Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
HK Agenda - 2022-03-01
Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, March 1, 2022, 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Electronic Meeting 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 accessing the meeting Iivestream video at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. 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 delegation@kitchener.ca. Please refer to the delegations section on the agenda below for registration deadlines. Written comments will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. 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. Pages 1. Commencement 2. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. Delegates must register by 2:00 p.m. on March 1, 2022, in order to participate electronically. 2.1. Item 3.1. - Marg Rowell, Architectural Conservancy Ontario - North Waterloo Region 2.2. Item 3.1. - Andrew J B Milne 3. Discussion Items 3.1. Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 22 30 m 3 Weber Street West, Proposed Development to Construct a 19 -storey Multiple Residential Building, DSD -2022-093 3.2. Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 234 30 m 95 and 240 Frederick Street, Proposed Development to Construct a 4 -storey Freestanding Apartment Building, DSD -2022- 094 3.3. Sub -Committee Updates 3.4. Status Updates - Heritage Best Practices 5 m Update and 2022 Priorities, Heritage Impact Assessment Follow-ups 4. Information Items 4.1. Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 5. Adjournment Sarah Goldrup Committee Administrator 224 Page 2 of 224 Staffeeport IST` � Ni,R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 1, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: February 14, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-093 SUBJECT: 22 Weber Street West — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment RECOMMENDATION: For Information REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a Heritage Impact Assessment Report (HIA) dated November 2021, prepared by MHBC Planning Limited regarding a proposed development to construct a 19 - storey multiple residential building on a lot municipally addressed as 22 Weber Street West. The subject property is currently being used as surface parking and is located within the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District. The subject lands are currently subject to an Official Plan Amendment application as well as a Zoning By-law Amendment application, both of which are currently under appeal and before the Ontario Land Tribunal. The applicant's heritage consultant will attend the March 1, 2022, meeting of Heritage Kitchener to present the HIA and answer any 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 processing of related Planning Act applications. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the March meeting. A copy of the HIA is attached to this report. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 3 of 224 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 council / committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. • Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER 0.18 • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft HIA Page 4 of 224 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Date: November, 2021 Prepared for: 30 Duke Street Limited Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 Our Hal 961 A' fi " yS Zia 0 y y.•�M p :.rte I - �' .''fib �rC+x° :• £`���`< '. - III MHBC P L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE 4RCWTECTURE Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener DATE November, 2021 PREPARED FOR 30 Duke Street Ltd. MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 200-540 Bingmenas Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 November2027 MHBC 11 Page 6 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener TABLE of CONTENTS PROJECTPERSONNEL..........................................................................................................................................................................4 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................................................................4 Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities...............................................................................................................5 EXECUTIVESUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................................6 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................................8 1.1 LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY................................................................................................................................8 1.2 HERITAGE STATUS..................................................................................................................................................................10 1.2.1 Subject Property: 22 Weber Street West.........................................................................................................10 1.2.2 Adjacent Lands...............................................................................................................................................................10 1.3 LAND USE AND ZONING....................................................................................................................................................1 1 2.0 POLICY & GUIDELINES..........................................................................................................................................................14 2.1 THE PLANNING ACT AND PPS 2020............................................................................................................................14 2.2 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT...................................................................................................................................................15 2.3 REGION OF WATERLOO OFFICIAL PLAN..................................................................................................................15 2.4 CITY OF KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN...........................................................................................................................17 2.5 CIVIC CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN (2007) ................18 2.6 PARTS CENTRAL PLAN.................................................................................................................................................19 2.7 CITY OF KITCHENER TERMS OF REFERENCE, HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS..............................20 3.0113ACKGROUND RESEARCH AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT..............................................................................22 3.1 CIVIC CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD................................................................................................................................22 4.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ...........................28 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF LANDSCAPE AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT...........................................................28 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE WEBER STREET STREETSCAPE...................................................................................29 4.3 DESCRIPTION OF 22 WEBER STREET WEST........................................................................................................31 4.4 DESCRIPTION OF ADJACENT LANDS..........................................................................................................................35 4.4.1 Weber Street West........................................................................................................................................................35 4.4.2 Roy Street...........................................................................................................................................................................36 November2027 MHBC 12 Page 7 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................39 6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................................................................42 6.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................................42 6.2 CCNHCD PLAN POLICY INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................42 6.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS: 22 WEBER STREET WEST..........................................................................................................43 6.3.1 CCNHCD Plan Policies that Apply to all Development..........................................................................43 6.3.2 Weber Street Area Specific Policies....................................................................................................................45 6.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS: ADJACENT LANDS......................................................................................................................51 6.4.1 WEBER STREET WEST...................................................................................................................................................51 6.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS: ROY STREET............................................................................................................................52 6.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACT ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................53 7.0 MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................55 7.1 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS...................................................................................................................55 7.1.1 'Do Nothing' Alternative...........................................................................................................................................55 7.1.2 Redevelop Site with Decreased Height and Density..............................................................................55 7.1.3 Redevelop Site with Increased Density...........................................................................................................56 7.1.4 Redevelop Site with Alternative Designs & Materials.............................................................................56 7.2 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................56 8.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................57 9.0 WORKS CONSULTED..........................................................................................................................................................59 APPENDIX A — LOCATION MAP..................................................................................................................................................60 APPENDIX B — ANGULAR PLANE ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................61 APPENDIX C — SHADOW STUDY................................................................................................................................................62 APPENDIX D — SITE PLAN & RENDERINGS............................................................................................................................63 APPENDIX E — CURRICULUM VITAE..........................................................................................................................................64 November2027 MHBC 13 Page 8 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener PROJECT PERSONNEL Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, Managing DirectorofCu/tura/ Senior Review CAH P Heritage Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Heritage Planner Research, Author GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS H IA Heritage Impact Assessment HCD Heritage Conservation District MHBC MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited M H STC 1 Ministry of Hentage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries OHA Ontario Heritage Act OHTK Ontario Heritage Toolkit O -REG 9/06 Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining cultural heritage significance PPS 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) November2027 MHBC 14 Page 9 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities This Heritage Impact Assessment acknowledges that the subject property located at 22 Weber Street West of the City of Kitchener, is situated territory of the Haudenosaunee, of the Haudenosauneega Confederacy. These lands are acknowledged as being associated with the following treaties: • Treaty of the Haldimand Tract, Established 1793 This document takes into consideration the cultural heritage of Indigenous Communities, including their oral traditions and history when available and related to the scope of work. November2027 MHBC 15 Page 10 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MHBC was retained by 30 Duke Street Ltd. to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the subject property located at 22 Weber Street West. The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment is to evaluate the proposed development in terms of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources and provide mitigation recommendations, where necessary. The proposed development includes the construction of a 19 storey multiple residential building on a lot currently used as surface parking. The proposed new building does not include the demolition or alteration of any cultural heritage resources located on-site or adjacent. As the proposed new building is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District, any new development is subject to the policies of the CCNHCD Plan. SUMMARY OF IMPACT ANALYSIS: The CCNHCD Plan recognizes that Weber Street is different from the interior of the district and sets forth policies for new development which are specific to this area. The Plan recognizes that Weber Street West is designated High Density Commercial Residential. The Plan allows for higher density developments provided that it a) does not result in the demolition of significant cultural heritage resources is and b) is compatible with the character of the streetscape. This Heritage Impact Assessment has demonstrated that the character Weber Street West is varied and includes buildings of a higher scale than that of the interior of the district. The proposed new 19 storey residential building is taller than that of buildings located adjacent (contiguous), but maximises density while respecting adjacent cultural heritage resources and conforming to the policies of the HCD Plan. The Heritage Conservation District Plan does not apply maximum height limits for development within the Weber Street Area. Instead the HCD Plan identifies a number of policies and guidelines that govern the development of new buildings. The proposed development is consistent with these policies and guidelines as follows: • The proposed new building is contemporary in style and includes materials such as neutral toned masonry; • The building includes a 2 story main entrance/podium which emphasizes the pedestrian scale; November2027 MHBC 16 Page 11 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener The contemporary design includes a symmetrical arrangement of square and rectangular shaped windows in a regularly established rhythm which will not detractfrom the buildings located adjacent at 18 Weber Street West and 28 Weber Street West; and • The height of the proposed new building is within the 45 degree angular plane as per the analysis provided in Appendix B of this report. The proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts related to obstruction, isolation, change in land use, or shadows. The proposed development is considered a neutral impact to adjacent heritage resources within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) located along Weber Street West and Roy Street. There is potential for impacts to adjacent buildings as a result of construction activities. Mitigation recommendations for the proposed development are limited to monitoring potential vibration impacts, if necessary. Note to the Reader.• The purpose ofthis executive summaryis to highlight key aspects ofthis report and therefore does not elaborate on other components. Please note that this report is intended to be read in its entirety in order to gain a full understanding of Its contents November2027 MHBC 17 Page 12 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener .O INTRODUCTION MHBC was retained by 30 Duke Street Limited to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the subject property located at 22 Weber Street West. The Heritage Impact Assessment is required by the City of Kitchener as the subject property is included within the boundary of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment is to evaluate the proposed development in terms of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources, including adjacent properties within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. The subject property is currently used as surface parking and as such, this HIA is focused on potential impacts to adjacent lands and evaluates the proposal in the context of the policies for new buildings provided in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) Plan. This report has been prepared as inputtothe planning application and development proposal.The background information and research has provided direction on the redevelopment concept. This report evaluates the proposal in the context of the City's policy framework and Provincial policy. 1.1 LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is located at 22 Weber Street West and is situated on the north side of Weber Street West, between Queen Street North and Young Street (see below). November2027 MHBC 18 Page 13 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener -- # . Aerial Photo LEGEND 22 Weber Street West, C:] Subject Lands Kitchener, Ontario SDurce: City Df Kitchener 2U i B November 2027 DATE: FeUwry 2T=9 SCALE 1:5,9C9 i FILE: 1961A 'w DRM: -HE5 MHBC 19 Page 14 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 1.2 HERITAGE STATUS 1.2.1 Subject Property: 22 Weber Street West The property located at 22 Weber Street West is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Actas it is located within the boundary of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD). The CCNHCD Plan recognizes that this property is vacant, and does not include any features which contribute to the character of the HCD or the Weber Street West streetscape. The CCNHCD Plan qualifies properties in terms of their cultural heritage value and classifies them in groups (i.e. "A", "B", "C", and "D"). The CCNHCD Plan does not assign a classification to the subject property as it does not include any cultural heritage resources. As such, the property has not been evaluated in this report under the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining cultural heritage value or interest. 1.2.2 Adjacent Lands The City of Kitchener Official Plan identifies that a Heritage Impact Assessment shall include consideration for cultural heritage resources on adjacent lands. The City of Kitchener Official Plan defines adjacent as follows: Adjacent - lands, buildings and/orstructures thatare contiguous or that are directly opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a lane way, municipal road or other right-of-way. For the purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment, the above -noted policies of the City of Kitchener Official Plan identify that the following properties are technically located adjacent to the proposed development and should be included in the scope of this report: • 32 Weber Street West; • 35 Roy Street; • 31 Roy Street; • 27 Roy Street; • 23 Roy Street; • 18 Weber Street West; and • 28 Weber Street West. The property located at 22 Weber Street West is located adjacent to the properties at 18 Weber Street West and 28 Weber Street West and shares a street frontage with these properties. As a result, November2027 MHBC 110 Page 15 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener this forms the most direct relationship between any proposed new building and adjacent cultural heritage resources. Therefore, this HIA focuses on impacts to properties located at 28 Weber Street West, 18 Weber Street West, and provides an analysis of potential impacts to properties located on the south side of Roy Street. �! 92 41 "1 qrW BB 18 44.1 11 79-7 137 122 Figure 1: Excerpt of the CCNHCD Figure 3 Map, Group A & B Properties. Location of subject property shaded in green. Properties located adjacent outlined with blue dashed line. (Source: CCNHCD Plan, Figure 3) 1.3 LAND USE AND ZONING The subject lands are designated High Density Commercial Residential as per the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (see Figure 2). This designation recognizes the proximity of the subject lands to downtown Kitchener (Urban Growth Centre) as well as the property's frontage on Weber Street, which is a Regional Arterial Road and has been designated as a Planned Transit Corridor. November2027 MHBC 11 1 Page 16 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener ae Legend N !' Low Rise Residential Preservation rr�� Low Rise Multiple Residential `y Low Density Multiple Residential s r Medium Density Mul le Residential High Density Multiple Residential aa.: �a e• - sem' Office Resid.ninil Coirveraion Medium DensityCommercial Residential High Density Commercial Residentlal '•`+s .i Cammun dY lnslirutlonai Mixed 119e Corcldor ! 