Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2021-06-01Heritage Kitchener Agenda Tuesday,June 1, 2021 4:00p.m.-6:30p.m. Office of the City Clerk Electronic Meeting Kitchener City Hall nd 200 King St.W. -2Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Page 1Chair –S. HossackVice-Chair –J. Haalboom Due to COVID-19 and recommendations by Waterloo Region Public Health to exercise physical distancing, City Hall is closed to the public. Members of public are invited to participate in this meeting electronically by contacting the Committee Administrator. While in-person delegation requests are not feasible at this time, members of the public are invited to submit written comments or participate electronically in the meeting by contacting Dianna Saunderson at dianna.saunderson@kitchener.ca. Delegates must register by 2:00 p.m. on June 1, 2021in order to participate electronically. Written comments will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. Delegations Pursuant to Council’s Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximumof five (5)minutes. Item 1-Ali Lafrance Item 2-Sebastian Prins Item 3 -Beth Hanson Item 4-Representative, MHBC Planning -Representative, Momentum Developments -Karl Kessler, Open Doors Waterloo Region -Sandra Parks, North Waterloo Region branch, Architectural ConservancyOntario Discussion Items 1.DSD-2021-65-Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-016(10min) -883 Doon Village Road -WindowReplacement, Roof Replacement, Attic Door Replacement, Wood Repairs, and DoorInstallation on Former Hog and Hen House 2.DSD-2021-88-Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-018(5min) -59 Marianne Dorn Trail -Construction of Fence and Stone Wall 3.DSD-2021-87-Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-019(5min) -300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent -Relocation of Tree 4.Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)-16-20 Queen Street North(30min) -Proposed 34-storey Residential Building To view the HIA in its entirety, please visit our website: www.kitchener.ca ** Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 ** Heritage Kitchener AgendaPage 2June 1, 2021 Discussion Items (Cont’d) PermanentIndigenousSpace in Victoria Park(20min) Introductionto Mike & PatWagner Heritage Awards (5 min) HeritageKitchener 2021-2022Work Plan&Status Updates (15min) -Heritage Best PracticesUpdate and2021Priorities -HeritageImpact Assessment Follow-ups Information Items Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet Dianna Saunderson Committee Administrator ** Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 ** REPORT TO:Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING:June 1, 2021 SUBMITTED BY:Bustamante,Rosa,Director of Planning,519-741-2200ext. 7319 PREPARED BY:Grohn, Victoria, Heritage Planner,519-741-2200ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED:Ward 4 DATE OF REPORT:May 18, 2021 REPORT NO.:DSD-2021-65 SUBJECT:Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-016 883 Doon Village Road Window replacement, roof replacement,attic door replacement, wood repairs,and door installation on former Hog and Hen House RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-016 be approvedto permit the replacement of windows, replacement of the roof, replacement of the attic door, wood repairs, and the installation of new doors on the former Hog and Hen House located on the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application, subject to the following condition: 1.That final buildingpermit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of any required building permit(s). REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report isto present the alterations detailed in HPA-2021-IV-016. The key finding of this report isthat the alterations will not adversely affect the heritage character of the building or property. There are no financial implications associated with this report. Community engagement includedconsultation with the Heritage Kitchener committee. This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2021-IV-016 which is seeking permission to replace windows, replace the roof,replace the attic door, undertake wood repairs,and install doors on the former Hog and Hen House located on the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road. The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 1 In 2018 and 2019, applications were submitted to the Committee of Adjustment to sever a portion of the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Roadto create 4 new lots and 1 retained lot. The applications were approved by the Committee of Adjustment subject to conditions.A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), prepared by MHBC Planning and dated January 2018, was submitted in support of consent applications B2018-006 through B2018-009. The HIA considered the relocation of a former Hog and Hen House to the retained lot to facilitate the creation of the 4 new lots. The HIA concluded that the preferred conservation option for the former Hog and Hen House was to relocate the structure a short distanced to the retained lot, resulting in maintainingthe historical and associative relationship of the former Hog and Hen House with the dwelling. The property owners entered into a Heritage Covenant Agreement under Section 37(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. This Agreement was registered on title of the property to secure the owners’ obligation to relocate the former Hog and Hen House. The former Hog and Hen House was successfully relocated to the retained lands in 2019. Following the creation of the 4 new lots and the relocation of the former Hog and Hen House, designating by-law 84-52 was amended by way of by-law 2020-061.The amended by-law includes a revised legal description of the lands as well as a revised list of heritage attributes. The by-law identifies the existing dwelling as the primary heritage attribute of the property and the former Hog and Hen House is identified as a secondary attribute of the property. REPORT: The subject property is located on the south side of Doon Village Road near the intersection of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive. Location Map: 883 Doon Village Road (former Hog and Hen House denoted with star) The property contains ac.1860stwo-storey farmhouse dwelling constructed in the Waterloo County Georgian architectural style, a single-storey coach house (former Hog and Hen 1 - 2 House), and a modern garage.Designation by-law 2020-061 identifies the coach house (former Hog and Hen House) asasecondary heritage attribute: Single storey coach house with wood frameand field stone construction, gabled roof, and original loft door and window openings with wood frame windows. Front Elevationof Dwelling: 883 Doon Village Road Coach House (former Hog and Hen House): 883 Doon Village Road Window Replacement The owner is proposing to replace the five existing wood windows on the Coach House with new wood windows to match the existing. The applicant is proposing to replace the four lower windows with custom, 6-pane wood awning windows, and is proposing to replace the 1 - 3 upper window with a custom, 6-pane fixed wood window. The windows will be replaced within the existing openings andwill beblack in colour. The image below shows three of the lower windows to be replaced. Additional images are included in Appendix A to this report. Lower windows on Coach House to be replaced Roof Replacement The owner has identified that the existing steel roof is heavily deteriorated and requires replacement. The owners propose to replace the existing steel roof with a VicWest Barnmaster steel roof in a charcoal colour to match the existing roof. Condition of existing roof 1 - 4 Existing roof specifications Replacement roof specifications The owner has also identified extensive wood rot on the exterior of the Coach House. In addition to the replacement of the steel roof, the owners propose to remove and replace the wood soffits and fascia with new wood soffits and fascia in a grey colour. Additionally, the original attic door is in poor condition. The owners intend to replace this wood door and frame to match the existing. 1 - 5 Existing soffits, fascia, and attic door Door Installation The Coach House does not currently have a door. To adaptively re-use this building, the owners propose to install 2 x 36” vinyl-clad fibreglass doors with 6-pane windows and 2 x 24” clear glass sidelights. The doors will be installed within the existing opening and black in colour with black hardware. Proposed double doors Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: The replacement of the windows and roof to match the existing is in keeping with Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, namely Standard 10(b): where character-defining elements are too severely 1 - 6 deteriorated to repair, and where sufficient physical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements; The installation of new doors will not detract from the heritage character of the Coach House and will facilitate the adaptive re-use of this building; The works proposed overall will not adversely affect the heritage character of the Coach Houseor the property as a whole. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and City’s Zoning By-law. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT – Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritge Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: CSD-18-040 DSD-19-041 DSD-19-229 DSD-19-249 Ontario Heritage Act, 2019 APPROVEDBY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-016 1 - 7 1 - 8 1 - 9 1 - 10 1 - 11 1 - 12 1 - 13 1 - 14 1 - 15 1 - 16 1 - 17 1 - 18 REPORT TO:Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING:June 1, 2021 SUBMITTED BY:Bustamante,Rosa,Director of Planning,519-741-2200ext. 7319 PREPARED BY:Grohn, Victoria, Heritage Planner,519-741-2200ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED:Ward 4 DATE OF REPORT:May 18, 2021 REPORT NO.:DSD-2021-88 SUBJECT:Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-018 59 Marianne Dorn Trail Constructionof fence and stone wall RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-018 be approvedto permit the constructionof a fence and stone wall on the property municipally addressed as 59 Marianne Dorn Trail, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report isto present the alterations detailed in HPA-2021-IV-018. The key finding of this report isthat the alterations will not adversely affect the heritage character of the building or property. There are no financial implications associated with this report. Community engagement includedconsultation with the Heritage Kitchener committee. This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2021-IV-018 which is seeking permission to construct a fence(6 feet in height)and stone wall(approximately 3 feet in height)on the property municipally addressed as 59 Marianne Dorn Trial. The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and was formerly addressed as 324 Old Huron Road. REPORT: The subject propertyis located on the southeast side of Marianne Dorn Trail in the Brigadoon community, near Templewood Drive and Old Huron Road. The property was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in 2013. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 2 - 1 Location Map: 59 Marianne Dorn Trail th The property features a one-and-a-half storey mid-19century stone cottage built in the Georgian architectural style. The property is associated with the Wildfong family, early settlers of the Biehn and Bechtel Tracts. In addition to design/physical valuerelated to the architectural style and building features, the property also has contextual value. The contextual value of the property relates to the location of the stone cottage building adjacent to the valley landscape. The stone cottage takes advantage of the valley edge overlooking Strasburg Creek. The location once provided functional needs (e.g. proximity to water) and now provides views to the valley landscape. Front Elevation: 59 Marianne Dorn Trail 2 - 2 Construction of Fence The property owners are seeking permissionsto construct a 6-foot-high wood fence along the north side of the property for privacy. To accommodate a 1.5 metre grade changeon the property while ensuring that the front of the existing dwelling is not obstructed by the placement of the fence, the fence is proposed to be installed at the start of the slopein the northwest corner of the property, as depicted in the images below.The first image shows the location of the fence along the northern property boundary. The second image shows the fence at the start of the slope. Fence location (shown in blue)and stone wall location (shown in purple) Detailed fence location (shown in blue)and detailed stone wall location (shown in purple) The placement of the fence is this location would ensure unobstructed views to the front of the dwelling while travellingin a north/south direction along Marianne Dorn Trail. 2 - 3 Construction of Stone Wall The property owners are seeking permissions to construct a 3-foot-highand 2-foot-wide stone wall across the front of the property. There is an existing boulderat the front of the property with themunicipal address. The red line shown in the image below demonstrates the height of the proposed stone wall, relative to the existing boulder and with respect to views from the house. As demonstrated, views from the front façade of the dwelling will not be obstructed by a 3-foot-high stone wall in this location. Height of proposed stone wall (image provided property owner) The property owners propose to construct the stone wall using excess fieldstone located on the property.Theowners are amenable, after discussions with Heritage Planning staff, to use less mortar in between the stones to differentiate the construction of the stone wall from the existing fieldstone dwelling. In this way, the stone wall would not replicate the fieldstone construction ofthe dwellingand would provide some distinction between old and new. Excess fieldstone to construct proposed wall (image provided by property owner) 2 - 4 Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: The installation of a 6-foot-high wood fence at the start of the slope on the north side of the property will not obstruct views of the front façade of the existing dwelling; The installation of a 3-foot-high stone wall along the front of the property will not obstruct views of the front façade of the existing dwelling; and The works proposed will not adversely affect the heritage character of the existing dwelling and the property. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and City’s Zoning By-law. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT – Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritge Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: DSD-21-060 Ontario Heritage Act APPROVEDBY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-018 2 - 5 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS th Planning Division 200 King Street West, 6Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Date Received:Accepted By:Application Number: HPA-2021- PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1.NATURE OF APPLICATION ExteriorInteriorSignage DemolitionNew ConstructionAlterationRelocation 2.SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address:59 Marianne Dorn Trail Legal Description (if know): Reference Plan 58R-17549, formally known as a portion of 324 Old Huron Road Building/Structure Type: Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement?YesNo 3.PROPERTY OWNER Name:Sebastian Amadeus Prins Address:59 Marianne Dorn Trail City/Province/Postal Code:Kitchener, ON, N2R 0H4 Phone:1.647.687.9049 Email:sebastian.prins@gmail.com 4.AGENT (if applicable) Name:Click or tap here to enter text. Company Address:Click or tap here to enter text. City/Province/Postal Code:Click or tap here to enter text. Phone:Click or tap here to enter text. Email:Click or tap here to enter text. 2 - 6 3.WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. Item 2: Fencing We are keen to put up some fences on the property. The first proposed fence is a high, six-foot wooden panel fence between the adjacent properties for backyard privacy on the north side of the property. The south side of the property already has a low, chain link fence, with the northside of the property having no fence whatsoever. There is already a high wooden fence on the west side of the property. We propose leaving the eastern side of the property unfenced, as there is contextual heritage value in view of the ravine historically as a source of water, and now as a view. Heritage Planners has raised that the owner needs to maintain a view of the property as vehicles round the bend. The property owner has signaled a wiliness to work with Heritage Planners happy to reduce the height of the six-foot wooden fence as it climbs the 6 foot be provided as to what an appropriate height is. Across the front of the property, we would like to consider a three-foot high stone wall. The stone wall would use fieldstone, and ample mortar between stones in its construction. The low-lying wall would be one and a half to two feet across. In addition, we want a small, sidewalk-facing stone bench built into the wall, with the height to the top of the bench being roughly two feet. If the city is open to it, we would be keen to have a heritage plaque or signpost speaking to the history of the property adjacent to the stone bench. This lement and construction of the cottage, as well as note the Georgian architectural elements. will highlight location and provide sample photos to help the reader understand style. 4.REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: Item 2 is not necessary. It provides the current owners with some increased privacy, and barrier between the property line and the road (safety, for future kids, pets, etc). The owners have attempted to enhance the heritage value of the property while meeting our personal goals by building a front wall that echoes the period style and has a location where the history of the Wildfong cottage can be celebrated (stone bench, and plaque/signpost location). 2 - 7 Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: For Item 2: By-Law 2013-114 articulates that there is contextual value in the stone cottages proximity to the valley landscape originally for functional purposes (proximity to water), and now to provide a view of the valley landscape. In acknowledgement of this, the property owners have not proposed any fencing on the eastern line of the property. This would keep an unobstructed view of the ravine, preserving heritage value. In addition, to enhance the heritage value, and celebrate the historical significance, the property owners are proposing for the western fence to be a knee-high stone structure, mirroring the random-coursed fieldstone construction of the house. In addition, the proposal includes an external, sidewalk facing, stone bench which could feature a historical architectural style. 2 - 8 propose that the skylights be placed in a fashion maintains symmetry when viewed from the Given that the by- a skylight modifies a non-protected portion of the house, and can be done in a tasteful fashion, that preserves the curbside heritage aesthetic of the Wildfong cottage. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada(click for link) Click or tap here to enter text. 7.PROPOSED WORKS st a)Expected start date:April 1, 2021 st Expected completion date:August 31, 2021 b)Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff?Yes No If yes, who did you speak to? Victoria Grohnand Michelle Drake. In addition, both attendedthe site for avisual inspection of these proposals. c)Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff?Yes No If yes, who did you speak to? Thehomeowner is in the early stages of applying for a building permit for Item 3, specifically theroof repaircomponent.It is the homeding that no permits are required forItems 1 or 2façade repair, and building a fence (so long as they are under the municipality designated height) do not require a building permit. d)Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work?Yes No e)Other related Building or Planning applications: Click or tap here to enter text. Application number:Click or tap here to enter text. 8.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener -Planning application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will beundertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Actshall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any 2 - 9 by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Recoverable Signature X March 16, 2021 Signature of Owner/Agent: Signed by: Sebastian Prins X Signature of Owner/Agent: 2 - 10 9.AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I / We, Click or tap here to enter text., owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Click or taphere to enter text.to act on my / our behalf in this regard. X Signature of Owner/Agent: X Signature of Owner/Agent: The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). 2 - 11 STAFF USE ONLY Application Number: Click or tap here to enter text. Application Received:Click or tap here to enter text. Application Complete:Click or tap here to enter text. Notice of Receipt:Click or tap here to enter text. Notice of Decision:Click or tap here to enter text. 90-Day Expiry Date:Click or tap here to enter text. PROCESS: Heritage Planning Staff:Click or tap here to enter text. Heritage Kitchener:Click or tap here to enter text. Council:Click or tap here to enter text. 2 - 12 2 - 13 2 - 14 2 - 15 REPORT TO:Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING:June 1, 2021 SUBMITTED BY:Bustamante,Rosa,Director of Planning,519-741-2200ext. 7319 PREPARED BY:Drake, Michelle, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED:Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT:May 11, 2021 REPORT NO.:DSD-2021-87 SUBJECT:HPA-2021-IV-019 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent Relocation of tree RECOMMENDATION: Thatpursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-019 be approved to permit the relocation of a maple tree at the property municipally addressed as 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent in accordance with the application and supporting materials. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2021-IV-019which is seeking permission to relocate a maple treeon the property municipally addressed as 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent(formerly addressed as 437 Pioneer Tower Road). Location Map 1: 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent within Pioneer Tower West community *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 3 - 1 REPORT: The subject property is located on the south side of Joseph Schoerg Crescent in the Pioneer Tower West community. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and subject to a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement. The key features that define the character of this property include: the farmhouse; the drive shed; and, the cultural heritage landscape. Heritage Attributes The significant heritage attributes that contribute to the cultural heritage value and interest of the property as an important link to the history of the City and Waterloo County while at the same time collectively forming a cultural heritage landscape onthe property that is located within a broader CHL are: “views atop a ridge of land overlook a natural environment and natural heritage features that attracted the pioneer settlers to the area over 200 years ago, including rich, fertile soils, a mixture ofdense forest and open meadows, and proximity to the Grand River; and, the historic cluster and spatial order of buildings having ties to the original founding families.” Given the scope of HPA-2021-019, the specific heritage attributes of each building are not outlined in this report. Description of Proposal The applicant is proposing to relocate an existing maple tree on the property to a new location behind the drive shed. The reason for moving the tree is that the root system and drip line will be in the way of the proposed garage outlined in HPA-2021-IV-006 and approved by Council on March 22, 2021. If the tree stays in its current location it may not survive. The applicant has been advised that the tree has a high probability of survival if relocated. Photo 1: Current location of existing maple tree 3 - 2 Photo 2: Proposed location ofrelocated maple tree behind drive shed near property line Map 2: Current (1) and proposed (2) location of the maple tree 3 - 3 Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, heritage planning staff note the following: The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; A Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement (HCEA) is registered on title of the subject property; o The HCEA requires the owner to obtain consent from the City to plant, relocate and remove trees and vegetation on the subject property; The heritage attributes identified in the designation by-law and the HCEA include: o a CHL with features such as the views to the valley, and the cluster and spatial arrangement of buildings; and, o the farmhouse and drive shed and more specifically features such as all exterior building elevations; The existing maple tree was planted by a previous owner in 2009 (see DTS-09-141 regarding HPA-2009-IV-011) and it replaced an oak tree that was relocated elsewhereon the subject property; The maple tree will be relocated to an area behind the drive shed near the west property line; The planting (relocation) of the maple tree should have limited, to no, impact on the views atop a ridge of land overlooking a natural environment as the drive shed is authentic to the site and historically has blocked the views in this location; and further, The alteration will not impair or negatively impact the heritage in the Part IV designation by-law and the HCEA. Accordingly, heritage planning staff recommend approval of the request to relocate the maple tree subject to the details outlined in the application and supporting materials. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and Zoning By-law. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget – The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchenercommittee meeting. CONSULT – The Heritage Kitchener committee has been consulted with respect to the heritage permit application. 3 - 4 PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: Ontario Heritage Act, 2019; DSD-2021-IV-006Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-006, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Construction of a detached garage CSD-18-048Heritage Permit Application HPA-2018-IV-002, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Alterations to rear elevation of Betzner Farmhouse and construction ofa cedar fence generally along the east property boundary CSD-16-046Heritage Permit Application HPA-2016-IV-011, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Alterations to drive shed (new and enlarged window and door openings) CSD-15-075Heritage Permit Application HPA-2015-IV-015, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Construction of a cedar fence CSD-12-IV-001Heritage Permit Application HPA-2012-IV-019, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Alterations to the man door, swinging doors and frame on the drive shed CSD-11-IV-022Heritage Permit Application HPA-2011-IV-001, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Reconstruction of the south west corner of the drive shed foundation DTS-10-179Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-019, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Alterations to the drive shed (new roof vents, remove security light and conduit, new light, new carriage doors), permission to relocate the mailbox andto install a paving stone driveway DTS-10-105Heritage Permit Application HPA-2010-IV-008, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Installation ofsunscreens on the west elevation of the farmhouse DTS-09-141Heritage Permit Application HPA-2009-IV-011, Alterations to the landscape to plant and relocate trees DTS-09-127Heritage Permit Application HPA-2009-IV-008, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Installation ofshutters on the attic windows of the farmhouse and the planting of a tree, and alterations to the design of the gate caps and mailbox post DTS-09-084Heritage Permit Application HPA-2009-IV-004, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Alterations to east elevation of the drive shed (new wood window and new limestone windowsill) DTS-08-182Heritage Permit Application HPA-2008-182, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Construction of a front gate and mailbox DTS-08-078Heritage Permit Application HPA-2008-IV-006, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Alterations to the drive shed (convert the undercroft for parking, add two garage doors on the south elevation, revise the deck, window and door design), and alterations to the landscape (add two walkways, add driveway) DTS-08-019Heritage Permit Application HPA-2008-IV-015, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Alterations to the drive shed (reclad all elevations, rebuilding sliding doors, relocate windows on south elevation, add a man door on the south elevation and construct a deck on the south elevation) DTS-06-033Heritage Permit Application HPA-2006-IV-002, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Installation of a hydro meter and plumbing ventilation pipe. APPROVEDBY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-019 3 - 5 3 - 6 3 - 7 3 - 8 3 - 9 3 - 10 X X AERIAL VIEW SHOWING EXISTING TREE LOCATION AND NEW LOCATION FOR TREE 3 - 11 3 - 12 Date:May 19, 2021 To:Members of Heritage Kitchener From:Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner cc: Subject:16-20 Queen Street North Draft Heritage Impact Assessment The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated May 19, 2021prepared by MHBC Planning Ltd., regarding the property municipally addressed as 16-20 Queen Street North. The subject property is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register as a non-designated property of heritage interest. The Owner proposes to redevelop the site with a 34-storey tower. The front façade and returns of the existing building are proposed to be retained and incorporated into the tower. The Owner’s heritage consultant will be in attendance at the June 1, 2021 meeting of Heritage Kitchener to present the draft HIA and answer questions. Heritage Planning staff will be seeking the committee’s input and comments, which will be taken into consideration as part of staff’s review of the HIA and the related Planning applications. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the June meeting. A copy of the Executive Summaryand excerptsfrom the draft HIA is attached to this memo. The full draft HIA will be made available under separate cover on the City’s website, together with the June 1, 2021 meeting agenda. _____________________________ Victoria Grohn, BES Heritage Planner 4 - 1 - - 4 - 2 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MHBC was retained in September 2020 by Momentum Developments to undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) for the subject property located at 16-20 Queen Street North. The purpose of this CHIA is to determine the impact of the development on identified heritage attributes of the existing building on the subject property. The proposed development includes the integration of a portion of the existing building (front façade) into the new construction. This report determined through the evaluation under the prescribed Ontario Regulation 9/06, that the building has significant cultural heritage value or interest. The Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest is included in Sub-section 5.3 of this report. Sub-section 8.2 of this report identifies the impacts to identified heritage attributes of the existing cultural heritage resource on the subject land, which includes the retention of the main façade of the building, which is considered the significant façade, and integration into a new construction. The following impacts were identified based on this proposal: Adverse Impacts: 1.Moderate impact of destruction of exterior and interior heritage attributes and original mass of the building; 2.Moderate impact of land disturbances during construction. As required, this report outlines mitigation measures for the proposed impacts in Section 10.0. Mitigation Measures: A Documentation and Salvage Plan should be completed; that will: o Identify interior and exterior heritage attributes and other salvageable building material to be salvaged prior to removal of the building fabric; o Identify method of extraction of heritage building material and outline plan for re-use within new construction including in the community space, as well as possibly in the main lobby/ foyer of the new building; o Measured drawings of elevations identifying existing features and materials and floor plans; o High resolution photographs thoroughly document the building, context, setting, exterior elevations and interior spaces, detailing, finishes and characteristics. A Conservation Plan should be completed to the satisfaction of the City Staff this Plan will be composed of short, medium and long-term conservation goals. The short/ 5 4 - 3 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON medium term conservation goals will be included in a Temporary Protection Plan which will include: o A Demolition Plan outlining the method of partial demolition (manual, selective demolition); this repot will require a report completed by a certified structural engineer deeming the method feasible and appropriate; o Certification by an engineer that the proposed development will be constructed in a way that will avoid damage to the building façade; o Stabilization Plan that identifies and prioritizes short term building stabilization requirements necessary to protect and conserve the retained portion of the building including a Risk Management Plan which outlines steps requirements in the event of the damage to the retained facade whether it be partial or total loss. An Interpretation Plan should be completed to the satisfaction of City Staff; this Plan will: o Commemorative/ interpretative signage and/ or installation commemorating the portions of the building that have been removed and a