follows: o Retain and utilize the existing Pump House building in its entirety as an integral part of the proposed water treatment facility expansion on the site. (Alternate 5) o Develop a comprehensive Conservation Plan with respect to the cultural heritage resources and attributes identified to ensure preservation of the property’s cultural heritage value. o Remove additions and alterations to the original building which are inconsistent with its historic character as part of the proposed development plans. o Apply an architectural vocabulary to the proposed new facility addition which will complement the existing Pump House and retain its distinct historic identity. 23BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 24 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener 2.10 Qualifications of the Author Brian Luey graduated from the University of Waterloo, School of Architecture in 1977 and is a registered architect with over 35 years of experience in building design and construction. His project experience includes arts, education, library, recreation, religious, commercial and infrastructure facilities and work on historic structures. Mr. Luey is currently a member of the Ontario Association of Architects Council and the Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Architectural Technology Program Advisory Committee. In 2014 he completed a Condition Study and a Report on the Historic Significance of the Strange Street Pumping Station in Kitchener and the William Street Pumping Station in Waterloo for the Region of Waterloo. 3 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The preferred site development Alternate 5 will have minimal negative impact on the heritage attributes of the site. Incorporating the heritage Pump House as part of the proposed water treatment project will have a positive impact by maintaining its identity as an integral part of the Region’s ‘Waterworks’. As a functioning part of the facility the building would be repaired, refurbished and maintained. These conservation works are to be completed with due respect for available documented evidence, historic materials and the existing building fabric. The architectural treatment of the expansion needs to be carefully considered so as to highlight the historic nature of the Pump House and to not mimic its style, materials or details. This juxtaposition may ignite public curiosity regarding the historic significance of the site. Recommendations regarding commemorative or interpretive signage should be included in the development of the Conservation Plan. 4 Mandatory Recommendation The terms of reference for this HIA require that the following questions be addressed: 1. Does the property merit being listed as a non-designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register? 2. Does the property meet the criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Regulation 9/06, Ontario Heritage Act? 3. If the subject property does not meet the criteria for heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why it does not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage designation, does the property warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? 24BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 25 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener It was determined by the City of Kitchener that the property at 25 Strange Street met the criteria for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non-Designated property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and was listed on May 26, 2014. Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act states that a property may be designated if it meets one or more of the prescribe criteria listed in the regulation for determining if it is of cultural heritage value or interest. The criteria applicable to 25 Strange Street are as follows: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method The Pump House building has been identified as a rare example of an early pumping station built in the Art Deco Style. and 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community The pumping station at 25 Strange Street was vital in providing the adequate water supply which allowed for the significant industrial and commercial development of the City of Kitchener following WWI. Several prominent citizens, including J.C. Breithaupt (Chairman) and Chas. Greb (Mayor 1922) and were members of the Kitchener Water Commission that oversaw the development of the site. As well, the building was constructed by the Dunker Brothers of Kitchener Ontario. The firm was founded in 1887 and had an 87 year history in the Kitchener area. and 3. The property has contextual value because it, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. The contextual value of the site rests in its relative location to both artesian water sources and the central area of the city. The Superintendant’s report in th the 25 Annual Report of the Water Commissioners stateed that the site ‘is only 6000 feet from the heart of the City, and is so located, that water from 3 the various wells in the district flow by gravity to the Pump well.’ Based on these criteria the ‘Pump House’ building at 25 Strange Street meets the requirements for heritage designation under the Regulation 9/06 Ontario Heritage Act. 25BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 26 Heritage Impact Assessment STRANGE STREET PUMPING STATION 25 Strange Street, Kitchener REFERENCES 1 Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18, Province of Ontario 2 Ontario Heritage Toolkit, Ministry of Culture, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006. 3 Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2005 4 Annual Reports of the Kitchener Water Commission 1920 - 1940, held by The Water Services Division of the Engineering Department of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 5 Marcel Pequegnat fonds, Special Collections, University of Waterloo Dana Porter Library 6 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Waterloo Canada West 1861 , Geo. R. & G.M. Tremaine, Toronto – Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room Historical Collection. 7 Waterloo Township Cadastre in 1861, Elizabeth Bloomfield with Linda Foster and L.W. Laliberte. University of Guelph, Department of Geography. 8 Waterloo County Directory – 1886-89, W.H. Irwin & Co. Hamilton, Ontario - Publishers 9 Vernon’s Kitchener and Waterloo City Directory 1920, Henry Vernon & Sons Hamilton, Ontario - Publishers 10 City of Kitchener, Statement of Historic Significance 25 Strange Street 26BrianLueyArchitectInc.,June15,2016 4 - 27 APPENDIXA City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference 1.0 Background A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future development. The study shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a mittee Inventory; listed on Ontario Heritage Act; or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the development application stage or construction. 