1 • p f. r' Neigheocrhood Park r �•-. `• I Boundary of Secondary Plan I1 Special PGIiCY Area t Primary Arterial Roatl e' Secondary ArWnal Road s *• J i •a!� . f Figure 2: Excerpt of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, Map 9, noting the subject property as "High Density Commercial Residential". Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. (Source: Kitchener Public Library) The "High Density Commercial Residential" designation permits a range of residential, commercial and retail uses within free standing buildings or mixed use buildings. Official Plan policies provide for a maximum floor space ratio of 4.0 and permit high density residential development. Approved Official Plan policies have been implemented by the Commercial Residential 3 Zone (CR -3) of By- law 85-1. The subject property backs onto lots on the south side of Roy Street. As shown in Figure 2, the lands on the south side of Roy Street are designated Office Residential Conversion. The Office Residential Conversion designation permits a range of residential uses and office commercial uses including private home day care, home business, and hospice. The intent of the Office Residential Conversion designation is to provide a transition from the high density development on Weber Street to the low-rise residential uses located internal to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. November2027 MHBC 112 Page 17 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 3: Excerpt of the City of Kitchener Interactive Map, Zoning layer, identifying the subject property within the Commercial -Residential 3 Zone. Approximate location of subject lands denoted in red. (Source: Kitchener Public Library) November2027 MHBC 113 Page 18 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 2.O POLICY & GUIDELINES 2.1 THE PLANNING ACT AND PPS 2020 The Planning Act makes a number of provisions respecting cultural heritage, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2, the Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. One of the intentions of The PlanningActis to "encourage the co-operation and co-ordination among the various interests". Regarding cultural heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that: The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters ofotovincial interest such as, ... (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific Interest, - The Planning Act therefore provides for the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the land use planning process. In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Pro vincialPolicyStatement, 2020(PPS).The PPS is "intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation". This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Significant: e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for November2027 MHBC 114 Page 19 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject property located at 22 Weber Street West is considered protected heritage property under Provincial Policy Statement as all lands within the boundary of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Actand are considered significant cultural heritage resources. 2.2 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT The Ontario Heritage/lct, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains the guiding legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. This HIA has been guided by the criteria provided with Regulation 9/06of the Ontario Heritage Act outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The Ontario Heritage Act provides the framework of legislation for the designation of Heritage Conservation Districts. The Ontario Heritage Act also requires that all development within the heritage conservation district must be consistent with the heritage conservation district plan. Section 42 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act prescribes that no owner of property in a designated Heritage Conservation District may alter any part of a property or erect or demolish a building without obtaining approval from the municipality by way of a heritage permit. 2.3 REGION OF WATERLOO OFFICIAL PLAN Chapter 3, Section 3.G of the Regional Official Plan provides policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources which are related to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as fol lows: 3. G Cultural Heritage Cultural heritage resources are the inheritance of natural and cultural assets that give people a sense ofplace, community and personal identity. Continuity with the past promotes creativity and cultural diversity. The region has a rich and diverse heritage, including distinctive cultures, traditions, festivals, artisans and craftspeople, landmarks, landscapes, properties, structures, burial sites, cemeteries, natural features and archaeological resources. These resources provide an November2027 MHBC 115 Page 20 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Important means of defining and confirming a regional identity, enhancing the quality of life of the community, supporting social development and promoting economic prosperity. The Region is committed to the conservation of its cultural heritage. This responsibility is shared with the Federal and Provincial governments, Area Municipalities, other government agencies, the private sector, property owners and the community. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 3.G. 73 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non -designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 3. G. 74 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3. G. 73 relates to a cultural heritage resource ofRegional interest, the Area Municipality will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality. 3.G. 75 Where a development application includes, or is adjacent to, a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest which is not listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant willbe required to submit a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region. 3.G. 76 The Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee prior to planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy 3. G.4. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies in this Plan. 3. G. 77 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the follo wing: (a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; (b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource,- (c) esource;(c) description of the proposed development orsite alteration,- (d) lteration;(d) assessment of development orsite alteration impacts; (e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; November2027 MHBC 116 Page 21 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener (f) schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and (g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations 2.4 CITY OF KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN Section 12 of the Kitchener Official Plan (2014) provides the following policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources as it relates to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: Objectives 72. 7.7. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 727.2 To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved. 72 7.3. To increase public a wareness and appreciation for cultural heritage resources through educational, promotional and incentive programs. 72 7.4. To lead the community by example with the identification, protectlon, use and/or management of cultural heritage resources owned and/or leased by the City. Policies 72C. 7.7. The City will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental AssessmentAct, the Cemeteries Actand the Municipal Act. 72 C. 7.2 The City will establish and consult with a Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) on matters relating to cultural heritage resources in accordance with provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act. Heritage Conservation Districts The following selection of policies of the City of Kitchener Official Plan provide direction regarding change management in a designated Heritage Conservation District. 72C.7,27, All development, redevelopment and site alteration permitted by the land use designations and other policies of this Plan will conserve Kitchener' November2027 MHBC 117 Page 22 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener significant cultural heritage resources The conservation of significant cultural heritage resources will be a requirement and/or condition in the processing and approval ofapplications submitted under the Planning Act, Design/Integration 72C. 7.46. The City will prepare guidelines as part of the Urban Design Manual to address the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the city and to recognize the importance of the context in which the cultural heritage resources are located. 72C.7.47. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in dose proximity to properties designated under the Ontario Hentage Act or other cultural heritage resources. 2.5 CIVIC CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN (2007) The subject property located at 22 Weber Street West is located within the boundary of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) Plan, which was designated in 2007 under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.. Section 1.2 of the CCNHCD Plan identifies that its purpose is as follows, ... to protect, over the long term, areas that have important and/or identifiable historic and architectural resources While the subject property is vacant, any new construction must comply with the policies of the CCNHCD Plan. The purpose of policies for new development on vacant lands is to ensure that it is compatible with the character of the area and impacts to the District are minimized or avoided. The CCNHCD Plan recognizes that there are distinctly different areas within the HCD. One of these distinctly different areas identified in the HCD Plan includes Weber Street. The CCNHCD Plan provides policies specific to the Weber Street Corridor, which is recognized as being designated High Density Commercial Residential. Section 7.0 of this Heritage Impact Assessment analyzes the conformity of the proposed development with the applicable policies of the CCNHCD Plan, including Sections 3.3.5.2 and 6.9.4. November2027 MHBC 118 Page 23 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 2.6 PARTS CENTRAL PLAN This Heritage Impact Assessment acknowledges that the subject property located at 22 Weber Street West is included in lands identified in the PARTS Central Plan as Mixed Use Medium Density with policies and guidelines for transition between Weber Street and Roy Street. This Plan provides guidelines regarding appropriate development. Section 7.0 of the PARTS Central Plan regarding Cultural Heritage Resources identifies the following as it relates to the scope of this HIA, For development in volving new building activity on or adjacent heritage property, the built form including scale, height, massing, architectural character and materials, should be compatible with the surrounding historic context. It is not expected that development replicate historical styles and decoration. However, new buildings must be able to demonstrate complementary proportions and massing in order to continue the rhythm oftraditional facade orstreet patterns and provide for an appropriate transition where significantly higher densities are proposed. Section 8.0 of the PARTS Central Plan identifies the following as it relates to cultural heritage and transitioning, The conservation and integration of heritage buildings, structures and uses within a Heritage Conservation District should be achieved through appropriately scaled development that is sensitive to the built cultural heritage. Where Medium Density Mixed Use land designation abuts low rise residential uses, the bulk of the massing in the Mixed use designation should abut the street thereby providing a maximum separation between the adjacent low density uses. Given that the subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, this HIA refers to the policies provided therein as it relates to the proposed development. The PARTS Central Plan is not a Policy document and implementation will be the updated Secondary Plans which are under review. November2027 MHBC 119 Page 24 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 2.7 CITY OF KITCHENER TERMS OF REFERENCE, HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS The City of Kitchener Official Plan provides the following as it relates to the requirements for Heritage Impact Assessments: Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans 72C. 7.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment an(Y/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed.• a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property,- b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 73. C.4.6 through 73. C.4.78 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; (Y) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; an(Y/or, e) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 72 C. 7.24. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 72. C. 7.23 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the City will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review prior to final consideration by the City. 72 C. 7.25. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements as outlined in the City ofKitchener' Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans, 72C 7.26. The contents ofa Heritage Impact,Assessment will be outlined in a Terms ofReference. In general, the contents ofa Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; November2027 MHBC 120 Page 25 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource,- c) esource; c) description of the proposed development orsite alteration,- d) lteration;d) assessment of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse Impacts; e) consideration ofalternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; 0 implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 72C.7.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be Incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval ofany application submitted under the Planning Act. 72 C. 7.28. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. November2027 MHBC 121 Page 26 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 3.013ACKGROUND RESEARCH AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT 3.1 CIVIC CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD The Civic Centre Neighbourhood was developed in the 19th and 201h centuries as a residential area adjacent to Kitchener's former industrial core located south of the railway, providing homes for those who owned or work for businesses/factories in the area. The earliest residential buildings date from the 1850s, with the majority constructed between 1880 and 1915. The area developed slowly, experiencing significant infill in the late 1920s. The construction of apartment buildings dotted the neighbourhood beginning in the 1960s. The neighbourhood reflects the long development of the area from the 1850s to the recent past with a variety of housing styles. According to the 1853-1854 Map of Berlin surveyed by M.C. Schofield, the subject lands were part of a large vacant parcel of land extending north towards what is now Margaret Avenue (See Figure 4). November2027 MHBC 122 Page 27 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener <Y — f /SAX AY f AC'- c� Figure 4: Detail of M.C. Schofield map of Berlin, 1853. Approximate location of subject lands denoted in red. (Source: Kitchener Public Library) According to the 1875 Bird's Eye View map, the context of the subject lands had changed considerably from 1853. New buildings are noted along Weber Street West, and Ahrens Street was extended towards Queen Street North. Some of the buildings noted on this map at the north side of Weber Street West, west of Queen Street North were demolished at some point to facilitate the construction of existing buildings, including the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church at 54 Queen Street North. The building noted on the subject lands was likely the house constructed for Charles H. Ahrens. November2027 MHBC 123 Page 28 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener L 4 1t 4 Charles H. Ahrens house e (Parcel 5, Plan 360), now ' demoliskedl,.� : I*,, i Zak, 4�4�6�ah 41T 11 1111111111F 77 1�� 11i,1111 Figure 5: Detail of the 1875 Bird's Eye View map of Berlin. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. (Source: Kitchener Public Library) According to the 1879 map, the context of the subject property is confirmed as Parcel 5 of Ahrens Survey, which was registered in the later half of the 19th century by Charles H. Ahrens. The 1879 map indicates that St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church had been constructed at the north-west corner of Queen Street North and Weber Street West. The subject property is noted as including a building owned by Mrs. Ahrens' (widow of Charles H. Ahrens). According to land registry records, the Executors of Mrs. Ahrens sold to George Potter in 1906. The descendants of Potter sold to James K Sims and Albert W. Boos "as Trustees" (likely for the church) in 1956. The legal description of the property refers to Instrument No. 917350, when the property was sold by Marathon Realty Co. in 1987. At this time, the property was valued at $550,000.00. The CCNHCD study identifies that the existing building located at 18 Weber Street West (adjacent to the subject lands) was constructed for Herbert J. Bowman in 1896 (on Parcel 4 of Ahrens survey). ' Also spelled "Aherns" November 2027 MHBC 124 Page 29 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener This property is noted as being vacant on the 1879 map (See Figure 6). The existing building located at 28 Weber Street West (adjacent property to the west of the subject lands) was constructed in the 1870s for John Moffatt (Parcel 6, Ahrens Survey). This building is clearly visible on the map below, west of Parcel 5. The CCNHCD Study identifies that the Zion Evangelical Church was not constructed until 1893. ;ia 14�1 44 Z4/ A— SO.s, 'NO -A Figure 6: Detail of the 1879 Bird's Eye View map of Berlin. Approximate location of subject lands denoted in red. (Source: Kitchener Public Library) The 1955 aerial photograph does not clearly depict the features of Weber Street West, or the subject property. The north side of Weber Street appears to include buildings and mature trees in the context of the subject lands, suggesting that it was not yet used for surface parking. November2027 MHBC 125 Page 30 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 7: Excerpt of the 1955 aerial photograph of Kitchener, Ontario. Approximate location of subject lands denoted in red. (Source: University of Waterloo) The aerial photograph shown in Figure 8 indicates that by 1997 the property was used for surface parking and all buildings had been demolished. The Civic Centre Neighbourhood was designated in 2007 and all properties within the boundary of the HCD were designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. November2027 MHBC 126 Page 31 of 224 Heritage impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener lyy� d A 4 Figure 8: Excerpt of the 1997 aerial photograph of Kitchener, Ontario. Approximate location of subject lands denoted in red. (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Map) November2021 MHBC 127 Page 32 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 4.O DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF LANDSCAPE AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT The Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan states that the Civic Centre Neighbourhood is characterized by mature trees along boulevards and linear streets with consistent building setbacks. Laneways are found throughout the District, which reflect the historic pattern of movement. Yards are well maintained and often display plantings, trees, fences, and hedges. Public parks are dotted throughout the CCNHCD, including Hibner Park and Civic Centre Park, both of which are located west of the subject lands (CCNHCD Plan, 2007). The District contains a range of architectural styles, reflecting the development of the area beginning in the mid. 19th century. The neighbourhood includes buildings in the vernacular style of architecture, reflecting local influences and materials. Overall, the landscape and setting contribute to tell the story of Kitchener's growth at the turn of the 19th century and the development of local industry (CCNHCD Plan, 2007). The CCNHCD Study and Plan recognize that the District is made-up of different areas which have unique character. These areas are located at the perimeter of the District and are intended to incorporate higher density developments along Victoria Street and Weber Street, for example. The following (Section 4.2) provides a description of the character of Weber Street. November2027 MHBC 128 Page 33 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE WEBER STREET STREETSCAPE The existing built form of Weber Street West (within the CCNHCD boundary) is a result of its evolution over time. Weber Street West includes 19th century residential buildings as well as 20th century developments. The 19th century buildings were formerly surrounded by landscaped open space, which has, in some cases, been converted to large areas of surface parking. Weber Street has been widened and as a result, does not reflect the same intimate streetscape as that of the residential streets at the interior of the district. The addition of 20th century buildings having a range of uses including residential, institutional and commercial transformed this area from primarily residential