historical overview of the property; o It is encourage that the Interpretation Plan be completed in collaboration with local community groups and institutions (i.e. The Museum, the Waterloo Historical Society). It is encouraged that a form and location of commemoration or interpretative installation be part of the Site Plan process to acknowledge the building’s significance in the Town of Berlin, now the City of Kitchener. Conservation Recommendations: Materials, details and ornamentation particularly on the first three levels (pedestrian level) should be sympathetic to the existing building by utilizing a contemporary interpretation of existing architectural articulations (i.e. roofline, mouldings) and materials that do not detract from the existing façade; glazing intercepted by high quality materials (i.e. stone and brick) are recommended to integrate the existing cultural heritage resource into new buildings; Signage andlighting of the retained building should emphasis the existing building’s prominence along the streetscape and avoid obstructing any views of the front façade. The retained façade should be conserved in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 6 4 - 4 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 5.0 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES 5.1 INTRODUCTION The following sub-sections of this report will provide an analysis of the cultural heritage value of the subject property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06, which are the legislated criteriafor determining cultural heritage value or interest. Thesecriteria are related to design/physical, historical/associative and historical values as follows: 1.The property has design or physical value because it: a.Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, b.Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or c.Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2.The property has historical value or associative value because it, a.Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, b.Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or c.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, a.Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, b.Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or c.Is a landmark. 47 4 - 5 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 5.2 EVALUATION OF 16-20 QUEEN STREET NORTH 5.2.1 Physical/ Design Value The building is representative of Beaux-Arts architecture that has retained its heritage integrity. The building is true to its original design when compared with historical photographs and ephemera. The building is one of the few remaining examples of commercial Beaux- Arts architecture in Kitchener. Exterior characteristics demonstrative of the Beaux-Arts architecture include: flat roof, raised first storey, hierarchy of spaces articulated within three bays from the grand entrance to more utilitarian spaces on the upper storeys, arched windows (west and east elevations), classical details including bas-relief panels with medallions/ shields and festoons. The grandiosity of the front entrance is characteristic of this style of architecture with over scaled details, four stone Roman Doric columns support stone entablature which rests below the upper balcony. There are Juliette balconies below the window openings on second and third storey on front façade, and smaller-scale stone header with festoon and decorative consoles. There is rich deep cornicing along the front façade below the roofline with dentil mouldings. The Juliette balconies include stretches of iron railings along the width of the window openings; this feature also appears along the width of the first storey windows. Other details include bas relief on frieze of front entrance entablature “1871-1916”, sculptural inserts in brick exterior on the front façade above the front façade cornicing. The majority of the exterior design value is exhibited on the front façade. The interior attributes of the building were designed within the vision of Classicism demonstrating that there was design intent within the interior arrangement as it relates to aesthetics and functionality. Interior attributes include: wood detailing (original wood flooring, wooden bannisters and stairs, wooden panelling throughout building, original wooden doors and floors, wooden and glass partition walls, original marble wainscoting on ground floor level, original decorative crown moulding including pilasters mimicking classical columns and Greek fret patterns located in the front entry and second floor. The exterior and interior features described above display a high degree of craftsmanship and artistic merit. The building also includesoriginal mechanical equipment and electrical systems including: original electrical breakers, original locally made broiler andoriginal electric fireplace in second storey meeting room. The building also includes locally made Goldie & McCulloch Ltd. in Galt fireproof safe doors. 48 4 - 6 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 5.2.2 Historical/ Associative Value The property is directly associated with the original Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Berlin (now Economical Insurance) which made the building its fourth headquarters in Kitchener. The company was first established in Kitchener (then Berlin) in 1871. The company is now nationally known as Economical Insurancewhich has been in service for 149 years with head offices located in Waterloo Region. The building was used for the company for approximately 36 years between 1916 and 1952. Also, it is directly associated with William Schmalz (Sr.) who was the mayor of Kitchener in 1911-1912 and senior manager of Economical Mutual during the time it was located in the building. The building is directly associated with the Royal Conservatory of Music which operated in the building between 1917 and 1935. Later, the buildingfacilitated the Ontario Conservatory of Music and the Elsie Ewald School of Dance. It is directly associated with George H. Ziegler who operated the Conservatory of Music in the building. Ziegler conducted Kitchener Musical Society Band and was the organist and choir master for years at Trinity United Church. Architect William Henry Eugene Schmalz and Charles Knetchel were commissioned to design the building. W.H.E. Schmalz was a notable architect in the City and is known for designing the original City Hall of the City of Kitchener which was completed in 1924. He was a member of the Chamber of Commerce, the Kitchener Parks Board, the Kiwanis Club and the Kitchener Musical Society. 5.2.3 Contextual Value: The building supports the character of the area that has commercial buildings also built within the same era. The building is functionallyand historically linked to the surroundings; the building abuts Goudie’s lane and is within 60 metres of the fifth headquarters at 10 Duke Street at the intersection of Duke and Queen Street North which was the successor to the company’s location at 16-20 Queen Street North. Plaques embedded into the sidewalk outline the years that Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Royal Conservatory of Music existing at the location. 49 4 - 7 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 5.2.4 Heritage Attributes: Exterior The placement, setback and orientation of the building in its original location on Queen Street North; The scale, form and massing of the original building; Materials including brick with Flemish bonding and stone; The symmetrical arrangement of the principal (east) elevation into three bays; Original window and door openings including associated brick voussoirs and stone sills and headers and remaining original windows and doors; Front portico of building including iron railings; Central frontispiece of 20 Queen Street N. including stone door surround and entablature with date stone relief “1871-1916” and centred decorative console; Cast stone features on front elevation including: front entrance columns, entablature with decorative consoles/ corbels, medallion/ shield and festoon bas-reliefs; Cornicing on front elevation with Classical dentil mouldings; Balconies including: second storey balcony with balustrade and associated balusters and newel posts and Juliette balconieson second and third storey window openings on front elevation. Interior Foyer of 20 Queen Street North with classical crown moulding, wood panelling and marble wainscoting ; Decorative crown mouldingsthroughout the building including Doric pilasters and Greek fretting; Main meeting room on second storey level including c. 1916 electric fireplace; Wood features including partition wall on third floor with glass windows and transoms separated by wood mullions andoriginal staircases; Original wood and terrazzo (foyer) flooring; Original light fixtures; Original Goldie & McCulloch Co. Limited Galt fireproof safe doors; Mechanical equipment including: original boiler by Waterloo Manufacturing Company Limited, “Square D” breaker and Dominion Electric Manufacturing breaker. 50 4 - 8 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 5.2.5 Summary of O-REG 9/06 Evaluation Ontario Regulation 9/0616-20 QUEEN STREET NORTH 1.Design/Physical Value i.Rare, unique, representative or Yes. early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method Yes. ii.Displays high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit iii.Demonstrates high degree of No. technical or scientific achievement 2.Historical/Associative value i.Direct associations with a theme, Yes. event, belief, person, activity, organization, institution that is significant ii.Yields, or has potential to yield Yes. information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture iii.Demonstrates or reflects the work Yes. or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the community. 