2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development or alteration. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as early as possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre-application meeting, followed by written notification to include specific terms of reference. The notice will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage Impact Assessment. The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment: 2.1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site alteration. 2.2 A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). 2.3 A written description of the buildings,structures and landscape features on the subject properties including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings development, such as additions and demolitions. 4 - 28 The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. 2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, andhistorical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. 2.5 An outline of the proposed development, its context, and how it will impact the properties (buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping). In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed development on the identified heritage attributes of the properties, shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties. 2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the cultural heritage resources may be conserved, relating to their level of importance. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re-use, relocation, commemoration and/or documentation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. 2.7 A summary of the heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). 2.8 Proposed alterations and demolitions must be justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. 2.9 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. 2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 4 - 29 3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The summary statement should provide a full description of: The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties. An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. 4.0 Mandatory Recommendation The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9/06. The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. Do the properties meet the criteria for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non-Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest? 2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why they do not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? 5.0 Approval Process Five (5) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic pdf format burned on CD shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one electronic copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will beconsidered by the Director of Planning. Note that er Committee for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff. Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The 4 - 30 report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. 4 - 31 APPENDIXB 4 - 32 4 - 33 4 - 34 4 - 35 4 - 36 4 - 37 4 - 38 APPENDIXC Ontario Heritage Act ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST Consolidation Period: From January 25, 2006 to the e-Laws currency date. No amendments. This is the English version of a bilingual regulation. Criteria 1.(1) The criteria set out in subsection (2) are prescribed for the purposes of clause 29 (1) (a) of the Act. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (1). (2) A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). Transition 2. This Regulation does not apply in respect of a property if notice of intention to designate it was given under subsection 29 (1.1) of the Act on or before January 24, 2006. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 2. 4 - 39 •InfoSheet• APPENDIXD 1. RESPECT FOR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Do not base restoration on conjecture. Eight Guiding Conservation work should be based on historic documentation suchas historic Principles in the photographs, drawings and physical evidence. Conservation of Built 2. RESPECT FOR THE ORIGINAL LOCATION: Heritage Properties Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building or structure. Changein site The following guiding diminishes cultural heritage value considerably. principles are ministry 3. RESPECT FOR HISTORIC MATERIAL: statements in the conservation Repair/conserve -rather than replace building materials and finishes, of built heritage properties and except where absolutely necessary. are based on international Minimal intervention maintains the heritage content of the builtresource. charters which have been 4. RESPECT FOR ORIGINAL FABRIC: established over the century. Repair with like materials. These principles provide the Repair to return the resource to its prior condition, without altering its integrity. basis for all decisions concerning good practice in 5. RESPECT FOR THE BUILDING'S HISTORY: heritage conservation around Do not restore to one period at the expense of another period. Do not destroy later additions to a building or structure solelyto restore to a the world. Principles explain single time period. the "why" of every conservation activity and apply 6. REVERSIBILITY: to all heritage properties and Alterations should be able to be returned to original conditions. This their surroundings. conserves earlier building design and technique. e.g. When a new door opening is put into a stone wall, the original stones are numbered, removed and stored, allowing for future restoration. 7. LEGIBILITY: New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings or structures should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. 8. MAINTENANCE: With continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. For more information, please call the Ministry of Culture at (416) 212-0644 or Toll Free at 1-866-454-0049 or refer to the website at The information contained in this InfoSheetshould not be relied upon as a substitute www.culture.gov.on.ca. for specialized legal or professional advice in connection with any particular matter. Spring 2007 ©Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2007. 4 - 40 If credit is given and Crown copyright is acknowledged, this material may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes. Page 1 of 1