to that of mixed-use. As a result, the existing built form of Weber Street West includes a range of architectural styles, scale/heights, and setbacks and there is no consistent built form. The late 19th and early 20th century buildings (i.e. adjacent churches and residential buildings at 18 Weber Street West and 28 Weber Street West) are constructed of masonry in a range of colours. These buildings share a commonality in terms of materials and continue to support the overall varied nature of the streetscape in terms of its built form. The south side of Weber Street West is designated as part of Downtown Kitchener and as a result, includes higher density contemporary developments than that of the north side, which includes a range of low to medium density buildings. Figure 9 —View of Weber Street West, looking east from Ontario Street North (Source: MHBC, 2020) November2027 MHBC 129 Page 34 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 10 —View of Weber Street West, looking west near intersection of Weber Street West and Ontario Street North (Source: MHBC, 2020) The CCNHCD HCD Study acknowledges that the context of Weber Street is distinctly different than that of any other area. Section 4.6 of the Study provides the following description of Weber Street, CCNHCD Study, Section 4.6, Streets and Lanes, Weber Street, particularly in proximity to Victoria Street, contains many .buildings of the same character as Victoria Street. Trac is not as fast paced on Weber Street, and is not as hea vy as on Victoria. There are also no boulevards on Weber Street, and the street is noticeably devoid ofstreet trees Although the absence of trees and grassed boule yards sets the street apart from the interior of the district, both Weber and Water Streets differ from Victoria in terms of scale and intimacy. The vast expanse ofpa vement on VIctona Street creates a hostile en vironment for pedestrians, whereas Water and Weber Streets maintain a more pedestrian scale. The remainder of the streets in the study area often ha ve an intimate, residential feeling to them. Many of them are tree -lined, and ha ve a distinctively picturesque quality about them. An absence ofstreet trees is perhaps most noticeable along the northern portion of Queen Street, as well as on Water and College Streets Section 3.3.5.2 of the CCNHCD Plan also describes the Weber Street Area as including heritage buildings which are generally larger than the rest of the District. The HCD Plan also recognizes that the streetscape includes two churches, small scale apartments (3-4 storeys), and a number of other larger residences that have been converted to multiple residential units or office/commercial uses. November2027 MHBC 130 Page 35 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 11 — View of Weber Street West looking west from Ontario Street North (west of the subject property) (Source: MHBC, 2020) While the CCNHCD Study identifies that Weber Street is distinctly different than that of the interior of the District, Section 7.1 provides the reasons for which Weber Street was included in the boundary. This includes a) the presence of a number of "well-preserved, finely detailed buildings", and b) that nearly half of the oldest buildings in the neighbourhood (constructed priorto 1879) are located on Weber Street. 4.3 DESCRIPTION OF 22 WEBER STREET WEST The subject property located at 22 Weber Street West is currently used for surface parking and does not include any built features. Section 2.4 of the CCNHCD Plan does not identify that the subject lands includes any cultural heritage resources or features which are part of the architecture, streetscape, or historical associations of the overall District. November2027 MHBC 131 Page 36 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener rim" Figure 12: Three -Dimensional Aerial Photo noting the location of the subject property in red (Source: Google Maps, accessed 2020) November2027 MHBC 132 Page 37 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 13 — View of subject property looking north-west from the north side of Weber Street West (Source: MHBC, 2020) November2027 MHBC 133 Page 38 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 14 — View of subject property looking north-west from the south side of Weber Street West. Location of subject property noted with red arrow. (Source: MHBC, 2020) Figure 15 —View of subject property at 22 Weber Street West looking north-eastfrom south side of Weber Street West. Location of subject property noted with red arrow. (Source: MHBC, 2020) November2027 MHBC 134 Page 39 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 4.4 DESCRIPTION OF ADJACENT LANDS As noted in Section 1.2.2 of this report, the following properties are located adjacent (contiguous) to the proposed development: • 35 Roy Street; • 31 Roy Street; • 27 Roy Street; • 23 Roy Street; • 32 Weber Street West; • 18 Weber Street West (2 1/2 storey vernacular, constructed 1896 by H. J. Bowman); and • 28 Weber Street West (built 1877 by John Moffat). 4.4.1 Weber Street West As noted previously in this report, the built form of Weber Street West streetscape varies in terms of architectural styles, materials, and setbacks. Address Descriation Photoaraah i ne property at .z vveoer street vvest shares a portion of its east property line with the subject property. The property at 32 Weber Street includes the former Zion United Church. This building is noted in the CCNHCD Plan as a Gothic church constructed in 1893 (Group „B°). November2027 MHBC 135 Page 40 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 28 Weber The property at 28 Weber Street West Street West shares its entire east property line with the subject property. The CCNHCD Plan identifies this as a 2 1/2 storey 2nd Empire oil Building constructed in 1877 by John Moffat (Group "B").. ■ 4.4.2 Roy Street Roy Street is divided into a north and south side. The north side of the street is designated low density residential, and the south side of the street is designated Residential Office Conversion. The residential office conversion at the south side of the street serves as a buffer between the High Density Commercial Residential designation and the Low Density residential designation. The built form of Roy Street is much more consistent than that of Weber Street West, having a narrow street, consistent heights, styles, setbacks, materials, and mature trees along the boulevard. November2027 MHBC 136 Page 41 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Address Description Photograph I f le SUULIl-edSL LUrner UI L11(2 PIUP(2[Ly dL 3D Roy Street is located adjacent to the subject property. The property at 35 Roy Street is noted in the CCNHCD Plan as a 2 1/2 storey vernacular building constructed c. 1900 (Group "B"). 31 Roy The rear property line at 31 Roy Street is Street contiguous with the subject property. The CCNHCD Plan identifies the building as a 2 1/2 storey Queen Anne dwelling constructed c. 1895 (Group "A"). 27 Roy The rear property line at 27 Roy Street is Street contiguous with the subject property. The CCNHCD Plan identifies the building as a 2 storey Vernacular dwelling constructed c. 1895 (Group "B"). M, November2027 MHBC 137 Page 42 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 23 Roy The south-west corner of the property at Street 23 Roy Street is located adjacent to the subject property. The property at 23 Roy Street is noted in the CCNHCD Plan as a 2 1/2 storey Queen Anne building constructed c. 1896 (Group „B°). November 2027 MHBC 138 Page 43 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener S .O DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development of the subject property can be described as the construction of a new nineteen (19) storey multiple residential building having 162 total units with a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7.79. The proposed development includes 24 parking spaces at grade and is a total of 58.6 metres in height. Narrow laneways on either side of the building provide access to parking towards the rear of the lot. The proposed design is contemporary and includes a range of materials including masonry and glazing with neutral tones. The design includes various sizes of rectangular and square shaped windows and balconies in with a consistent rhythm. The building proposes a shallow front yard setback, with a generous rear yard setback of at least 15.0 metres. The proposed development requires variances to allow for a FSR of 7.79 whereas 4.0 is permitted. November2027 MHBC 139 Page 44 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City ofKitchsene,° f 24 PARKING SPAC TOTAL I STIXiH3E HOCK` , INCL.6ICYCIE BTOZti_ I I I I I :I; I BF f� — „ EX 2 STOREY BRICK BUILDING I`. -Ell prep an _C 1 I T= = rL — l I I { .;..., ..:...:. E i _I — E II E m E ii i I — ii i I r. _ Figure 16 — Proposed Site Plan. (Source: +VH Architects, The Ventin Group Ltd., 2021) November2027 MHBC 140 Page 45 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Y 1 e � v Figure 17 — Rendering of proposed development looking north towards front elevation (Source: +VH Architects, The Ventin Group Ltd., 2021) 'U Figure 18 —Detail of proposed front elevation (Source: +VH Architects, The Ventin Group Ltd., 2020) November2027 MHBC 141 Page 46 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 6.O IMPACT ANALYSIS 6.1 INTRODUCTION The following provides a list of potential sources of adverse impacts to cultural heritage resources which are identified in the Ontario Heritage Tool kit: • Destruction: of any, or part of any significantheritage attributesor 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; • Isolation: of a het-tageattributefrom 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 an archaeological resource. The following sub -sections of this report provide an analysis of the impacts which may occur as a result of a proposed development. The following impact analysis is organized into two main sections. This includes a) whether or not the proposed development is in conformity with the policies of the HCD Plan regarding new development in the Weber Street area, and b) potential impacts on adjacent properties as per the list of potential sources of impacts outlined by the MHSTCI Ontario Heritage Toolkit (provided above). 6.2 CCNHCD PLAN POLICY INTRODUCTION The CCNHCD Plan provides policies intended to guide change within the heritage conservation district. These policies include those which conserve cultural heritage resources, and those which guide compatible new development. The CCNHCD Plan provides policies specific to the Weber November2027 MHBC 142 Page 47 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Street Corridor, which is recognized as being designated High Density Commercial Residential and different than the balance of the district. The CCNHCD Plan provides guidelines for new development along Weber Street. The following provides an analysis of impacts as a result of the proposed new 19 storey building and addresses the policies provided in the CCNHCD Plan. 6.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS: 22 WEBER STREET WEST The following analysis of impacts addresses Policies provided in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. This includes Sections 3.3.1 regarding development pattern and land use, Section 3.3.5.2 regarding policies specific to the Weber Street Area as well as Section 6.9.4 which provides specific design guidelines for new development. The following sub -sections have been organized into a) general policies of the CCNHCD Plan that apply to all development, and b) policies that apply to development in the Weber Street Area. 6.3.1 CCNHCD Plan Policies that Apply to all Development Section 3.3 of the CCNHCD Plan provides policies for conservation and change management. This includes (but is not limited to) policies related to the construction of new buildings and demolition of existing buildings. Section 3.3.1 of the CCNHCD Plan provides a response to the following policies regarding development pattern and land use. 3.3.1 Development Pattern and Land Use The vast majority of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood was originally developed as single family residential. Despite the fact that pockets of it have since been redeveloped for high-density apartment buildings, or converted to office or commercial uses, it remains a neighborhood of primarily original detached housing, 2 to 2-1/2 storeys in height on lots of sufficiently generous size that parking and driveways are generally to the side of dwellings. Setbacks of original heritage buildings are relatively uniform at the individual street level, as are building height and scale. To maintain the general consistency of the land uses and development pattern in the District, the following policies are proposed. Policies: (a) Maintain the residential amenity and human scale of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood by ensuring that the low density residential land use character remains dominant; November2027 MHBC 143 Page 48 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener The areas of the CCNHCD which are identified as being characterized as low density residential at the interior of the District will remain unchanged. The proposed development is located at the perimeter of the District. (b) New land uses in the interior of the neighbourhood that are out of keeping with the general residential character of the District, or would have a negative impact on it, are discouraged; This policy does not apply to the proposed development as the subject property is not located in the interior of the District. (c) Higher intensity uses or redevelopment opportunities should be focused at the perimeter, or outside of, the District primarily in appropriate locations in the Victoria Street Mixed Use Corridor or Weber Street; The proposed development is located at the perimeter of the District, along Weber Street which is recognized as an area designated as High Density Commercial Residential in the HCD Plan. The proposed development is therefore consistent with this policy of the CCHNCD Plan regarding development pattern and land use. (d) Where new uses or intensification is proposed, adaptive reuse of the existing heritage building stock should be considered wherever feasible; This policy does not apply as the subject property is currently surface parking and does not include any existing heritage buildings which could be considered for adaptive re -use. (e) For all areas designated as Low Rise Residential Preservation, Low Rise Multiple Residential and Low Density Multiple Residential, severances which would create new lots are strongly discouraged, unless the resulting properties are of similar size and depth to existing adjacent lots; This policy does not apply to the proposed development as it is not located in an area designated low rise residential and does not require a severance. (f) Where original detached residential buildings are lost due to unfortunate circumstances such as severe structural instability, fire or other reasons, the setback of replacement buildings should be the same as or close to the same as the original building; November2027 MHBC 144 Page 49 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener The building previously located on the subject property was demolished prior to 1997 and its setbacks are unknown. However, the proposed 0.8 metre front yard setback of the new building is compatible with the setbacks of existing buildings located adjacent (i.e. at 18 Weber Street West and 28 Weber Street West) and is consistent with the varied setbacks which are established as part of the streetscape along the north side of Weber Street West. As noted previously in this report, the setbacks along Weber Street West vary greatly and there is no consistent setback along the street. (g) Parking for new or replacement dwellings is to be located in driveways at the side of the dwelling or in garages at the rear of the main building whenever possible. New attached garages extending beyond the front of the dwelling are discouraged; The proposed new building includes access to parking provided at the rear via laneways at the side of the building. Parking areas do not extend beyond the front of the building. (h) Existing laneways are to be maintained to provide access to properties and to retain the historical development pattern of the neighborhood. This policy does not apply as the subject property does not include any existing laneways which are important to the historical development pattern of the neighbourhood. 6.3.2 Weber Street Area Specific Policies The CCNHCD Plan provides policies regarding site specific areas for the entirety of Weber Street West within the CCNHCD boundary. The following provides a review of how the proposed development is in conformity with the policies of the CCNHCD for the Weber Street area. 3.3.5.2 Weber Street Area Weber Street contains nearly half of the oldest buildings in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood, making it one of the most important streets in the District from an architectural and historic perspective. The size and scale of heritage buildings on Weber Street is generally larger than the rest of the District, and includes two churches, small scale apartments (3 - 4 storeys) and a number of other larger residences that have been converted to multiple residential units or office%ommercial uses. The Municipal Plan designates most of the street as High Density November2027 MHBC 145 Page 50 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Commercial Residential, with the designation extending slightly in some areas. The following policies are to apply to the whole of Weber Street within the District as well as to those sections of the High Density Commercial Residential designation that extend into the District on College and Young Streets. Policies: (a) The protection and retention of existing heritage buildings and their architectural features is strongly encouraged. This policy does not apply as the subject property is surface parking and does not include any heritage buildings or features. (b) Maintain residential streetscape character through the use of appropriate built form, materials, roof pitches, architectural design and details particularly at the interface between Weber Street and the interior of the neighbourhood; The north side of Weber Street West is characterised by uses ranging from residential, institutional, and mixed-use. It includes two large places of worship and their associated surface parking lots and purpose-built multiple residential buildings. Remaining single detached dwellings have been converted to multiple residential dwellings or non-residential uses. As a result, the character and builtform of the Weber Street area is different than the rest of the District. The use of the proposed building as a multiple residential building is consistent with the other uses on the street. The building setback from the street, the location of parking at the rear, and the building materials are consistent with the existing character, albeit at nineteen stories the building is taller than the others in the Weber Street area. (c) Adaptive reuse of existing buildings should be given priority over redevelopment. Flexibility in Municipal Plan policies and zoning regulations is encouraged where necessary to accommodate appropriate adaptive reuse options. This policy does not apply to the redevelopment of the subject property as there is no existing heritage building located on-site which could be considered for adaptive re -use. (d) Where redevelopment is proposed on vacant or underutilized sites, new development shall be sensitive to and compatible with adjacent heritage resources on the street with respect to height, massing, built form and materials. November2027 MHBC 146 Page 51 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 19 — View of higher density development and contemporary buildings located south-east of the subject property near the intersection of Queen Street and Weber Street(Source: MHBC, 2019) The Heritage Conservation District Plan considers that tall buildings may be developed within the Weber Street Area, consistent with the Secondary Plan policies and Zoning By-law which identify this area is for high density mixed use. Taller, higher density buildings can be "compatible" with lower density developments. Compatible is not intended to mean "same as", but whether or not a taller building can co -exist with lower density developments without adverse impacts. Whether or not a new development is compatible or not is determined by the policies provided in the CCNHCD Plan. The proposed new building which is 19 storeys is of a higher density than the adjacent cultural heritage resources at 18 Weber Street West and 28 Weber Street West. The CCNHCD Plan recognizes that the character of Weber Street is different than that of the interior of the District and includes higher density developments. Further, that "...infill development fronting on Weber could potentially be compatible even if taller than 4-5 storeys." (Section 4.2.1 of the CCNHCD Plan). The proposed new building meets the policies of the CCNHCD Plan as it is a) it is located at the perimeter of the District, where higher density developments are anticipated b) is consistent with the 45 degree angular plane policy and does not result in impacts related to shadowing on rear yards. Further analysis regarding the angular plane analysis and shadows is provided in the following sections of this report. November2027 MHBC 147 Page 52 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener (e) Any buildings proposed over 5 storeys in height may be required to undertake shadow studies where they abut existing residential uses, to demonstrate that they will not unreasonably impact on access to sunlight in rear yard amenity areas. The shadow study provided in Appendix C of this report demonstrates that shadows will be cast onto abutting lands to the north. The shadows during the spring and summer are primarily cast on the adjacent Office Residential lands on the south side of Roy Street, with minimal shadows extending to the front yards of the low rise residential areas of the District during the Spring to Fall seasons. More extensive shadows will be cast during the winter season when the sun is low in the sky. Given that the tower is narrow, the shadowing on front yards on the north side of Roy Street does not last for more than a few hours. The heritage attributes are not negatively impacted and shadows do not unreasonably impact on access to sunlight in rear yard amenity areas of the residential designated lands. (f) Design guidelines provided in Section 6.9.2 of this Plan will be used to review and evaluate proposals for major alterations, additions or new buildings to ensure that new development is compatible with the adjacent context. The following provides a review of the design guidelines provided in Section 6.9.2 of the CCNHCD Plan as it relates to the proposed development. 