3.Contextual Value i.Important in defining, maintaining Yes. or supporting the character of an area ii.Physically, functionally, visually, Yes. or historically linked to its surroundings No. iii.Is a landmark 51 4 - 9 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 5.3 STATEMENT OF CHVI The former headquarters of Economical Insurance is an important cultural property in the City of Kitchener for its design/ physical, historical/ associative and contextual values. The former Economical Insurance building has design/ physical value as a representationof the Beaux-Arts style in the City Kitchener which displays a high degree of craftsmanship and artistic merit. Typical Beaux Arts features found on the front elevation of this 1916 structure includes: classical Roman and Greek elements such as the portico columns, cornicing with classical dentil mouldings, use of stone and brick, elevated first storey and sculptural decorations. Several of these features are exhibited in the use of cast stone such as front entrance portico columns, entablature with decorative consoles/ corbels, medallion/ shield and festoon sculptural bas- reliefs. The front portico and central frontispiece as well as the use of baluster and Juliette balconies on the front elevation exaggerate the first storey by its use of elaborate, decorative Italian and French Renaissance elements. The interior of the building also exhibits typical Beaux-Art architectural design including a grand arrival hall, which is located at the 20 Queen Street North entrance, staircases and hierarchy of spaces. The majority of the original interior arrangement is in place at it were at its debut c. 1916 as well as many of the interior features. Interior features include: classical crown moulding such as Roman Doric columns and Greek frets, wood panelling and marble wainscoting, elaborate main meeting room on second floor with c. 1916 electric fireplace, original wood flooring and doors, original light fixtures, four sets of wooden staircases with wood square top balusters and capped newel posts. The building also includes original mechanical and electrical equipment such as the original boiler by Waterloo Manufacturing Company Limited, “Square D” breaker and Dominion Electric Manufacturing breaker c. 1920 and originalGoldie & McCulloch Co. Limited Galt fireproof safe doors. The historic or associative values of the building relate to its direct association with the Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Berlin building (now Economical Insurance) which made the building its fourth headquarters in Kitchener. The company was first established in Kitchener (then Berlin) in 1871; the company is now nationally known as Economical Insurance which has now been in service for 149 years with head offices located in Waterloo Region. The building was occupied by the company between August 1916 and 1952. The building is directly associated with William Schmalz (Sr) who was the managing Director of the Company between 1916 and 1933 and who also was the first mayor of the City of Berlin (later Kitchener) which incorporated as a City in 1912. It is also directly associated with the Royal 52 4 - 10 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON Conservatory of Music which operated out of the building between 1917 and 1935. Later it facilitated the Ontario Conservatory of Music and the Elsie Ewald School of Dance. It is directly associated with George H. Ziegler who operated the Conservatory of Music in the building. The Economical Insurance Company operated in this building for over three decades, during the Great Depression and WWII and overcame several significant, national economic and political changes during this time and can yield information as it relates to businesses within the City during this era. Several decisions relating to mergers with other companies including the 1936 agreement with the Merchants Casualty Insurance Company of Waterloo, Ontario where established in the building which broadened their insurance from solely fire and in 1947 the Company’s purchase of Northwestern Mutual Fire Insurance Association which expanded the businesses into Maritime Provinces to offer insurance for automobiles, accidents and illnesses. The building demonstrates the work of architect William Henry Eugene Schmalz (son of William Henry Schmalz) and Charles Knetchel who were commissioned to design the building. W.H.E. Schmalz was a notable architect in the City and is known for designing the original Kitchener City Hall which was completed in 1924. The contextual value of the building relates to its location within Downtown Kitchener. It supports the character of the area and is functionally and historically linked to the surroundings including Goudie’s lane and the fifth headquarters at 10 Duke Street at the intersection of Duke and Queen Street North which was the successor to the company’slocation at 16-20 Queen Street North. Plaques embedded into the sidewalk outline the years that Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Royal Conservatory of Music which confirms its historical contextual value to the streetscape and overall downtown area. 53 4 - 11 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 6.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development of the subject lands includes the construction of a 34 storey multi- storey residential building with 212 units; the total GFA for the proposed building is 17,925.3sqm. The current concept plan includes integrating the façade oftheexisting cultural heritage on the subject lands. Levels 2-5 will function as the podium, levels 6-20 will compose the lower tower and levels 21-33 the upper tower and remaining levels will include the penthouse (see Figure 59). See Appendix ‘B’ forurban design brief which includes architectural drawings of elevations. The final design of the proposed development is still in progress. Figure 59 – Site Plan of proposed development (Source:ABA Architects., 2020) 54 4 - 12 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON The proposed develpoment will retain the front façade of the building as demonstrated in the Figure below while integrating it the first three floors of the new building. The new construction will be setback approximately 3 metres from the front façade (it is a greater distance from the front portico). A Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed by GHD Group to investigate soil and groundwater quality in October 2020. Mercury contamination was discovered below the existing building, primarily in the rear extension. The development requires the extraction of the contaminated soil which is a critical factor in the decision to remove the majority of the existing building. Figure 60 –Draft first floor of proposed development; blue sectionsindicate the extent of the retained façade to be integrated into the new development (Source: ABA Architects Inc.. 2020) GM Blue Plan Engineering completed a “Designated Substance Survey” in November of 2020 (see Appendix ‘G’). Lead was detected in paint and asbestos was detected in window glazing, pipe insulation, pipe elbows in basement and the vacant unit at 16 Queen Street N. If any of these features were retained and/ or salvaged, their removal/ re-use would have to consider the findings of this study. 55 4 - 13 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON Figure 61– Rendering of proposed development(Source: ABA Architects Inc.,2020) The development proposes to salvage removed heritage attributes and exhibit some of the attributes within the “Community Benefit” space shown in Figure 60. This space would be publically accessible and would function as a commemorative area/ small-scale museum. Salvaged attributes are also proposed to be used in other part of the new construction including the main lobby/ foyer of the building. Interpretation will also be connected to Goudies Lane. The rhythm of the front façade of the new construction was based on a musical excerpt to give ode to the Kitchener Conservatory of Music which operated out of the former building on-site between 1917 and 1935 (see Figure 62). 56 4 - 14 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON Figure 62 – Rendering of proposed development (Source: ABA Architects Inc., 2021). 57 4 - 15 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 7.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following sub-sections of this report will provide an analysis of impacts which are anticipated as a result of the proposed redevelopment of the subject lands as they relate to the identified cultural heritage resources. This will include a descriptionof the classification of the impact as beneficial, neutral, or adverse. 7.1 CLASSIFICATIONS OF IMPACTS There are three classifications of impacts that the effects of a proposed development may have on an identified cultural heritage resource: beneficial, neutral or adverse. Beneficial impactsmay include retaining a resource of cultural heritage value, protecting it from loss or removal, restoring/repairing heritage attributes, ormaking sympathetic additions or alterations that allow for the continued long-term use of a heritage resource. Neutral effects have neither a markedly positive or negative impact on a cultural heritage resource. Adverse effects may include the loss or removal of a cultural heritage resource, unsympathetic alterations or additions which remove or obstruct heritage attributes. The isolation of a cultural heritage resource from its setting or context, or addition of other elements which are unsympathetic to the character or heritage attributes of a cultural heritage resource are also considered adverse impacts. These adverse impacts may require strategies to mitigate their impact on cultural heritage resources. The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may occur over a short or long-term duration, and may occur during a pre-construction phase, construction phase or post-construction phase. Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact. According to the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, the following constitutes negative impacts which may result from a proposed development: Destruction: of any, or part of any significant heritage attributes or features; Alteration: that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance: Shadows: created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; 58 4 - 16 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON Isolation:of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Direct or Indirect Obstruction: of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use: such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; Land disturbances:such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource. Furthermore, this report utilizes guides published by the International Council on Monuments and Site (ICOMOS), Council of UNESCO, from the World Heritage Convention of January of 2011. The grading of impact is based on “Guide to Assessing Magnitude of Impact” as a framework for this report: Built Heritage and Historic Landscapes Impact Grading Description Major Change to key historic building elements that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. Moderate Change to many key historic building elements, such that the resource is significantly modified. Changes to the setting of an historic building, such that it is significantly modified. MinorChange to key historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to setting of an historic building, such that is it noticeably changed. Negligible/ Slight changes to historic building elements or setting that hardly affect it. Potential No change No change to fabric or setting. 59 4 - 17 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 7.2ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO 16-20 QUEEN STREET NORTH The following chart evaluates the impact the proposed development will have on the existing cultural heritage resource on the subject lands. Table 1.0 Adverse Impacts 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener Impact Level of Impact Analysis ((Potential, No, Minor, Moderate or Major) Destructionor alteration Moderate The development will retain the front façade of of heritage attributes the building; however, the majority of the building is proposed to be removed to facilitate the development. Subsequently, the interior heritage attributes identified in sub-section 5.2.4 will be removed, however, the majority of exterior attributes will be conserved with the retention of the front façade which has been determined to be the significant façade. See sub-section 7.2.1. Shadows No. Due to the location of the building facing southeast, nearly all shadows will fall away from the front façade. The proposed development will not isolate the Isolation No. façade from its original context as it will retain its original location on Queen Street N. and contextual relationship with Queen Street North and Goudies Lane. See sub-section 7.2.2. Direct or Indirect No.There will be no direct obstruction of significant Obstructionof Views views ofthe main façade(which has been determined to be the significant façade of the building), however, the new portion of the building will be visible from all vantage points. See sub-section 7.2.3. A Change in Land Use No Land Disturbance Moderate.Land disturbances will be a result of construction activities within close proximity of the retained façade. 60 4 - 18 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 7.2.1 Impact of Destruction and Alteration The proposed development will remove the majority of the building’s mass which includes exterior and interior heritage attributes identified in sub-section 5.2.4 of this report. The majority of theexterior heritage attributes will be retained by conserving the front façade, however, the overall mass, form and scale will become disassociated with this retained portion of the building and alter the original design intent which is an impact of alteration/ destruction. See Appendix ‘D’ for measured drawings of the existing building. TO BE DEMOLISHED Figure 63 – Measured drawing of existing first floor;red box indicates heritage building fabric proposed to be removed (Source: iGuide., 2020) 7.2.2 Impact of Isolation The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit outlines an impact of isolation is when a heritage attribute of a cultural heritage resource is isolated from its surrounding environment, context or significant relationship. The proposed development will not alter the relationship or orientation of the cultural heritage resources to Queen Street North. The propose development retains the current setback of the existing building due to the retention of its façade.The increased scale contrasts with the existing streetscape of primarily 2-3 storey buildings. The retention of the façade allows for the cultural heritage resource to continue to read as part of the historic rhythm of commercial buildings along the streetscape. It is important that the materials and design elements of the proposed development be sympathetic to the retained 61 4 - 19 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON heritage building fabric contained in the façade to eradicate any adverse impacts of isolation. This will be examined more thoroughly in Section 10.0 of this report. 7.2.3 Impact of Direct or Indirect Obstruction of View The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places (Second Edition) defines in Section 4.1.5 “Visual Relationships” which is included as part of a character-defining element of a historic place and relates to an observer and their relationship with a landscape or landscape feature or between the relative dimensions of landscape features (scale). This policy with the Ministry adopted the following definitions of a view and vista, respectively: Vista means a distant visual setting that may be experienced from more than one vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit acknowledges that views of a heritage attributes can be components of its significant cultural heritage value. This can include relationships between settings, landforms, vegetation patterns, buildings, landscapes, sidewalks, streets, and gardens, for example. View means a visual setting experienced from a single vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. Views can be either static or kinetic. Static views are those which have a fixed vantage point and view termination. Kinetic views are those related to a route (such as a road or walking trail) which includes a series of views of an object or vista. The vantage point of a view is the place in which a person is standing. The termination of the view includes the landscape or buildings which is the purpose of the view. The space between the vantage point and the termination (or object(s) being viewed) includes a foreground, middle-ground, and background. Views can also be ‘framed’ by buildings or features. While there may be many vantage points providing views and vistas of a property, landscape, building or feature, these must be evaluated to determine whether or not they are significant. Significance is defined by PPS 2020as follows: Significant:means e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. Therefore, a significant view must be identified as having an important contribution to the understanding of a place, event or people. 62 4 - 20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON The table on the following page identifies the two (2) identified significant views of the existing buildings on the subject lands. 2 1 Table 3.0 Significant Views View No. 1- Static view from east side of Queen Street North looking north-east View No. 2-Kinetic view via Queen Street North 63 4 - 21 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON View No. 1- Static view from east side of Queen Street North looking north-east The building is located at 16-20 Queen Street North at a point where the street inclines towards Duke Street West. The Beaux-Arts architectural style was intended to impress viewers by its exaggerated Classical features. The view of the building from the east side of Queen Street North is most commonly depicted in local photographs and ephemera relating to the Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company as seen below. This angle provided an image of the building with the greatest perspective of scale, mass and grandeur. The proposed development will not obstruct this view, however, and the new portions of the building will be visible in all views of the building. Figures 64, 65, 66– (aboveleft) Photograph c. 1930; (above right) Photograph c. 1949; (Courtesy of the Grace Schmidt Room, City of Kitchener Public Library); (below) Current view of 16-20 Queen St N (Source: MHBC, 2020) 64 4 - 22 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON View No. 2- Kinetic view via Queen Street North The proposed construction will be setback from the façade of the existing building so the kinetic view will not be significantly impacted as the original front façade will still read as it historically along the streetscape. The new construction will be visible in all kinetic views, however, it will not result in a direct or indirect obstruction of the significant views of 16-20 Queen Street North from points along Queen Street. Figures 67 & 68- (above) Kinetic view of existing built heritage on subject lands travelling northwards along Queen Street North towards Duke Street West; (below) Kinetic view of existing built heritage on subject lands travelling southwards along Queen Street North towards King Street West; red arrows indicate existing building on subject lands (Source: Google Earth Pro, 2020). 65 4 - 23 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 7.2.4 Impact of Land Disturbances The proposal includes the majority of the site area (925m ²) and will be within the area of the proposed retained front façade; this posesa moderate impact asconstruction activities will be within close proximity of the façade. This impact, however, is simultaneous with that of destruction and alteration discussed in sub-section 7.2.1. Figures 69 & 70- (above) Draft site plan; (below) Draft ground floor plan; red dotted lines indicate property lines and yellow lines indicate outline of proposed new construction (Source: ABA Architects Inc., 2020). 66 4 - 24 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 8.0 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 8.1. INTRODUCTION The following have been identified as a range of development alternatives that may be considered as part of the heritage planning process. These options have been assessed in terms of impacts to cultural heritage resources as well as balancing other planning policies within the planning framework. The following sub-sections of this report consider the potential for alternative development options as it relates to the proposed development. 8.1.1 ‘Do Nothing’ Alternative The ‘do nothing’ alternative would result in no adverse impacts to the existing significant cultural heritage resource since no redevelopment would occur. 8.1.2 Retain Existing Building On-Site with Reduce Construction Height This option would result in retaining the existing buildingand developing in the form of a mid- high rise addition above the building. This option would result in the retention of all of the facades of the existing cultural heritage resource, however, some of the interior features would be removed and likely the roof structure in order to integration the addition into the existing structure. A Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) completed by GHD Group in October 2020 identified mercury contamination below the building. GHD Group consultant states that the extent of the contamination is, “-beneath the northwestern and southwestern walls of the boiler room, as well as the main wall separating the rear section of the basement from the front section” (Beattie, 2020). In order for the soil contamination to be extracted this portion of the building would have be raised; the mass and scale of the building poses significant challenges for this option. 67 4 - 25 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 8.1.3 Demolish Existing Building On-Site and Develop as Proposed This option would result in the removal of the entire building to permit the soil remediation to occur in the easiest manner. However, this alternative would have the greatest impact on heritage resources since all heritage attributes would be removed. This option is not recommended. 68 4 - 26 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 9.0 MITIGATION MEASURES & CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 MITIGATION MEASURES A Documentation and Salvage Plan should be completed; that will: o Identify interior and exterior heritage attributes and other salvageable building material to be salvaged prior to removal of the building fabric; o Identify method of extraction of heritage building material and outline plan for re-use within new construction; o Measured drawings of elevations identifying existing features and materials and floor plans; o High resolution photographs thoroughly document the building, context, setting, exterior elevations and interior spaces, detailing, finishes and characteristics. A Conservation Plan should be completed that will identify short and long-term conservation goals. The short term conservation goals should describe how the retained portions of the building will be conserved during construction including : o the method of partial demolition (manual, selective demolition); o Demonstration that the proposed development will be constructed in a way that will avoid damage to the building façade and that during construction the retained portions will be stabilized and protected; o Risk Management Plan which outlines requirements in the event of any damage to the retained facade whether it be partial or total loss. An Interpretation Plan should be completed to the satisfaction of City Staff; this Plan will: 69 4 - 27 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON o Commemorative/ interpretative signage and/ or installation commemorating the portions of the building that have been removed; o Describe the commemorative area/ small-scale museum within the Community Benefit space on the ground level of new building and the means by which it will be established; o It is encouraged that the Interpretation Plan be completed in collaboration with local community groups and institutions (i.e. The Museum, the Waterloo Historical Society). Figure 71 – Draft ground floor plan of proposed development (Source: ABA Architects Inc. 2020). The form and location of commemoration or interpretative installation should be part of the Site Plan process to acknowledge the building’s significance. 