6.9 SITE/AREA SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES There are several sites, as previously identified in the policies and implementation sections of this report, that have a distinct character and/or some development expectation or potential over the long term. To ensure that future development, should it occur, is compatible with the District, the following guidelines should be considered during the building and site design in these areas. 6.9.4 Weber Street • Any infill development on Weber Street should maintain a strong relationship to the street at the lower levels (2 to 4 storeys) with respect to built form and use. The proposed development includes a large front entrance with glazing and masonry facing Weber Street West. This front entrance has been emphasized at the pedestrian level through the use of a 2 -storey masonry podium (See Figure 17). November2027 MHBC 148 Page 53 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener • Setbacks of new development should be consistent with adjacent buildings. Where significantly different setbacks exist on either side, the new building should be aligned with the building that is most similar to the predominant setback on the street. There is no consistent front yard setback along the north side of Weber Street West. The existing building at 18 Weber Street West is setback approximately 12 metres from the street. The building at 28 Weber Street W is setback approximately 8.6 metres from the street. The proposed new building has a shallow front yard setback, which respects the two varying setbacks of these adjacent buildings and is consistent with the character of Weber Street West. • Building facades at the street level should incorporate architectural detail, similar materials and colours, and consistency with the vertical and horizontal proportions or rhythm of adjacent /nearby buildings on the street to establish a cohesive streetscape. Weber Street West includes a range of materials, colours, and architectural styles indicative of their period of construction. Therefore, there is no consistent or dominant design standard. The two buildings located adjacent to the subject property at 18 Weber Street West and 28 Weber Street West are of the Vernacular and Second Empire architectural styles and are constructed of brick. The proposed building includes neutral shades of masonry, including red brick masonry above the podium which will reflect the adjacent buildings constructed of masonry. • New development shall have entrances oriented to the street. The 2 storey podium and main entrance is oriented south towards Weber Street West. • Size, placement and proportion of window and door openings for new buildings or additions should be generally consistent with those on other buildings along the street. There is no consistent design in terms of placement and proportion of window and door openings along Weber Street West. The design of the new building includes a square and rectangular shaped contemporary windows with a consistent rhythm and is compatible with the streetscape. • Any new buildings taller than 3 to 4 storeys should incorporate some form of height transition or stepbacks to minimize the perception of height and shadow impacts to pedestrians on the November2027 MHBC 149 Page 54 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener street and provide more visual continuity. Stepbacks should be a minimum of 2 metres to provide for useable outdoor terraces for the upper levels. This front entrance has been emphasized at the pedestrian level through the use of a 2 -storey masonry podium. The proposed design is such that the majority of the building mass is pushed towards Weber Street West in order to conform to the 45 degree angular plane policy (see below for further analysis). • Any buildings taller than 5 storeys abutting a residential property to the rear should be constructed within a 45 degree angular plane where feasible, starting from the rear property line, to minimize visual impacts on adjacent property owners. Section 4.2.1 of the CCNHCD Plan regarding Land Use Designations and Zoning identifies that the High Density Commercial Residential designation along Weber Street has the potential to be in conflict with the intent of the HCD Plan in terms of height and density. The rear of the subject lands abut properties that are designated Office Residential Conversion. The subject lands do not abut the Low Rise Residential designated areas that make up the interior of the Heritage District. Section 5.2.3 of the HCD Study as well as the policies of the Secondary Plan identify that the Office Residential Conversion lands are intended to provide a buffer and transition between the higher density uses on Weber Street and the low rise residential areas in the Heritage District. The intent of the angular plane guideline is to ensure that tall buildings don't negatively impact the character of low rise residential properties and jeopardize their continued residential use. The proposed development meets the 45 degree angular plane guideline when measured from the edge of the Low Rise Residential properties on Roy Street (See angular plane analysis provided in Appendix B of this report). CCN HCD Study 5.2.3 Land Use Designations and Zoning The Office -Residential Conversion designation is intended to preserve existing structures and to serve as a transition area between the higher intensity uses along Weber and Queen Street and the Low Rise Residential - Preservation designation. An angular plane analysis measures the angular plane beginning at the north side of Roy Street rather than the south side in order to account for the south side of Roy Street which is designated Office Residential Conversion and is considered a buffer zone between the High Density Commercial Residential Area and the Low Density November2027 MHBC 150 Page 55 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener Residential Areas. The angular plane analysis identifies that the proposed new 19 storey building is within the permitted range of the 45 degree angular plane. • To minimize impacts on properties to the rear of or flanking Weber Street, a rear yard setback of 15 metres should be maintained for new buildings as well as additions where feasible. The proposed new building has a rear yard setback of approximately 15.9 metres. The draft site specific zoning proposes a minimum rearyard of 15 metres consistent with the above recommendation. • Locate loading, garbage and other service elements (HVAC, meters, etc.) away from the front fagade so they do not have a negative visual impact on the street or new building / addition. Loading, garbage, and other services are located away from the front facade towards the rear of the lot. 6.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS: ADJACENT LANDS The following provides an analysis of potential impacts as a result of the proposed development on adjacent lands. This includes the adjacent properties located along Weber Street West and Roy Street. Potential sources of impacts include those listed in Section 7.1 of this report. Policies provided in the CCNHCD Plan regarding the impact of proposed new buildings on adjacent lands were addressed in the previous section of this report (i.e. related to angular plane analyses, shadow studies, etc.). The following analysis of the above -noted policies is divided into two sections regarding adjacent properties located along a) Weber Street West and b) Roy Street. 6.4.1 WEBER STREET WEST The proposed new building will not result in the destruction or alteration of any heritage buildings or features located adjacent, including the buildings located at 18 Street West and 28 Weber Street West. As noted previously in this report, shadows as a result of the proposed new building will not impact any heritage resources located along Weber Street West. The proposed new building will not result in the isolation of any heritage attributes as the subject property is currently vacant and therefore does not include any features which would have a relationship to any adjacent property. The proposed new building includes side yard setbacks at the east and west property lines which November2027 MHBC 151 Page 56 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener provide generous space between the proposed new building and the existing building at 28 Weber Street West. As a result, the proposed side yard setbacks will allow the side elevations of the buildings at 18 Weber Street West and 28 Weber Street west to continue to be visible from the public realm (See Figures 19 & 20). These elevations may be obstructed for a short period of time as one traverse Weber Street West, but will be visible again as one passes the proposed new building in either direction. This is consistent with the character of the street due to varied setbacks and is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to the character of Weber Street West. Figures 20 & 21 — (left) View of subject property with east elevation of 28 Weber Street West noted in red, (right) View of subject property with west elevation of 18 Weber Street West noted in red, (Source: M H BC, 2020) No adverse impacts are anticipated in terms of changes in land use as it will remain residential while accommodating higher densities permitted by the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. There is potential for land disturbances as a result of construction activities at 22 Weber Street West on adjacent heritage buildings on Weber Street West which require mitigation recommendations. 6.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS: ROY STREET The proposed new 19 story building will result in shadows cast to the north. As a result, shadows will be cast on the rear yard of properties located at 35 Roy Street, 31 Roy Street, 27 Roy Street and 23 Roy Street mid-day throughout the year. These shadows will not result in adverse impacts to any cultural heritage attributes. The proposed new building will not result in the isolation of any heritage features as the subject property is vacant. Land use will remain residential and will not result in adverse impacts. There is November2027 MHBC 152 Page 57 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener potential for land disturbances as a result of construction activities at 22 Weber Street West on adjacent heritage buildings on Roy Street which require mitigation recommendations. 6.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACT ANALYSIS The following provides a summary of the impact analysis as it relates to a) conformity with the policies of the CCNHCD Plan regarding new development, and development within the Weber Street policy area, and b) impacts to adjacent heritage resources. 6.5.1 Conformity with the Policies of the CCNHCD Plan The impact analysis provided in the previous sections of this report have highlighted thatthe intent of policies provided in the CCNHCD Plan is to provide policies for change management and the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The CCNHCD Plan identifies that there are situations where higher density new developments may be considered. The CCNHCD Plan identifies that higher density developments should be located in specific areas of the District, including Weber Street as it is located at the perimeter and is designated High Density Commercial Residential. Further, the CCNHCD Plan identifies that the character of Weber Street is different than that of the interior of the District and could incorporate new development of higher densities provided that it does not result in the demolition of existing heritage buildings and is complementary in terms of scale, massing, setbacks, design, etc. The analysis provided in Section 6.0 of this report demonstrates that the proposed new 19 storey multi -residential building is consistent with policies in Section 3.3.1 of the CCNHCD Plan regarding development pattern and land use as the site is considered vacant and underutilized. The CCNHCD Plan does not regulate height. Instead, it indicates that new buildings along Weber Street should be sensitive to, and compatible with adjacent heritage resources. The proposed new building which is 19 storeys is compatible with the existing built form of Weber Street West in terms of scale and massing as a) it is located at the perimeter of the District, where higher density developments are anticipated b) it will not result in disrupting any consistent building height, as the Weber Street West streetscape varies considerably and is located within close proximity to higher intensity land uses in the Downtown. The proposed development is also consistent with the specific design guidelines for new buildings provided in Section 6.9.2 of the CCNHCD Plan including the requirement for buildings to comply with a 45 degree angular plane in order to provide a transition between higher density developments along Weber Street West and the low rise residential areas at the interior of the District. 6.5.2 Impacts to Adjacent Heritage Resources The proposed development will not result in impacts to adjacent heritage resources. No heritage resources will be demolished, or altered and will not result in impacts related to shadows, November2027 MHBC 153 Page 58 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener obstruction, or land use. Existing churches located along Weber Street North, including the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church at 54 Queen Street North and the Zion United Church at 32 Weber Street West will remain prominently visible along the Weber Street West streetscape. There is potential for land disturbances regarding vibration impacts during construction activities which can be avoided by vibration monitoring. Destruction Alteration Shadows Isolation Obstruction Change in Land Use Land Disturbances November 2027 No. No. No. Shadows cast to the north-west are minimal and will not result in adverse impacts No. No. The proposed development will not obstruct the building at 28 Weber Street West, including the east /made. No. Potential for vibration Impacts - mitigation may be required. No. No. No. No. No. Shadows cast to No. Shadows cast to the the north-east are north during mid-day, minimal and will not and will not result in result in adverse adverse impacts. Impacts, No No No. The proposed development will not obstruct the No. The buildings are not building at 18 Weber visible from Weber Street Street West, West including the west No. I No. Potential for vibration impacts - Potential for vibration mitigation maybe impacts -mitigation may required. be required. MHBC 154 Page 59 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 7.O MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS The following sub -sections of this report provide recommendations regarding alternative development approaches as it relates to the proposed development. 7.1.1 'Do Nothing' Alternative The do nothing alternative would result in no development on the lands. This would have no impact on heritage resources as the property is vacant. It is important to note that Section 7.4.4 of the CCNHCD Plan identifies that paved parking areas have the potential to detract from the character of the District. The image provided in Section 7.4.4 which demonstrates this specifically uses the existing parking area at 22 Weber Street West as an example. The Plan identifies that areas such as this should be screened from view with landscaping (low hedges or fencing) and that permeable types of paving are preferred in order to minimize impacts to the streetscape. Therefore, the'do nothing' approach would result in a site which has been identified in the CCNHCD Plan as having potential for improvement in order to meet the policies and guidelines regarding vehicle parking. 7.1.2 Redevelop Site with Decreased Height and Density This alternative would result in a new multiple -residential building with fewer storeys and less height. This alternative would conform to the existing 4.0 FSR. This alternative would not result in less impact to heritage resources since a 19 storey building complies with policies of the Heritage Conservation District regarding height — i.e. the 45 degree angular plane. If the lower height was November2027 MHBC 155 Page 60 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener accommodated by constructing a wider building, there may be increased impact due to reduction in the rear yard setback. 7.1.3 Redevelop Site with Increased Density This alternative would result in constructing a new multiple -residential building with increased height. A building constructed in excess of 19 storeys would not comply with the45 degree angular plane guideline. 7.1.4 Redevelop Site with Alternative Designs & Materials This option includes the construction of an alternative design of a building while achieving the same FSR. This option would require a larger lot and the acquisition of adjacent properties, such as those located at 18 Weber Street West and 28 Weber Street West. The demolition of these two buildings to allow for a larger building footprint would decrease the building height and FSR while maximizing density.This option would result in significant adverse impacts as the buildings located at 28 Weber Street West and 18 Weber Street West are identified as important cultural heritage resources in the CCNHCD Plan. 7.2 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Mitigation recommendations as it relates to identified impacts are limited to potentia/ land disturbances as a result of construction activities. These potential impacts to adjacent buildings can be avoided through vibration monitoring. It is recommended that the proposed development include an inspection of the adjacent properties located at 18 Weber Street West and 28 Weber Street West prior and post construction activities. November2027 MHBC 156 Page 61 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 8.O CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development includes the construction of a 19 storey multiple residential building on a lot currently used as surface parking. The proposed new building does not include the demolition or alteration of any cultural heritage resources located on-site or adjacent. As the proposed new building is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, any new development is subject to the policies of the CCNHCD Plan. The CCNHCD Plan recognizes that Weber Street is different from the interior of the district and sets forth policies for new development which are specific to this area. The Plan recognizes that Weber Street West is designated High Density Commercial Residential and that higher density developments can be considered provided that it does not result in the demolition of significant cultural heritage resources is and is compatible with the character of the streetscape. This Heritage Impact Assessment has demonstrated that Weber Street West is characterized by a range of architectural styles, materials, colours, setbacks, and buildings of a higher scale than that of the interior of the district. The proposed new 19 storey residential building is taller than adjacent buildings, but maximises density while respecting adjacent cultural heritage resources. The proposed new building is contemporary in style and includes materials such as neutral toned masonry. The building includes a 2 story main entrance/podium which emphasizes the pedestrian scale. The contemporary design includes a symmetrical arrangement of square and rectangular shaped windows in a regularly established rhythm which will not detractfrom the buildings located adjacent at 18 Weber Street West and 28 Weber Street West. The proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts related to obstruction, isolation, change in land use, or shadows. The proposed development is considered a neutral impact to adjacent heritage resources within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) located along Weber Street West and Roy Street. November2027 MHBC 157 Page 62 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener There is potential for impacts to adjacent buildings as a result of construction activities. Mitigation recommendations for the proposed development are limited to monitoring vibration impacts during construction. Respectfully submitted, Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP MHBC, Partner November 2027 Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP MHBC, Heritage Planner MHBC 158 Page 63 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener 9.O WORKS CONSULTED Blume nson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 7874 to the Present. Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990. City of Kitchener. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Study, 2006. City of Kitchener. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, 2007. Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971. English, John and Kenneth McLaughlin. Kitchener -An Illustrated History. Robin Brass Studio, 1996. Government of Canada. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation ofHistoric Places in Canada. 2010. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County.. -An AlustratedHistory. Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. Heritage Resources Centre. Ontario Architectural Style Guide. University of Waterloo, 2009. Mills, Rych. Kitchener(Serlin) 7880-7960. Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. In/b5heet#5 Heritage lmpactAssessments and Conservation Plans, 2006 Moyer, Bill. Kitchener- Yesterday Revisited, AnlllustratedHistory. Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd., 1979. n/a. Busy Berlin, Jubilee Souvenir. 1897. Ontario Ministry of Culture. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.- Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet#z, Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Queens Printer for Ontario, 2006. Uttley, W.V. (Ben), A HistoryofKitchener, Ontario. The Chronicle Press: Kitchener, 1937. W. V. Uttley and Gerald Noonan. A HistoryofKitchener., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975. November2027 MHBC 159 Page 64 of 224 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener APPENDIX A LOCATION MAP November2021 MHBC 160 Page 65 of 224 s Location Plan LEGEND 22 Weber Street West, Subject Lands Kitchener, Ontario s s DATE: February 27,2019 SCALE 1 :5,000 c FILE: 1961A DRN: LHB K\1961A-22 WEBER ST\REPORT\LOCATION PLAN FEBRUARY 27 2019 DWG Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener APPENDIX 13- ANGULAR PLANE ANALYSIS November2021 MHBC 161 Page 67 of 224 6.5 3NIl AiN3dONd N G O n N O J OG OG a ri N N b 3NIl � Al2i3d02ld N O N U � Q o z co = W �2 U W J N LL CO w 2� Z �o co OE w w Z m w w 2 2: U N ~ C-4 Y Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener APPENDIXC- SHADOW STUDY November2021 MHBC 162 Page 69 of 224 :It ,: tAW f/.19 _.R N W C' W Q W H -4 N N Ch Ev N N Q d H � � I � 3 o cn -0 m r N cl� O 0 Z y W m V r> in w w0 wH 3: cn ti N N cn 3 O t cn Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener APPENDIX D- SITE PLAN &RENDERINGS November2027 MHBC 163 Page 74 of 224 � D o LLJ 0 s Uz sg Q m Q Qi O � O F F- w a a U)a c7 F 0 E z o a= 0 U) z a O CD CJ N0 O w ° o d O O a= N LU II O II co I- r O N Q (n (� O 1 ((O (O L(7 (O a F a (� 0 = N Y w Q II LU a Z m z a E (D ZQ rn w Q Q Q w u p p LU rn N �� v= a Q 00 a m a a w a �o 5: _ U a II w F w U) N O p 0� a a O p p � O a oN�_ o a (� w z a LL F w = z a v O p a z a F z U m a a Y a o �-i D M O Q aw a Q a a w > w Q a> a O Q cn U a N cn X O F O O Q J a s a' > w (D F 0 a F a N Z `° (O co L 0 d (a.D O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w •z b -m o a ww ww — n = hdM3Alaa i,dHdsd o� Q „ ------------------- ---------- ------------ 0 s9ts --- — om - X11 . ffi _-- LL , e013 a N . W w - --- --------- -- --- -- - ----_ o - x i d ��i �, ease aaz�sp �e - waszas � ..a asN Lu w N W 0 m N Y X CJ W LU 07 : \ o6 LU \) � � LEI � BALC � u � < ~ . E \ 2 LL § \ :::> 0099 0099 0099 0009 CL S o § q„ LL E k § m / LO < \ \ © Eof 0 0 CL £ o \� Heritage Impact Assessment, 22 Weber Street West, City of Kitchener APPENDIX E CURRICULUM VITAE November2021 MHBC 164 Page 77 of 224 EDUCATION 2oo6 Masters of Arts (Planning) University of Waterloo 1.998 Bachelor of Environmental Studies University of Waterloo 1.998 Bachelor of Arts (Art History) University of Saskatchewan CONTACT 54o Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Dan Currie, a Partner and Managing Director of MHBC's Cultural Heritage Division, joined MHBC Planning in 2oo9, after having worked in various positions in the public sector since 1.997. Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients including a wide range of cultural heritage policy and planning work including strategic planning, heritage policy, heritage conservation district studies and plans, heritage master plans, cultural heritage evaluations, heritage impact assessments and cultural heritage landscape studies. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Full Member, Canadian Institute of Planners Full Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Heritage Conservation District Studies and Plans Alton Heritage Conservation District Study, Caledon (underway) Port Stanley Heritage Conservation District Plan (underway) Port Credit Heritage Conservation District Plan, Mississauga Town of Cobourg Heritage Conservation District Plan updates Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study & Plan, Chatham Kent, Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan Update, Kingston Victoria Square Heritage Conservation District Study, Markham Bala Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Township of Muskoka Lakes Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District Plan, Guelph Garden District Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Toronto Heritage Master Plans and Management Plans City of Guelph Cultural Heritage Action Plan Town of Cobourg Heritage Master Plan Burlington Heights Heritage Lands Management Plan City of London Western Counties Cultural Heritage Plan Cultural Heritage Evaluations MacDonald Mowatt House, University of Toronto Page 78 of 224 CONTACT 54o Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP City of Kitchener Heritage Property Inventory Update Niagara Parks Commission Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Evaluation Designation of Main Street Presbyterian Church, Town of Erin Designation of St Johns Anglican Church, Norwich Cultural Heritage Landscape evaluation, former Burlingham Farmstead, Prince Edward County Heritage Impact Assessments Heritage Impact Assessment for Pier 8, Hamilton Homer Watson House Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener Expansion of Schneider Haus National Historic Site, Kitchener Redevelopment of former industrial facility, 57 Lakeport Road, Port Dalhousie Redevelopment of former amusement park, Boblo Island Redevelopment of historic Waterloo Post Office Redevelopment of former Brick Brewery, Waterloo Redevelopment of former American Standard factory, Cambridge Redevelopment of former Goldie and McCullough factory, Cambridge Mount Pleasant Islamic Centre, Brampton Demolition of former farmhouse at 1.0536 McCowan Road, Markham Heritage Assessments for Infrastructure Projects and Environmental Assessments Heritage Assessment of 1.o Bridges within Rockcliffe Special Policy Area, Toronto Blenheim Road Realignment Collector Road EA, Cambridge Badley Bridge EA, Elora Black Bridge Road EA, Cambridge Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment of Twenty Mile Creek Arch Bridge, Town of Lincoln Heritage Evaluation of Deer River, Girven, Burnt Dam and Macintosh Bridges, Peterborough County Conservation Plans Black Bridge Strategic Conservation Plan, Cambridge Conservation Plan for Log house, Beurgetz Ave, Kitchener Conservation and Construction Protection Plan - 54 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener Page 79 of 224 CONTACT 54o Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Tribunal Hearings: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal & Conservation Review Board Port Credit Heritage Conservation District (LPAT) Demolition 1.74 St Paul Street (Collingwood Heritage District) (LPAT) Brooklyn and College Hill HCD Plan (LPAT) Rondeau HCD Plan (LPAT) Designation of io8 Moore Street, Bradford (CRB) Redevelopment of property at 64 Grand Ave, Cambridge (LPAT) Youngblood subdivision, Elora (LPAT) Designation of St Johns Church, Norwich (CRB - underway) MASTER PLANS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND POLICY STUDIES Township of West Lincoln East Smithville Secondary Plan Town of Frontenac Islands Marysville Secondary Plan Niagara -on -the -Lake Corridor Design Guidelines Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan Township of West Lincoln Settlement Area Expansion Analysis Ministry of Infrastructure Review of Performance Indicators for the Growth Plan Township of Tiny Residential Land Use Study Port Severn Settlement Area Boundary Review City of Cambridge Green Building Policy Township of West Lincoln Intensification Study & Employment Land Strategy Ministry of the Environment Review of the D -Series Land Use Guidelines Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan City of Cambridge Trails Master Plan City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Provide consulting services and prepare planning applications for private sector clients for: • Draft plans of subdivision • Consent • Official Plan Amendment • Zoning By-law Amendment • Minor Variance • Site Plan Page 80 of 224 CURRICULUMVITAE Vanessa Hicks, M.A., C.A.H.P. Associate EDUCATION Vanessa Hicks is a Senior Heritage Planner and Associate with MHBC. Vanessa and joined the firm after having gained experience as a Manager of Heritage 2016 Planning in the public realm where she was responsible for working with Master of Arts in Planning, Heritage Advisory Committees in managing heritage resources, Heritage specializing in Heritage Conservation Districts, designations, special events and heritage projects. Planning Vanessa is a full member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals University of Waterloo, (CAHP) and graduated from the University of Waterloo with a Masters Degree School of Planning in Planning, specializing in heritage planning and conservation. Vanessa 2010 provides a variety of research and report writing services for public and private Bachelor of Arts (Honours) sector clients. She has experience in historical research, inventory work, in Historical/Industrial evaluation and analysis on a variety of projects, including Heritage Archaeology Conservation Districts (HCDs), Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs), Cultural Wilfrid Laurier University Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs), Conservation Plans (CPS), Documentation and Salvage Reports, and Commemoration Projects (i.e. plaques). CREDENTIALS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (full June 2016 - Cultural Heritage Specialist/ Heritage Planner member) Present MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Ltd. CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 728 F 519 576 0121 vhicks@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com 2012- Program Manager, Heritage Planning 2016 Town of Aurora May 2012 - Heritage Planning Assistant October 2012 Town of Grimsby 2007- Archaeologist 2010 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 1 Page 81 of 224 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE From: To: Deleaation (SM) Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Written Comments for 22 Weber Street West Heritage Impact Assessment March 1 meeting Date: February 16, 2022 6:20:57 PM My name is Neil Baarda and with my spouse Elizabeth Thayer we own backs onto the 22 Weber Street West lot. 0 which We are concerned that the proposed development does not meet the 45 degree angular plane requirements where it meets our residential property at the back. Is the Heritage District Plan only applicable to purely residential property or does our dual use (Office/Residential) 1890s low rise not also warrant protection? The intent of the angular plane guideline is to ensure that tall buildings don't negatively impact the character of low rise residential properties and jeopardize their continued residential use. If this precedent setting tall building goes ahead there are several nearby parking lots that would be candidates for similar buildings resulting in the adjacent properties being walled in by tall buildings. How will the neighbourhood property owners entrusted with the care of heritage buildings justify spending the money to maintain them to the level that contributes to the character of the heritage district and encourages continued residential use. Neil Baarda and Elizabeth Thayer Page 83 of 224 From: To: Deleaation (SM) Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] 22 Weber Heritage Kitchener Meeting Mar 1 Date: February 16, 2022 1:38:30 PM Hello I understand that my input below can be sent to Heritage Kitchener representatives when the agenda for their Mar 1 meeting is circulated. I would appreciate the opportunity to speak at the meeting, if it seems I have something constructive to contribute to the discussion. Thanks for your assistance Roy Cameron Dear Members of Heritage Kitchener I ask that the project proposed for 22 Weber St W meet existing stipulations for developing this property so as to preserve the Civic Centre District as an intact designated heritage neighbourhood for the benefit of future residents of this city. I agree wholeheartedly with the corporate Editorial in the Record on February 4, 2022 that "Waterloo Region's new buildings should fit in with the old." I believe that this is especially true in a designated heritage conservation district. I frame some of my concerns as questions for your consideration. Is there not an existing heritage preservation covenant between the city and the residents of the Civic Centre Heritage District? As stewards of the properties in the District, homeowners have agreed to a) live with major restrictions on what renovations are possible, b) meet stringent requirements to preserve the heritage value of their properties during renovations that are permitted and c) sometimes go through an onerous review process (related to design, materials, etc.) to get approval for even modest renovations. Costs can be significant. Does the city not have a reciprocal responsibility to uphold approved plans to preserve the heritage value of the neighbourhood? Would it be appropriate for the city to require citizens to show that even fine details of modest renovations (e.g. restoring a small porch) do not detract from the heritage value of homes on one hand, but on the other allow a developer to put up an overpowering building that disregards or degrades heritage preservation? What is the Impact on Streetscape? The fundamental problem is the sheer size of the proposed building. Will issues related to height and setbacks of the proposed building detract from the Weber Street and Roy Street streetscapes, which include historic churches, multi -unit residential buildings and detached homes, many of which have been undergoing significant renovation that preserves their historic character? Would allowing this building to affect the streetscape be reasonable when (according to news reports) an owner of a nearby multi -unit property on Weber Street was made to have black paint removed from the exterior of the building to comply with standards? Do we not have a responsibility, as stewards of our community, to make decisions that will best serve the generations to come? I live in this heritage district. Our house abuts the towers at 11 Margaret / 100 Queen. I have no Page 84 of 224 complaints. Unlike the proposed building, they are on a large lot, have significant setbacks and trees on the property that provide some privacy and noise buffering. They do not grossly interfere with streetsca pes. So I am not bringing a self -referenced NIMBY perspective. I already have a couple towers in my backyard, and I'm ok with them. Rather, I am thinking of future generations of citizens of this city. As we rapidly transform Kitchener, what do we want to preserve so that citizens in the coming decades have a built environment that provides a high quality of life? Would future citizens not place high value on an intact heritage district downtown, with infills that do not detract from the historic character of the area? Will this civic asset not be increasingly valuable as more people live in downtown towers and seek ready access to restorative outdoor environments to stroll, jog, walk their dogs or just get into some quiet space with historic charm to collect their thoughts? If so, are future residents not better served by following best practices reflected in detailed plans, carefully developed by citizens and professionals and approved by elected officials, rather than one- off, ad hoc building -by -building decisions? I think that the February 4 Record Editorial was a call we should heed. The new should fit in with the old. Following good plans will get us there. Sincerely, Roy Cameron Page 85 of 224 From: - To: Delegation (SM) Subject: [EXTERNAL] 22 Weber St W Date: February 12, 2022 1:40:18 PM I thoroughly support the densification of housing in Kitchener. However, the core of the city still needs to remain attractive for all residents, families as well as single professionals, in order to continue attracting talent to our city. Tall condo towers are not attractive. The proportions don't fit into the surrounding neighbourhoods. This proposal also doesn't include enough parking or landscaping space. It seems to me that it is very common for developers to present initial plans that are approved, and then ask for an adjustment - that they were planning this from the start because they know it's a way of getting around the rules. What we need downtown is more "affordable" housing, and more housing for families, not one bedroom condo apartments. The health of a downtown core rests on it providing a diversity of options for people living there. Please put people before the profits of the developers. Sincerely, Kate Dingle Page 86 of 224 From: Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 11:11:54 AM To: Delegation (SM) <Delegation@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Response to Heritage Impact Assessment for 22 Weber St Hello, I hope this email finds you well. I am aware that the deadline for comment on the 22 Weber St W HIA was yesterday, but I hope my brief comments below will be accepted and forwaded to the Heritage Kitchener representatives. I would also like to register to speak at the 1 -March meeting. I am a resident of the neighborhood in question, living on Ellen St. Overall, while I would be very happy to see 22 Weber developed, I see several issues related both to heritage conservation and to urban planning. While the HIA makes a case that the design is in keeping with heritage values and has minimal impacts on the neighbourhood, I disagree strongly. Specifically, they write, "The building setback from the street, the location of parking at the rear, and the building materials are consistent with the existing character, albeit at nineteen stories the building is taller than the others in the Weber Street area." I think this statement is incorrect on 2 fronts, and that the development as a whole is unwise. Specifically: The height (19+ stories) is well outside the character of the street/neighbourhood, and will drastically change the feel of Weber St and the neighbourhood by dwarfing surrounding buildings (see Fig 17 on page 41). This also affects shadows cast on surrounding residential and non-residential buildings (see Appendix C of the report). I believe the guidance from the city is that the building should be on the order of 8 stories, less than 1/2 the height proposed by the developer. If you consider Figure 17 at 1/2 of the drawn height, the building is still large, but much less domineering/less likely to overwhelm the feel of the street, excepting that: 2. The setback of 0.8 meters is again well outside the character of the street. While St. Andrew's on the corner and the Windemere apartments have a similar setback a 0.8 m set back will dwarf the old Zion United church and the building surrounding 22 Weber. The 0.8 m setback also does not seem to be reflected in Figure 17 which suggests a frontage much closer to that of 28 Weber. 