70 4 - 28 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 9.2 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS There are federal, provincial and municipalresources that guide the conservation of historic places in Canada. This sub-section of the report will review the proposed development within the context of these guides. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada document was designed to guide the approach and methodology of conservation for cultural heritage resources in Canada. The Standards in this document discourage the removal of character defining elements of a cultural heritage resource. The character-defining elements of retained façade should be protected and stabilized during the construction period before any intervention is undertaken (Standard 6). Upon the construction of the new building, the appropriate intervention will be identified in a Conservation Plan, which is a recommendation of this report. The proposed development should conserve the heritage value and character defining elements of the retained façade. The ‘addition’ of the proposed development should be, “physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place” (Standard 11). Although not able to be subordinate, the new development should be physically and visually compatible by being consistent with the “Elements of Infill” discussed in the following section as well as being distinguishable. The ability to be distinguishable is consistent with theprinciple of ‘legibility’ of the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties. The contemporary design of the proposed development is distinguishable in its use of glazing and modern architectural articulations. The O ntario Heritage Tool Kit outlines acceptable infill designs within a cultural heritage landscape (see Figure 72). It is important to note that the current streetscape of Queen Street North is not a designated cultural heritage landscape. According to the OHTK, infills in designated cultural heritage landscapes are to fit in the immediate context, be of the same scale and similar setback, maintain proportions of windows and entrances similar to other cultural heritage resources and be of similar colour and material. 71 4 - 29 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON Figure 72: Appropriate Infill Examples in Cultural Heritage Landscape (Source: Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2018). Although, the subject land is not included in a designated cultural heritage landscape, it is acknowledged that is a part of mature neighbourhood and is identified Cultural Heritage Landscape (L-Com-2) which is defined as “Downtown.” The Region of Waterloo outlines “Elements of Successful Infill” in Infill: New Construction in Heritage Neighbourhoods as part of their series, Practical Conservation Guide for Heritage Properties. The “Elements of Successful Infill” include:setback, scale, orientation, scale, proportion, rhythm, massing, height, materials, colour, roof shape, detail and ornamentation, landscape features, secondary buildings, and parking. The following Table 4.0 evaluates the proposed development within this framework: Table 4.0 Elements of Successful Infill Setback & Orientation The proposed development proposes to retain the existing building’s façade and thus, will retain the existing setback along the streetscape. Subsequently, the existing building will inherently retain the proposed development’s orientation to the streetscape.The new construction will be setback approximately 3 metres from the retained façade allowing for the streetscape to retain its rhythm (see Figure 73). Scale, Proportion, The proposed development is of a much greater scale then Rhythm buildings along Queen Street North and greater area. The proportion of the building, however, is consistent with modern/ contemporary buildings within the surrounding area. The hierarchy of space demonstrative of the existing building is 72 4 - 30 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON typical of Beaux-Arts and includes a variety of proportions. The proposed development is consistent with portions of architectural features suchas openings and balconies (see Figure 62). The rhythm of panels on the face of balconies are based on a musical score to reflect the sites previous use for the Kitchener Conservatory of Music. Massing and Height The proposed development is of a much larger mass and height than buildings along this stretch of Queen Street North which is predominately low to mid-rise development.The mass and height is setback from the streetscape which allows a buffer between the streetscape and change in mass/ height. The proposed use of glazing also will reduce the perspective of mass. Materials, Colour, Roof Colours are of a neutral palette (light and dark grey). Walls are to Shape, Detail and be composed of precast material. The new construction is Ornamentation modern and simplistic in design. Landscape Features, There are no proposed secondary buildings on-site or surface Secondary Buildings, parking (there is loading area proposed in the approximate Parking location of existing parking lot to the north). There are no proposed landscape features (the subject lands are currently void of vegetation) but would benefit from landscape features to coincide with the historic open space at the north-east corner of Queen Street North and Duke Street West. 73 4 - 31 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON Figure 73: Extent of stepback from façade to new construction (Source: ABA Architects Inc.). In summary, the proposed development generally complies with the elements of successful infill in a mature neighborhood with the exception of: scale, massing and height.The proposed development is still in progress. In order to guide development, it is recommended that materials, colours, details and ornamentation and landscape features be sympathetic to the retained heritage building fabric contained in the front façade of the existing building. The following are recommendations as they relate to the proposed development and these elements: Materials, details and ornamentation particularly on the first three levels (pedestrian level) should be sympathetic to the existing building by utilizing a contemporary interpretation of existing architectural articulations (i.e. roofline, mouldings) and materials that do not detract from the existing façade; glazing intercepted by high quality materials (i.e. stone and brick) are recommended to integrate the existing cultural heritage resource into new buildings; Colours should be of a neutral palette; Signage and lighting of the retained building should emphasis the existing building’s prominence along the streetscape and avoid obstructing any views of the front façade. 74 4 - 32 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 10.0 CONCLUSIONS MHBC was retained in September 2020 by Momentum Developments to undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) for the subject property located at 16-20 Queen Street . The purpose of this CHIA is to determine the impact of the development on identified heritage attributes of the existing building on the subject property. The proposed development includes the integration of a portion of the existing building (front façade) into the new construction. This report determined through the evaluation under the prescribed Ontario Regulation 9/06, that the building has significant cultural heritage value or interest. The Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest is included in Sub- section 5.3 of this report. Sub-section 8.2 of this report identifies the impacts to identified heritage attributes of the existing cultural heritage resource on the subject land, which includes the retention of the main façade of the building and integration into a new construction. The following impacts were identified based on this proposal: Adverse Impacts: 1.Moderate impact of destruction of exterior and interior heritage attributes and original mass of the building; 2.Moderate impact of land disturbances during construction. As required, this report outlines mitigation measures for the proposed impacts in Section 10.0. Mitigation Measures: A Documentation and Salvage Plan should be completed; that will: o Identify interior and exterior heritage attributes and other salvageable building material to be salvaged prior to removal of the building fabric; o Identify method of extraction of heritage building material and outline plan for re-use within new construction; o Measured drawings of elevations identifying existing features and materials and floor plans; o High resolution photographs thoroughly document the building, context, setting, exterior elevations and interior spaces, detailing, finishes and characteristics. 75 4 - 33 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON A Conservation Plan should be completed to the satisfaction of the City Staff this Plan will be composed of short, medium and long-term conservation goals. The short/ medium term conservation goals will be included in a Temporary Protection Plan which will include: o A Demolition Plan outlining the method of partial demolition (manual, selective demolition); this repot will require a report completed by a certified structural engineer deeming the method feasible and appropriate; o Certification by an engineer that the proposed development will be constructed in a way that will avoid damage to the building façade; o Stabilization Plan that identifies and prioritizes short term building stabilization requirements necessary to protect and conserve the retained portion of the building including a Risk Management Plan which outlines steps requirements in the event of the damage to the retained facade whether it be partial or total loss. An Interpretation Plan should be completed to the satisfaction of City Staff; this Plan will: o Commemorative/ interpretative signage and/ or installation commemorating the portions of the building that have been removed and a historical overview of the property preferably within the community space identified on the first floor in the proposed development; o It is encourage that the Interpretation Plan be completed in collaboration with local community groups and institutions (i.e. The Museum, the Waterloo Historical Society). It is encouraged that a form and location of commemoration or interpretative installation be part of the Site Plan process to acknowledge the building’s significance in the Town of Berlin, now the City of Kitchener. Conservation Recommendations: Materials, details and ornamentation particularly on the first three levels (pedestrian level) should be sympathetic to the existing buildingby utilizing acontemporary interpretation of existing architectural articulations (i.e. roofline, mouldings) and materials that do not detract from the existing façade; glazing intercepted by high quality materials (i.e. stone and brick) are recommended to integrate the existing cultural heritage resource into new buildings; Signage and lighting of the retained building should emphasis the existing building’s prominence along the streetscape and avoid obstructing any views of the front façade. 76 4 - 34 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON The retained façade should be conserved in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. spectfully submitted, Re Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Partner, MHBC 77 4 - 35 Date:May 27, 2021 To:Members of Heritage Kitchener From:Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner cc:Josh Joseph, Manager, Neighbourhood Development Office Alanah Jewell, Parks Engagement Associate Subject:Permanent Indigenous Space in Victoria Park Background In June 2020, some members from local Indigenous communities established the O:se Kenhionhata:tie Land Back Camp in Victoria Park and identified the need for permanent Indigenous spaces on public lands for gathering and ceremonial purposes. Further outreach through the City of Kitchener’s Parks Engagement Associate with local Indigenous leaders and organizations have confirmed the need to create welcoming spaces for Indigenous peoples. Also in 2020, work to develop a Reconciliation Action Plan by the Region and all area municipalities began. This will provide a framework for listening, learning, building relationships, supporting local Indigenous-centred initiatives, and taking actions to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC)’s Calls to Action. The Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group is exploring how local municipalities can support Indigenous placekeeping on lands within Waterloo Region to Indigenous groups, agencies, and individuals for the purpose of cultural ceremonies, land-based education, exploration, and other community-based needs. Permanent Indigenous Space In response to the above,the City of Kitchener is working with local Indigenous communities to create permanent space in Victoria Park. The site will be a safe and culturally appropriate space for members of local Indigenous communities to honour their history and celebrate their heritage and culture. The permanent Indigenous space initiative will be an Indigenous-centered and led project, with the support of an Indigenous consultant, with the goal of creating a physical space for local Indigenous communities. The eventual form of the space and how it will function is not yet known; this is being developed through Indigenous-centred, City supported, Indigenous-led design work. However, it is considered likely that some form of shelter will be part of the eventual designs along with seating to support gathering. 5 - 1 Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and Permitting Process Victoria Park is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The VPAHCD Plan contains building conservation policies and guidelines and landscape policies and guidelines. th These policies seek to ‘conserve and enhance the 18 century Romantic Landscape style of Victoria Park’ through preserving its: Naturalistic character The lake Woods Sweeps of grass Meandering drives and paths ‘Antique’ buildings and monuments Vistas A series of policy statements are developed in the VPAHCD Plan that mirror these objectives. While a concept is yet to be developed, many of these statements are likely well aligned with the desires for a gathering space for Indigenous community at Victoria Park. Structures (such as a gathering area with a possible shelter which might form part of an eventual design) are considered and indeed, supported, within the VPAHCD Plan. While preserving the naturalistic character of the site, built form should seek to be indivisible from the landscape. Buildings and monuments that enhance ‘visual delight’ are encouraged, and should build on a tradition of handcraftsmanship, using natural materials and blend with the landscape. Landscaping will be essential within the context of any building or monument. TheVPAHCD Plan seeks to support the heritage of the park setting, but reflects on the contemporary needs of the siteas a park serving the contemporary population of the City and seeks to actively ensure that the park meets the needs of the communities of Kitchener. Likewise, Indigenous space in Victoria Park seeks to support heritage of the area now known as Kitchener and seeks to build a park that actively serves the contemporary population of Kitchener. Heritage permit applications are typically required for works that are regulated by policy within the VPAHCD Plan. It remains unclear yet as to whether the eventual design for Indigenous space at Victoria Park would require a permit, however, a permit may be required if a design includes the construction and/or installation of new buildings or monuments within the park landscape. The Ontario Heritage Act requires that apermit be obtained to erect any building or structure on property situated within a heritage conservationdistrict. The Ontario Heritage Act and the VPAHCD Plan do not provide guidance or policy direction with respect to Indigenous spaces within heritage conservation districts. The City is committed to honouring the original caretakers of these lands and that means, among other things, reconsidering how we view ‘heritage’. 5 - 2 Heritage Planning staff surveyed the Ontario Heritage Planners Network, an organized group of municipal Heritage Planners across Ontario, about any experiences with Indigenous spaces within heritage conservation districts. The responses received indicate that Heritage Planners across Ontario do not have experience with this type of project and that there is noprecedent or case study to follow to guide an approach. However, permanent Indigenous space initiatives give the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo the opportunity to set important precedents for other municipalities across Ontario. The City of Kitchener prides itself on its spirit of innovation and is committed to a journey of reconciliation that demands that we re-examine our community spaces to ensure they are inclusive and reflects and provides space for the ongoing culture and tradition of the original caretakers of the land currently known as Kitchener. Indigenous space at Victoria Park provides unique opportunity to provide leadership in reconciliation through placemaking. To foster relationship building with local Indigenous communities,support the need for Indigenous gathering and ceremonial space, remove barriers of systemic anti-Indigenous racism and discrimination, and advance the City’s commitment to the TRC’s Calls to Action, Heritage Planning staff are proposing to remove red tapeto make this Indigenous-centred initiative happen as seamlessly as possible and are seeking endorsement from the Heritage Kitchener committee members on this approach. Next Steps Workshops to further engage with local Indigenous communities are scheduled to occur throughout the summer. A consultant will be retained to guide and support the Indigenous-led design of the permanent space. Once the final design of this space is ready for circulation, public engagement will take place with the surrounding neighbourhood and with the Heritage Kitchener committee. Project updates will be available to members of the Heritage Kitchener committee at appropriate times during this process. _____________________________ Victoria Grohn, BES Heritage Planner 5 - 3 Date:February 16, 2021 To:Members of Heritage Kitchener From:Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner Michelle Drake, Heritage Planner cc: Subject:Heritage Kitchener 2021-2022 Work Plan Each of the City’s Advisory Committees, with the assistance of staff, are required to develop and implement a Work Plan for the coming term. The objective of these Work Plans is to outline the various initiatives to be pursued in the coming term along with a proposed timeline for completion. The 2019-2020 Heritage Kitchener Work Plan is attached for the Committee’s information and can be referenced to help guide the development of the 2021-2022 Work Plan. The core business areas of the Heritage Kitchener committee, as outlined in the committee’s Terms of Reference,include the following: Recommendations to City Council on: o Designating property under the Ontario Heritage Act; o Listing property on the Municipal Heritage Register; o Heritage Permit Applications; Review nominations and make recommendations for a Mike & Pat Wagner Heritage Award; and Promote awareness and education on heritage conservation related matters. Heritage Planning staff areseeking input from the Heritage Kitchener committee to develop the 2021-2022 Work Plan. Heritage Kitchener members are encouraged to consider the following when identifying action items for the Work Plan: What initiative does the Action fall under? o OHA related (designation, listing) o Promotion & Awareness When should the Action be undertaken in 2021-2022? o One year or both years? o Ongoing (year round) or does it have a more defined timeline? Who would need to take the lead? o HKmembers/joint with City Staff assistance? What is the Priority from 1 to 3? o Priority 1: budget related, Council directive, legislated requirement, time sensitive o Priority 2: Work Plan priority but not necessarily time sensitive o Priority 3: Subject to available time and resources (a nice to do) Are there any budget / resourcing implications? Additional discussions will take place over the following meetings to finalize the Work Plan in May or June. Attachment: 2019-2021 Heritage Kitchener Work Program 7 - 1 7 - 2 roof dormers replace windows dwelling to a duplex HPA Description Hog and Hen House installation of skylights Suddaby Public School Relocation of a maple tree Alterations to a rear addition Demolish a detached garage Demolish a detached garage Construct a detached garage Ground floor façade alterations Construction of a carport addition Construction of a detached garage Masonry, soffit and roof repairs, and Construction of fence and stone wall Proposed alterations to the façade of Construct a one-storey addition to the with an enclosed addition and balcony Reconstruction of rear porch and balcony Installation of solar panels and metal roofWindow, roof and attic door replacement, second storey rear addition and construct Construction of an addition and alterations southwest side of the existing building and Replace windows, replace roof, construct a Remove rear porch and balcony and replace Alteration and conversion of single detached wood repairs, and door installation on former 25-Jan-21 25-Jan-2125-Jan-2122-Feb-2122-Mar-2115-Mar-2116-Mar-21 Delegated Approval Council Meeting Date / eritage Kitchener Recommendation Carried UnanimouslyCarried UnanimouslyCarried UnanimouslyCarried UnanimouslyCarried UnanimouslyCarried UnanimouslyCarried Unanimously Carried Unanimously H Initial comments & feedback 6-Apr-21 6-Apr-21 5-Jan-215-Jan-215-Jan-215-Jan-211-Jun-211-Jun-211-Jun-21 2-Mar-212-Mar-21 2-Feb-212-Mar-212-Mar-212-Mar-21 4-May-214-May-21 HK Meeting # DSD-21-001DSD-20-003DSD-21-036DSD-21-038DSD-21-039 DSD-21-002DSD-21-002DSD-21-018DSD-21-041DSD-21-037 DSD-2021-34DSD-2021-35DSD-2021-61DSD-2021-60DSD-2021-65DSD-2021-88DSD-2021-87 Staff Report 2021 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS (HPA) Date Complete Legend: Unanimously approved by Heritage Kitchener permits an HPA to be approved through delegated authority. 17 Park St11 Park St 38 Shirk Pl 8 Devon St 23 Roland St 37 Heins Ave 11 Ellen St W 172 Queen St N172 Queen St N 171 Frederick St 25 Margaret Ave 137-147 King St E 68 Saddlebrook Crt Property Address 59 Marianne Dorn Tr883 Doon Village Rd 59 Marianne Dorn Tr 1249 Doon Village Rd 300 Joseph Schoerg Cres300 Joseph Schoerg Cres Application Number PA-2021-IV-012 HPA-2021-IV-001HPA-2021-V-002HPA-2021-V-003HPA-2021-IV-004HPA-2021-V-005HPA-2021-IV-006HPA-2021-IV-007HPA-2021-IV-008HPA-2021-V-009HPA-2021-V-010HPA-2021-V-011HHPA-2021-V-013HPA-2021-V-014HPA-2021-IV -015HPA-2021-IV-016HPA-2021-V-017HPA-2021-IV-018HPA-2021-IV-019 123456789 # 1011121415161718192021222324252627282930313233 13 IF1 - 1