3. Peripherally related to heritage, good neighbourhood/urban design considers the needs of a mixed variety of citizens. The developers are proposing, to my knowledge only 1 bedroom apartments. This makes it nearly impossible to have a family in this building, which will make it hard for residents of 22 Weber to grow in place and become part of the neighbourhood. The developer has also not, to my knowledge, made any plan for actual affordable units in 22 Weber 4. The developer has also proposed only 24 parking spots. While I laud efforts to decrease reliance on cars, I have not heard of any plans from the developer to give residents an option (as at 20 Queen) other than street parking. Efforts to decrease reliance on cars Page 87 of 224 would also be supported by having the development at 22 Weber be a smaller number of units, and a greater proportion of 2 and 3 bedroom units. To close, I fully support infill and densification of our housing in Kitchener. If done wisely it will decrease our environmental impact and city infrastructure costs, while increasing the quality of life for residents. This building is not a wise densification. Studies have shown that multiple low rise (4-8 stories) buildings (similar to the brownstones of Boston and New York, and similar to much of Europe) have less environmental impact than either single family homes or high rises, and preserve/increase quality of life. The proposed development on Margaret between Queen and Victoria followed this guidance, and I hope it will be restarted as it will add to the neighbourhood. Instead of seeming like wise densification, the developers proposal seems to be one to cram the largest number of units (hense 1 bedrooms) in the smallest possible space (minimal setback, maximal height) with the smallest number of ammenities (affordable units, common spaces, parking). I urge the city, developer, and neighbourhood to work together to develope 22 Weber wisely so as to transition from the CCHCD to Downtown smoothly while improving the city and the neighbourhood. Best, Andrew J B Milne Andrew J B Milne, PhD, PEng (Alberta.) Page 88 of 224 From: To: Deleaation (SM) Subject: [EXTERNAL] 22Weber St. W. Date: February 15, 2022 5:16:19 PM We all realize that growth is inevitable particularly in the downtown core, but we must also realize that we need to preserve the historical and cultural aspects of our downtown core. That is the supposed purpose of having a Heritage District that is PROTECTED! Should a developer -who has purchased property in said district be made aware that these properties have certain restrictions attached to them. It seems that zoning can be easily manipulated -the owner of 22 Weber is on the Committee of Adjustment which deals with making zoning changes and would have realized said property was in Heritage, but oh well, I can change that. Who cares about Heritage? By allowing one developer free rein to build a 19 story glass tower will open the doors to others who will do like wise and who will stop them?? Think about 52 Weber St. W. and what that developer plans to do there. One of the only Arts and Crafts houses will be in jeopardy. It was supposedly protected, but who cares? I am not against the property being developed, but the aesthetics must be given some consideration and whatever is built should be in harmony with the surrounding district. Heritage or Olde Berlin Town is less that a quarter of one percent [0.25] of Kitchener's land base . I do not think it is asking too much to take seriously anyone who wishes to compromise this tiny PROTECTED part of our city. The old homes here cannot be replaced. Open the flood gates and we will have nothing left! Regards, T. Wagner -life time resident of College St. Sent from- for Windows Page 89 of 224 NORTH WATERLOO REGION NORTH WATERLOO REGION Presentation to Heritage Kitchener Re: 22 Weber Street West Kitchener, Ontario March 1st, 2022 The ACO North Waterloo Region Branch has been involved in heritage preservation since the branch was founded in 1981. Our organization encourages the conservation and re -use of structures, districts and landscapes of architectural, historical and cultural significance. Members of our current executive have been involved on many occasions when heritage is deemed to be at risk and have sat on committees when heritage districts were identified and established under bylaws in the different municipalities in our region. In short, we have significant expertise in the municipal, regional and provincial guidelines governing heritage conservation. While 22 Weber Street West is currently an empty lot, we are very concerned that the proposed development will have a significant negative impact on the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District (CCHCD). The district is of heritage value because it has highly significant heritage attributes in its architecture, its streetscape and its many historical associations. The designation of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood as a heritage conservation district was meant to protect and preserve the heritage assets and character that exist in the area. We acknowledge that the current site is located on a main transportation corridor across from the downtown core that is intended for high density development. However, the proposed development is also adjacent to significant heritage on Weber as well as on Roy Street and beyond into the heritage district. It will significantly overshadow the district which is generally low-rise residential/commercial in nature. Although there are tall buildings in the CCHCD, they pre-existed the creation of the HCD. The CCHCD Plan was very particular in its provisions for new construction, unlike other HCD plans which less stringent guidelines. The Plan envisioned that potential infill along Weber could have a negative impact on the heritage character of the area if not undertaken in a sensitive manner. Weber's streetscape will be negatively affected and also contains nearly half of the oldest buildings in the district. Buildings at the corner of Weber and Young are planned for demolition and while a parking lot may seem irrelevant, the proposed development is incompatible. The Plan states one of its goals is to provide design guidelines to ensure new development and alterations are sensitive to the heritage attributes and details of the district. Whatever the zoning regulations might be, it is clear that this development is not compatible with the surrounding buildings. Properties on either side of 22 Weber are low-rise and there are two churches in adjoining properties to either side of this space. The new building should be no higher than the eaves of the roof of the churches. In short, the 19 storey building is totally out of scale with the neighbourhood. It is highly intrusive and will impact the CCHCD in a very negative way; The North Waterloo Region Branch of ACO has Participant Status at the upcoming Ontario Land Tribunal hearing and plans to state our strong opposition to the proposed building in the hopes that a more sympathetic design can be achieved. Marg Rowell, President North Waterloo Region Branch Architectural Conservancy of Ontario E: aco.nwrb(a)gmail.com www.aconwr.ca The past. Our present. Your future. Page 90 of 224 From: - To: Deleaation (SM) Subject: [EXTERNAL] For Heritage Committee - 22 Weber St.W. - March 1 meeting Date: February 15, 2022 10:56:22 AM To Heritage Kitchener I am writing to express my concern about the Heritage Impact Assessment dated November 2021 by MHBC regarding 22 Weber St. W. I live at and am retired from the Waterloo Catholic School Board. I worked out of 2 locations — 35 Weber St. W. and 80 Young St. I thought the original proposal of 15 stories was excessive. I understood and considered that 1) there is a need to increase land use density; 2) there is also a need to transition from high-rise to low-rise, from the core outward; 3) how likely developers are to get their way at any hearing, particularly the Ontario Land Tribunal. So the proposal for 15 stories may not have been worth fighting about. However, I must disagree with the new 19 -story study recommendations that: "The proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts related to obstruction, isolation, change in land use, or shadows. The proposed development is considered a neutral impact to adjacent heritage resources within the CCNHCD..." As a south -facing Ahrens street resident, I can see the towers that have already risen on Weber, Duke and King. The shadows of the 19 -story proposal stretch across Ahrens St. As someone who walks down Young St. to King St., I've experienced the very strong wind -tunnel effects of 85 Duke St. It is misleading to say there is a "neutral impact" on the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Conservation Heritage District (CCNHCD). The value of the heritage would be minimized and almost when walking in the neighbourhood with towers hovering in the air above. I understand the core between Joseph St. and Weber St. will become more and more high-rise. But the official plan does call for transitioning to the low-rise outer areas. I drew my own picture of high- rises from Charles to Duke and out allowing for transitioning to low rise. Any building higher than 8 stories should only be allowed on the south side of Weber. The CCNHCD is such a tiny piece of the city. Allowing this build would set a precedent for all of Weber St. to follow suit. Then a good portion of the CCNHCD would be in shadows. The developments at Victoria and Margaret, plus whatever ends up being built on the vacant land on Margaret, which is in addition to the high-rises at Queen and Margaret already minimize the heritage value of the district. To do more is to really diminish the heritage of the district. I request the Heritage Committee reject this proposal as being not in keeping with the goal of maintaining a proper heritage district true to its roots. Thank you Neil Jensen Page 91 of 224 From: - To: Delegation (SM); Sarah Marsh; Subject: [EXTERNAL] HIA / 22 Weber Street Date: February 16, 2022 10:42:12 AM Thank you for the work that you do, I would like to offer a comment on the proposed development at 22 Weber Street. I have been shocked by the visible and vocal opposition to this development (including an informal neighbourhood group that has formed petitions and street signs). When I look out my back window towards Weber Street/Duke Street, I see no less than 5 towers of similar height. Indeed, many Civic Center residents live in the towers at Queen/Margaret and are every bit a part of this neighbourhood as those who live in single family homes. It is difficult to see our neighbourhood as welcoming in the context of the visible opposition to a high density development. The simple fact of the matter is that our city is growing exponentially, and people need places to live. The situation is so dire that we are considering building a secondary home on our lot so our daughter has housing available to her as she transitions to adulthood. The signs in our neighbourhood say "stick to the plan", but I would ask, does the plan (created in 2014) still serve the situation today? This development is on Weber Street. High density developments belong on major urban roads. I understand that the remit of the HIA is to preserve architectural heritage. But, this is being built on a parking lot. Also, preservation of this type cannot supersede the basic human right of being housed. I encourage the committee to balance the desire for 'neighbourhood characteristics' with those of 'having a place to live'. Lori Reiser Page 92 of 224 From: _ To: Deleaation (SM) Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed zoning changes and development at 22 Weber Street West Date: February 16, 2022 1:57:43 PM To whom it may concern While I have have numerous concerns about this proposed project, I will limit my detailed comments to two specific areas: shadows and wind. Wind: According to the wind study of the submission made in December 2021, only the isolated conditions around the new building are being considered, not the cumulative effect of multiple new buildings. I would express concern about the increasing wind tunnel effect on Weber Street at Queen. This has for many years been a source of strong wind channelling and with the new DTK tower at its final height, when there are even moderate winds, the strength of the wind at that corner is now stronger than it was before DTK was built. With approval already granted for a tall building at the corner of Weber and Ontario, an additional tall building directly across the street at 22 Weber St West will only magnify the channelling of wind to the corner of Weber and Queen as the prevailing winds are almost always coming from the northwest. As I write on February 16, we are experiencing moderately high winds. The effect at Queen and Weber was very strong when I was there at noon. In addition, on December 11, there was a very strong windstorm. The magnified effect of the wind by the DTK tower created conditions that were strong enough to completely destroy a garden shed behind Mary's Place and created flying debris in that area strong enough to break one of the rear storm windows of St Peter's Lutheran Church - something I witnessed personally since I happened to be rehearsing for a Christmas concert when the window was broken. Shadows: I live at . The shadow studies show that for at least 6 months per year, from September 21 through March 21, my house will be shadowed by a building a full block away beginning in the mid-afternoon. At a time of year when natural light is at a premium, we will be losing several hours per day from a 19 storey structure at 22 Weber St West. What the shadow study does not show is the cumulative effect of additional tall buildings. Specifically, the DTK condos, now at their full height block sunlight on my property for approximately an hour at noon during the months of December and January. While DTK is in a different neighbourhood, the proposal for 22 Weber is in a Heritage District. If the zoning and urban planning guidelines for the heritage district are not being respected, why did the city go to the trouble of creating a heritage district in the first place? My concern, then, is how much more will wind be magnified in that stretch of Weber Street if multiple tall buildings are added. If 22 Weber Street - in a Heritage District - is allowed at anywhere near 19 stories, then it is a guarantee that additional tall buildings will appear between Queen and Victoria streets on the north side of Weber. With additional tall buildings, the wind tunnel effect will be detrimental to the livability and walkability of the intersection of Queen and Weber. Peter Nikiforuk Page 93 of 224 Page 94 of 224 Staffeeport IST` � Ni,R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 1, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: February 14, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-094 SUBJECT: 234 and 240 Frederick Street — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment RECOMMENDATION: For information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a Heritage Impact Assessment Report (HIA) dated February 8, 2022 prepared by WSP regarding a proposed development to construct a four storey freestanding apartment building in the rear of a lot municipally addressed as 240 Frederick Street. The subject property is listed on the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. The subject property is also adjacent to 234 Frederick Street, a Part IV designated property. In addition, these properties are also located within the Central Frederick Neighborhood Cultural Heritage Landscape. The applicant's heritage consultant will attend the March 1, 2022, meeting of Heritage Kitchener to present the HIA and answer any 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 processing of related Planning Act applications. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the March meeting. A copy of the HIA is attached to this memo. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 95 of 224 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. • Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER 0.18 • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft HIA Page 96 of 224 A on oNOW I�II�1wlfir�iiri1 ) xpK xp� � M^R F HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 234 & 240 FREDERICK STREET, KITCHENER ROME TRANSPORTATION INC. REVISED DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL PROJECT NO.: 201-11372-00 DATE: FEBRUARY 08, 2022 F WSP 582 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ON N2K 1 M3 F T: +1 519 743 8777 WSP.COM Page 98 of 224 SIGNATURES PREPARED BY DRAFT Lindsay Benjamin, MAES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Date Cultural Heritage Specialist APPROVED" B'; DRAFT Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Date Cultural Heritage Lead - Ontario WSP Canada Inc. ("WSP") prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, Rome Transportation Inc. and the City of Kitchener, in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties. In the event a contract has not been executed, the parties agree that the WSP General Terms for Consultant shall govern their business relationship which was provided to you prior to the preparation of this report. The report is intended to be used in its entirety. No excerpts may be taken to be representative of the findings in the assessment The conclusions presented in this report are based on work performed by trained, professional and technical staff, in accordance with their reasonable interpretation of current and accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work was performed. The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP at the time of preparation, using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods consistent with those ordinarily exercised by WSP and other engineering/scientific practitioners working under similar conditions, and subject to the same time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this project. WSP disclaims any obligation to update this report if, after the date of this report, any conditions appear to differ significantly from those presented in this report, however, WSP reserves the right to amend or supplement this report based on additional information, documentation or evidence. WSP makes no other representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its findings. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. WSP has provided services to the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties and in a manner consistent with that degree of care, skill and diligence normally provided by members of the same profession performing the same or comparable services in respect of projects of a similar nature in similar circumstances. It is understood and agreed by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP provides no warranty, express or implied, of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed and understood by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP makes no representation or warranty whatsoever as to the sufficiency of its scope of work for the purpose sought by the recipient of this report. In preparing this report, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the report. WSP has reasonably assumed that the information provided is correct and WSP is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information. The original of this digital file will be kept by WSP for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP, its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report. Approval of this document is an administrative function indicating readiness for release and does not impart legal liability on to the Approver for any technical content contained herein. Technical accuracy and fit -for -purpose of this content is obtained through the review process. The Approver shall ensure the applicable review process has occurred prior to signing the document. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. WSP February 2022 Page iii Page 99 of 224 CONTRIBUTORS CLIENT Contact Erik Olsen, President Rome Transportation Inc. c/o Dave Galbraith, Senior Planner IBI Group \/\/S S Cultural Heritage Specialist Lindsay Benjamin, MAES, RPP, MCIP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Specialist Archival Research Chelsey Tyers, BES, RPP, MCIP Cultural Heritage Specialist Mapping/GIS Andrew Turner, HBA GIS Specialist Report Review Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead, Ontario Cultural Heritage Specialist Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page int Rome Transportation Inc. Page 100 of 224 EXE UTIVI SUMMARY WSP was retained by Rome Transportation Inc. to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the properties located at 234 and 240 Frederick Street in the City of Kitchener. The report was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan and Minor Variance application being prepared by IBI Group for the subject properties, which will see the retention of both buildings on the subject properties and the construction of a new four -storey freestanding condominium building in the rear of the lot at 240 Frederick Street. Concurrent with this HIA, WSP is preparing a Cultural Heritage Conservation Protection Plan (CHCPP) for 240 Frederick Street that will provide detailed technical recommendations to mitigate indirect impacts anticipated to result from the proposed development. 234 Frederick Street is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) and 240 Frederick Street is included on the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register (2017) as a listed, non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI), under section 27 (1.2) of the OHA. Given that the property at 234 Frederick Street was designated in 1990, prior to amendments made to the OHA in 2005 detailing the requirements of a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, an updated statement and attributes list has been prepared. 240 Frederick Street was determined to possess CHVI when evaluated by the City of Kitchener using Ontario Regulation 9/06, as such a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes has been drafted. Both properties are located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), however the landscape has not yet been formally protected through an Official Plan Amendment. Evaluating the proposed development plan for the subject properties against both Statements of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, it was determined that the new residential development would have primarily indirect impacts to the contextual value of 234 and 240 Frederick Street, as well as to the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The following alternatives were considered to avoid or reduce these adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the subject properties and the surrounding CHL: 1) Preserve and maintain the properties at 234 and 240 Frederick Street as is with no further development. 2) Develop 234 and 240 Frederick Street as proposed. 3) Develop 234 and 240 Frederick Street as proposed but explore increasing the separation distance by moving the development further north on the lot. Following submission of the March 4, 2021 draft of this HIA to the City of Kitchener, the proponent adopted Option 3 and refined the previous site plan, increasing the separation distance between the extant residence at 240 Frederick Street and the proposed development from 1.5 m to 3 m. This increased separation distance will further mitigate potential indirect impacts to the extant structure such as land disturbance, construction vibrations, and damage from construction activities and machinery. As Option 3 was adopted, only Options 1 and 2 were explored in this revised report. Based on the options analysis, Option 2 was the preferred alternative from a cultural heritage perspective, followed by Option 1. As such, the following recommendations are provided: That the detailed technical recommendations provided to address indirect impacts in the CHCPP prepared for 240 Frederick Street be considered to protect the heritage attributes of the subject residence before, during and after development -related activity. That indirect vibration impacts also be monitored for the property at 234 Frederick Street in accordance with the mitigation measures presented in the CHCPP. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 101 of 224 That the foundations of the new building should be kept independent from those of the extant structure at 240 Frederick Street unless part of a purposeful underpinning of the historic foundation. Care should be taken not to compromise the existing foundation during excavations for the new building. That any portions of the wrought iron fence removed along the south half of the property's periphery should be relocated post -construction. As per the landscape plan, portions of the fence that cannot be relocated post -construction should be conserved and repurposed in the Victorian garden proposed between the subject properties. That should the development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. That as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment— Terms of Reference, this HIA should be submitted for review and comment to the City's Heritage Planner and Heritage Kitchener. Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page vi Rome Transportation Inc. Page 102 of 224 TABLE OF CONTENTS Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................1 N 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK..................................4 2.1 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples......................................................4 2.2 Provincial Policy Context.............................................5 2.2.1 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement.......................................5 2.2.2 Ontario Heritage Act................................................................................6 2.2.3 Ontario Regulation 9/06..........................................................................6 2.2.4 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning...........................................................7 2.2.5 Region of Waterloo Official Plan............................................................7 2.2.6 City of Kitchener Official Plan.................................................................9 2.2.7 Federal and Provincial Heritage Guidelines........................................10 13 PROJECT METHODOLOGY ........................11 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT...............................12 4.1 Pre -Contact Period......................................................12 4.1.1 Paleo Period..........................................................................................12 4.1.2 Archaic Period.......................................................................................12 4.1.3 Early and Middle Woodland Periods....................................................13 4.1.4 Late Woodland Period..........................................................................14 4.2 Post -Contact Period....................................................15 4.2.1 Pre -Confederation Treaties..................................................................15 4.2.2 Waterloo County....................................................................................15 4.2.3 Waterloo Township...............................................................................16 4.2.4 City of Kitchener (Formerly Berlin).......................................................17 4.3 Site Specific History....................................................18 4.3.1 234 Frederick Street..............................................................................19 4.3.2 240 Frederick Street..............................................................................21 WSP February 2022 Page vii Page 103 of 224 TABLE OF 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................. 24 CONTENTS5.1 234 Frederick Street....................................................24 7.1 Updated Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or 5.1.1 Landscape Conditions..........................................................................24 7.1.1 Description of Historic Place.................................................................69 5.1.2 Building..................................................................................................25 Heritage Value.......................................................................................69 5.1.3 Building Exterior....................................................................................26 7.2 5.2 240 Frederick Street....................................................32 5.2.1 Landscape Conditions..........................................................................32 7.3 5.2.2 Building..................................................................................................34 5.2.3 Building Exterior....................................................................................35 5.2.4 Building Interior.....................................................................................42 5.2.5 Detached Garage..................................................................................60 5.3 Chronological History of the Development of 240 Frederick Street...........................................................61 5.4 Study Area Context.....................................................61 5.5 Architectural Style.......................................................63 5.5.1 Queen Anne..........................................................................................63 5.6 Comparative Analysis.................................................64 6 CONSULTATION .......................................... 68 6.1 City of Kitchener..........................................................68 6.2 Federal and Provincial Review...................................68 7 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ........69 7.1 Updated Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page viii Rome Transportation Inc. Page 104 of 224 Interest for 234 Frederick Street................................69 7.1.1 Description of Historic Place.................................................................69 7.1.2 Heritage Value.......................................................................................69 7.1.3 List of Heritage Attributes.....................................................................70 7.2 Evaluation of 240 Frederick Street Using Ontario Regulation 9/06............................................................71 7.3 Results of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation .............73 Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page viii Rome Transportation Inc. Page 104 of 224 TABLE OF 7.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for CONTENTS 7.4.1 240 Frederick Street....................................................73 Description Historic Place of .................................................................73 7.4.2 Heritage Value.......................................................................................73 7.4.3 List of Heritage Attributes.....................................................................74 7.5 Central Frederick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape....................................................................75 7.5.1 Description.............................................................................................75 Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. $ PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS ...................................................................... 77 8.1 Description of Proposed Development .....................77 8.2 Potential Impacts.........................................................78 8.3 Evaluation of Impacts.................................................78 8.4 Results of Impact Assessment..................................83 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS .........................84 9.1 Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options Analysis........................................................................84 9.2 Results of Options Analysis and Conservation Recommendations......................................................86 10 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...88 10.1 Significance of Subject Properties and Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL..................................88 10.2 Identification of Impacts.............................................90 10.3 Conservation Recommendations..............................91 Page 105 of 224 TABLE OF 11 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION ............ 92 CONTENTS BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................93 TABLES TABLE 1: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HERITAGE FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROPERTIES OF SIMILAR AGE, FIGURE 2: STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY TO 240 FREDERICK STREET.......................65 PLAN 425 ...................................................99 TABLE 2: EVALUATION OF 240 FREDERICK STREET HISTORICAL MAPPING (1877) ...............100 AS PER O. REG. 9/06 CRITERIA .....71 FIGURE 5:1916 TABLE 3: IMPACT GRADING.......................................78 FIGURE 6:1929 TABLE 4: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO SUBJECT FIGURE 7:1938 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .....................103 PROPERTY AT 240 FREDRICK FIGURE 8:1954 AERIAL IMAGERY ..........................104 STREET.............................................78 TABLE 5: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO 234 AND 239-241 FREDERICK STREET AND CENTRAL FREDERICK NEIGHBOURHOOD CHL..................80 TABLE 6: ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS .............84 FIGURES FIGURE 1: SUBJECT PROPERTIES MAP ....................3 FIGURE 2: HISTORICAL MAPPING (1861) .................98 FIGURE 3: PLAN 425 ...................................................99 FIGURE 4: HISTORICAL MAPPING (1877) ...............100 FIGURE 5:1916 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .....................101 FIGURE 6:1929 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .....................102 FIGURE 7:1938 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .....................103 FIGURE 8:1954 AERIAL IMAGERY ..........................104 APPENDICES A FIGURES 2-8 B SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS C TREE PRESERVATION PLAN & LANDSCAPE PLAN D QUALIFICATIONS OF AUTHOR Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 106 of 224 1 INTRODUCTION WSP was retained by Rome Transportation Inc. in November 2020 to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the properties at 234 and 240 Frederick Street in the City of Kitchener, Ontario (Figure 1). 240 Frederick Street is included on the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register (2017) as a listed, non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI), under section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), and 234 Frederick Street is designated under Part IV of the OHA through By -Law 90- 162. Both properties are located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The approximately 0.18 -acre property at 234 Frederick Street includes a two-storey Queen Anne style structure surrounded by a landscaped front lawn, paved driveway and parking lot. The approximately 0.47 -acre property at 240 Frederick Street includes a two -and -a -half storey Queen Anne structure and a vernacular, single -storey detached garage surrounded by a landscaped lawn (see Figure 1). Both properties are zoned Commercial Residential One (CR -1), Special Provisions 114R and 128U and designated as Low - Density Commercial Residential in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan. The property owner's contact information is as follows: Rome Transportation Inc. Eric Olsen 100 Campbell Avenue, Unit #2 Kitchener, ON N2H 4X8 Tel: (519) 572-0980 Email: eolsen@romesales.com The property owner intends to retain both buildings on the subject properties and construct a new four -storey freestanding residential condominium building in the rear of the lot at 240 Frederick Street. An HIA is required to assess the impact of the proposed development on the potential and known CHVI of the subject properties to accompany a Site Plan and Minor Variance application. This HIA has been structured to adhere to the guidelines of the City of Kitchener's Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment— Terms of Reference (April 2020), and guidance provided in the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act (1990); Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020); the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process (2006); and Section 12.C.1.23-28 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014). This document will provide: • Project background and an introduction to the development site; • A description of the methodology used to investigate and evaluate the subject properties; • A summary of background research and analysis related to the subject properties; • An assessment of existing conditions; • A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes for the property at 234 Frederick Street to update the City of Kitchener prepared Reasons for Designation included in Designation By -Law 90-162; • A CHVI evaluation of the property at 240 Frederick Street to confirm and update the City of Kitchener prepared Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes (2013); • A description of the proposed development and a summary of potentially adverse impacts; Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 107 of 224 • If necessary, an assessment of alternative options, mitigation measures and conservation methods to be considered to avoid or limit negative impacts to the CHVI of the subject properties; • A summary statement and conservation recommendations; and • A recommendation as to whether the subject property at 240 Frederick Street is eligible for heritage designation under the OHA. Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 2 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 108 of 224 M� -� Ol A QQ T T a a Y Y U U Q N N Z W W W ,^^ V , O V N N LU 11.01 0 , 000 oop LANCASTER STREET EAST w z w o a 0 o � O ¢ H z O z O Q 1 zQ w z U H Z O H Y W H C W W U K w � O cn O H Q U H K U w a E O a � � � w " _ � W N QQ T T a a Y Y U U Q N N Z W W W ,^^ V , O V N N LU 11.01 0 , 000 oop LANCASTER STREET EAST 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES On June 21, 2021, the Canadian federal government enacted United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and confirmed that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration - 2007) "must be implemented in Canada." As a result, Indigenous peoples in Canada are recognized as having unique rights, including those that pertain to the conservation of Indigenous heritage. As per Articles 11 and 31 of the Declaration: 11. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 31. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. 2) In conjunction with Indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights. These rights to historical sites, ceremonies, cultural traditions, etc. (collectively understood as Indigenous heritage) are pertinent to the planning process through Articles 25 and 26 of the Declaration, which state: 25. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard. 26. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2) Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3) States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions, and land tenure systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned. Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 4 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 110 of 224 2.2 PROVINCIAL POLICY CONTEXT 2.2.1 PLANNING ACT AND PROVINCIAL POLICY STA TEMEW The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2020) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario -wide policy direction on land use planning. All decisions affecting land use planning "shall be consistent with" the PPS, which identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, technical or scientific interest are of provincial interest and should be conserved. The importance of identifying, evaluating and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS 2020: — Section 2.6.1 — "Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved"; and, — Section 2.6.3 — "Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved." The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario: Built heritage resources (BHR) are defined as "a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers." Conserved is defined as "the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision -maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments." Cultural heritage landscapes (CHL) "means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms." Heritage attributes "means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built, constructed, or Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 111 of 224 manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property)." Significant means "in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act." 2.2.2 ONTARIO HERITAGE AOT The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the OHA). Designation offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. In addition to designated properties, the OHA allows municipalities to list properties that are considered to have CHVI on their Register, which provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60 -day delay in issuing a demolition permit. Under Part IV, Section 27, municipalities must maintain a Register of properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. Section 27 (1.1) states that the Register shall be kept by the Clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Part IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the Register may include a property that has not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to possess CHVI. Listed properties, although recognized as having CHVI, are not protected under the OHA against demolition or unsympathetic alteration as are designated properties but are acknowledged under Section 2 of the PPS (MMAH, 2020). 2.2.3 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg 9/06), which provides three principal criteria with nine sub -criteria for determining CHVI. The criteria set out in the regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation under the OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O. Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. These criteria include: design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value. 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 112 of 224 ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). If a potential cultural heritage resource is found to meet any one of these criteria, it can then be considered an identified resource. 2.2.4 M NISI RY OF HERITAGE, SPORT, TOURISM AND CULTURE INDUSTRIES HERITAGE RESOURCES IN LAND USE PLANNING The MHSTCI's Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process (2006) identifies HIAs as an important tool to evaluate cultural heritage resources and to determine appropriate conservation options. The document identifies what an HIA should contain and any specific municipal requirements. To determine the effect that a proposed development or site alteration may have on a significant cultural heritage resource, the Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process outlines seven potential negative or indirect impacts: • 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; • 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 an archaeological resource. REGION OF WATERLOO OFFICIAL PLAN The Region of Waterloo's Regional Official Plan was approved, with modifications, by the Ontario Municipal Board on June 18, 2015. Chapter 3, Liveability in Waterloo Region, addresses heritage resource conservation. Relevant policies include those that detail Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment: 3.G.6 Area Municipalities will designate Cultural Heritage Landscapes in their official plans and establish associated policies to conserve these areas. The purpose of this designation is to conserve groupings of cultural heritage resources that together have greater heritage significance than their constituent elements or parts. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 113 of 224 3.G.13 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non -designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 3.G.14 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3.G.13 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the Area Municipality will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality. 3.G.15 Where a development application includes, or is adjacent to, a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest which is not listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to submit a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region. 3.G.16 The Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee prior to planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy 3.G.4. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies in this Plan. 3.G.17 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following: (a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; (b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; (c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; (d) assessment of development or site alteration impacts; (e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; (f) schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and (g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations. 3.G.18 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required in this Plan relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the conservation recommendations will, wherever feasible, aim to conserve cultural heritage resources intact by: (a) recognizing and incorporating heritage resources and their surrounding context into the proposed development in a manner that does not compromise or destroy the heritage resource; (b) protecting and stabilizing built heritage resources that may be underutilized, derelict, or vacant; and (c) designing development to be physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable from, the heritage resource. 3.G.19 Where it is not feasible to conserve a cultural heritage resource intact in accordance with Policy 3.G.18, the conservation recommendations will: Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 8 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 114 of 224 (a) promote the reuse or adaptive reuse of the resource, building, or building elements to preserve the resource and the handiwork of past artisans; and (b) require the owner/applicant to provide measured drawings, a land use history, photographs and other available documentation of the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. 3.G.20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area Municipality as applicable. 2, ?. 6 CITY OF KI TCHFNF_R OFFICIAL PIAN The City of Kitchener Official Plan was approved, with modifications, by the Region of Waterloo on November 19, 2014. Section 12, Cultural Heritage Resources, addresses heritage resource conservation. Relevant policies include those that detail Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plans: 12.C.1.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.C.4.6 through 13.C.4.18 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, e) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 12.C.1.24. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 12.C.1.23 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the City will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review prior to final consideration by the City. 12.C.1.25. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans. 12.C.1.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will be outlined in a Terms of Reference. In general, the contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) implementation and monitoring; and, Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 115 of 224 g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 12.C.1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.28. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. 2.2.7 FEDERAL_ AND PRnklINCIAL HERITAGE GUIDELINES In accordance with the City of Kitchener Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — Terms of Reference, additional guidelines were considered including Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Second Edition, 2010), hereafter referred to as the Standards and Guidelines; the former Ministry of Culture's Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (1997) and Heritage Conservation Principle's for Land Use Planning (2007); and Well-Preserved.- the ell-Preserved:the Ontario Heritage Foundation's Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation, hereafter referred to as Well -Preserved (1988). Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 10 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 116 of 224 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY An HIA evaluates the proposed impact of development on the heritage attributes of a property of potential or known CHVI. This HIA is guided by the City of Kitchener Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment— Terms of Reference and the MHSTCI's Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process. To address the requirements of an HIA, this report provides the following information: • A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review of archival sources and historical maps; • Photographic documentation of the subject properties and context; • A written description of the existing conditions and context of the subject properties; • An evaluation of the subject properties using O. Reg. 9/06; • Preparation of an updated Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes for the properties; • A review of the proposed development; • Identification of impacts; • The identification and analysis of mitigation opportunities, as required; • The preferred strategy recommended to best protect and enhance the CHVI and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resources; • Recommendation of whether 240 Frederick Street is eligible for heritage designation under the OHA; and • A summary statement and conservation recommendations. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 117 of 224 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 4.1 PRE -CONTACT PERIOD The pre -contact period in Ontario has been reconstructed, primarily, from the archaeological record and interpretations made by archaeologists through an examination of material culture and site settlement patterns. Technological and temporal divisions of the pre -contact period have been defined by archaeologists based on changes to natural, cultural, and political environments that are observable in the archaeological record. It is pertinent to state that although these divisions provide a generalized framework for understanding the broader events of the pre -contact period, they are not an accurate reflection of the fluidity and intricacies of cultural practices that spanned thousands of years. The following presents a sequence of Indigenous land -use from the earliest human occupation following deglaciation to the more recent past based on the following periods as defined by archaeologists as the: • Paleo Period; • Archaic Period; • Woodland Period; and • Post -Contact Period. 4. 1.1 PALEO PERIOD Paleo period populations were the first to occupy what is now southern Ontario, moving into the region following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet approximately 11,000 years before present (BP). The first Paleo period populations to occupy southern Ontario are referred to by archaeologists as Early Paleo (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Early Paleo period groups are identified by their distinctive projectile point types, exhibiting long grooves, or "flutes," that likely functioned as a hafting mechanism (method of attaching the point to a wooden stick). These Early Paleo group tool types include Gainey (c.10,900 BP), Barnes (c.10,700), and Crowfield (c.10,500) (Ellis and Deller, 1990). By approximately 10,400 BP, Paleo projectile points transitioned to various unfluted varieties such as Holcombe (c.10,300 BP), Hi Lo (c.10,100 BP), and Unstemmed and Stemmed Lanceolate (c.10,400 to 9,500 BP). These types were used by Late Paleo period groups (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Both Early and Late Paleo period populations were highly mobile, participating in the hunting of large game animals. Paleo period sites often functioned as small campsites where stone tool production and maintenance occurred (Ellis and Deller, 1990). 4.1.2 Ai-<Gri'Ai i`L:i- 0L) By approximately 8,000 BP, climatic warming supported the growth of deciduous forests in southern Ontario. These forests introduced new flora and faunal resources, which resulted in subsistence shifts and a number of cultural adaptations. This change is reflected in the archaeological record by new tool -kits that are reflective of a shift in subsistence strategies and has been categorized as the Archaic period. The Archaic period in southern Ontario is sub -divided into the Early Archaic (c.10,000 to 8,000 BP), Middle Archaic (c.8,000 to 4,500 BP), and the Late Archaic (c.4,500 to 2,800 BP) periods. Generally, in North Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 118 of 224 America, the Archaic period represents a transition from big game hunting to broader, more generalized subsistence strategies based on local resource availability. This period is characterized by the following traits: • An increase in stone tool variation and reliance on local stone sources; • The emergence of notched and stemmed projectile point types; • A reduction in extensively flaked tools; • The use of native copper; • The use of bone tools for hooks, gorges, and harpoons; • An increase in extensive trade networks; and • The production of ground stone tools and an increase in larger, less portable tools. The Archaic period is also marked by population growth with archaeological evidence suggesting that, by the end of the Middle Archaic period (c.4,500 BP), populations had steadily increased in size (Ellis, et al., 1990). Over the course of the Archaic period, populations began to rely on more localized hunting and gathering territories and were shifting to more seasonal encampments. From the spring into the fall, settlements were focused in lakeshore/riverine locations where a variety of different resources could be exploited. Settlement in the late fall and winter months moved to interior sites where the focus shifted to deer hunting and the foraging of wild plants (Ellis et al., 1990, p. 114). The steady increase in population size and the adoption of a more localized seasonal subsistence strategy led to the transition into the Woodland period. 4.1.:� LAI-�LY AI'Vb JVIIL)L>Lt VV00L)LAIVL) &L:-0UL.J6 The beginning of the Woodland period is defined by the emergence of ceramic technology. Similar to the Archaic period, the Woodland period is separated into three timeframes: the Early Woodland (c.2,800 to 2,000 BP), the Middle Woodland (c.2,000 to 1,200 BP), and the Late Woodland (c.1,200 to 350 BP) (Spence et al., 1990; Fox, 1990). The Early Woodland period is represented in southern Ontario by two cultural complexes: the Meadowood Complex (c.2,900 to 2,500 BP), and the Middlesex Complex (c.2,500 to 2,000 BP). During this period, the life ways of Early Woodland populations differed little from that of the Late Archaic with hunting and gathering representing the primary subsistence strategies. The pottery of this period is thick walled, friable, and, as such, likely did not have a long use life. These early ceramics are typically undecorated but exhibit cord impressions, which are likely the result of the techniques used during manufacture rather than decoration (Spence et al., 1990). Meadowood complex sites are found across Southern Ontario and is characterised by Meadowood cache blades, Meadowood side notched points, trapezoidal gorgets and a marked preference for Onondaga chert (Fox, 1990). The Middle Woodland period has been differentiated from the Early Woodland period by changes in lithic tool forms (i.e., projectile points, expedient tools), and the increased decorative elaboration of ceramic vessels (Spence et al., 1990). Additionally, archaeological evidence suggests the rudimentary use of maize (corn) horticulture by the end of the Middle Woodland Period (Warrick, 2000). In southern Ontario, the Middle Woodland is observed in three different cultural complexes: the Point Peninsula Complex to the north and northeast of Lake Ontario, the Couture Complex near Lake St. Clair, and the Saugeen Complex throughout the remainder of southern Ontario. These groups can be identified by Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 119 of 224 their use of either dentate or pseudo scalloped ceramic decorations. The study area lies within a region that was occupied by both the Saugeen Complex (Spence et al., 1990). The Saugeen Complex is found generally in south-central Ontario and along the eastern shores of Lake Huron. The Saugeen Complex ceramics are similar in style to Point Peninsula Complex; however, the vessels tended to be cruder than their Point Peninsula counterparts. They were characterized by coil construction with thick walls, wide necks, and poorly defined shoulders. Usually, the majority of the vessel was decorated with pseudo -scallop stamps or dentate impressions, with the latter occurring more frequently at later dates (Spence et al., 1990). 4. °I.4 LATL WOODLAND PERIOD There is much debate as to whether a transitional phase between the Middle and Late Woodland Periods is present in Ontario, but it is generally agreed that the Late Woodland period of occupation begins around 1,100 BP. The Late Woodland period in southern Ontario can be divided into three cultural sub -phases: The early, middle, and late Late Woodland periods. The early Late Woodland is characterized by the Glen Meyer and Pickering cultures and the middle Late Woodland is characterized by the Uren and Middleport cultures. These groups are ancestral to the Iroquoian -speaking Neutral -Erie (Neutral), the Huron-Wendat (Huron), and Petun Nations that inhabited southern Ontario during the late Late Woodland period (Smith, 1990, p. 285). The Pickering and Glen Meyer cultures co -existed within southern Ontario during the early Late Woodland period (c.1250-700 BP). Pickering territory is understood to encompass the area north of Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay and Lake Nipissing (Williamson, 1990). Glen Meyer is centred around Oxford and Norfolk counties, but also includes the southeastern Huron basin and the western extent is demarcated by the Ekfrid Clay Plain southwest of London, Ontario (Noble, 1975). Villages of either tradition were generally smaller in size (-1 ha) and composed of smaller oval structures, which were later replaced by larger structures in the Late Woodland period. Archaeological evidence suggested a mixed economy where hunting and gathering played an important role, but small-scale horticulture was present, indicating a gradual shift from hunting - gathering to a horticultural economy (Williamson, 1990). The first half of the middle Late Woodland period is represented by the Uren culture (700-650 BP) and the second half by the Middleport (650-600 BP). Uren and Middleport sites of the middle Late Woodland share a similar distribution pattern across much of southwestern and south-central Ontario. (Dodd et al., 1990). Significant changes in material culture and settlement -subsistence patterns are noted during this short time. Iroquois Linear, Ontario Horizontal, and Ontario Oblique pottery types are the most well -represented ceramic assemblages of the middle Late Woodland period (Dodd et al., 1990). At Middleport sites, material culture changes included an increase in the manufacture and use of clay pipes as well as bone tools and adornments (Dodd et al., 1990; Ferris & Spence, 1995). The appearance of evidence of small year-round villages, secondary ossuary burials, and what are thought to be semi -subterranean sweat lodges suggest a marked increase in sedentism in southern Ontario during the Uren and Middleport cultures (Ferris & Spence, 1995). The increasing permanency of settlements resulted in the development of small-scale cultivation and a subsequent increased reliance on staple crops such as maize, beans, and squash (Dodd et al., 1990; Warrick, 2000; Ferris & Spence, 1995). Archaeological evidence from the middle Late Woodland sites also documents increases in population size, community organization and village fissioning, and the expansion of trade networks. The development of trade networks with northern Algonquian peoples has also been inferred from findings at Middleport sites Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 120 of 224 along the northern parts of southwestern and south-central Ontario. These changes resulted in the more organized and complex social structures observed in the late Late Woodland period. During the late Late Woodland period, village size significantly increased as did the complexity of community and political systems. Villages were often fortified with palisade walls and ranged in size from a few longhouses to over 100 longhouses observed in large villages. Larger longhouses oriented differently than others in the village have been associated with primary familial groups and it has been suggested that longhouses that were located outside of palisade walls may have been for visiting groups for the purposes of trade or social gatherings (Ramsden, 1990). More recent research has indicated that smaller, temporary camp or cabin sites were often used seasonally for the tending of agricultural fields or as fishing camps (Ramsden, 1990). By this time, large-scale agriculture had taken hold, making year-round villages even more practical as a result of the ability to store large crop yields over winter. Early contact with European settlers at the end of the Late Woodland period resulted in extensive changes to the traditional lifestyles of most populations inhabiting Ontario including settlement size, population distribution, and material culture. The introduction of European -borne diseases significantly increased mortality rates, resulting in a drastic drop in population size (Warrick, 2000). 4.2 POST -CONTACT PERIOD 4.2.1 PRE -CONFEDERATION TREATIES The study area, located in the City of Cambridge, is situated on the lands of the Between the Lakes Treaty, No. 3, negotiated in 1784, and confirmed in 1792, by the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and the British Crown. Part of the goal of the Between the Lakes Treaty for the Mississaugas was to help and assist Joseph Brant and the Haudenosaunee who had fought for the British in the American Revolution (1775- 1783) and provide them with suitable land to settle (Shanahan, 2019). Sir Frederick Haldimand, the Governor of Quebec, subsequently signed the Haldimand Proclamation that granted the tract of approximately 3,500 acres of land, or 10 km on either side of the Grand River, to the Haudenosaunee in compensation for their assistance in the American Revolution (1765-1783) (CIRNAC, 2013). The land is commonly known today as the Haldimand Tract. The Simcoe Patent (Treaty 4) was issued in 1793, and further clarified a number of matters, including the extent of the land grant made to the Haudenosaunee (Ministry of Indigenous Affairs, 2020). 4 2.2 WATERLOO COUNTY In 1788, the Province of Quebec created the first districts to serve administrative needs at the local level — Hesse, Nassau, Mecklenburg and Lunenburg. The study area was in the Nassau District that included as far south as the current Fort Erie and Thunder Bay to the north. After the creation of Upper Canada in 1791, The Nassau District was renamed the Home District. By way of an Act of Parliament in 1798 the Home and Western Districts were realigned with a portion of these districts becoming London and Niagara Districts. The study area remained part of the Home District. At the turn of the nineteenth century, Crown Land was granted to arriving settlers on conditions, such as the requirement to clear at least 2.02 ha of their lot and the adjacent road allowance as well as to build a house and shingle it within 18 months. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 121 of 224 In 1816, the Home District was divided and the majority of what would become Waterloo County was reorganized into the Gore District (Pope, 1877:76). The first settlers of the Gore District were almost exclusively United Empire Loyalists (Pope, 1877:76). Initially Halton County included the Townships of Beverley, Dumfries, Esquesing, Flamboro West, Flamboro East, Nassagaweya, Nelson and Trafalgar (Pope, 1877:76) and was expanded to include the townships of Guelph, Puslinch, Nassagaweya, Esquesing, Eramosa, Erin and Garafraxa in 1822 (Cumming, 1971:2). The District of Wellington was created in 1837-1838 and included the counties of Wellington, Waterloo, Grey and parts of Dufferin County (Wellington County, 2020.). The United Counties of Waterloo, Wellington and Grey were formed in 1852, but only two years later Wellington County became its own entity and consisted of the Townships and Towns of Amarantha, Arthur, Eramosa, Erin, Guelph, Garafraxa, Maryborough, Nichol, Peel, Pilkington and Puslinch (Wellington County, 2020). In February 1841, Wellington District became part of Canada West in the new United Province of Ontario. Only eight years later in 1849, the District system was eliminated. Wellington District was divided into Grey, Wellington, Perth and Waterloo Counties. Waterloo County included the Townships of Waterloo, Woolwich, Wilmot, Wellesley and North Dumfries. Waterloo County was dissolved in 1973 and replaced with the Region of Waterloo. 4.2.3 WATERLOO TOWNSHIP The Township of Waterloo was historically bound to the north by the Township of Woolwich, to the east by the Townships of Guelph and Puslinch, to the south by the Township of Dumfries and to the west by the Township of Wilmot. The Township of Waterloo was part of Block 2 of the Halidmand Tract. The Halidmand Tract was land granted by Sir Frederick Halidmand on October 25, 1784 to the Six Nations in recognition of their support of the British during the American Revolution. Mohawk leader Thayendanegea (Joseph Brant), representing the Six Nations, arranged for the sale of Block 2 of the tract to United Empire Loyalists, Richard Beasley and his partners James Wilson and Jean -Baptiste Rousseaux in 1796. When the transaction finalized in 1798, Beasley became solely responsible for the mortgage payments. Due to the terms of the sale of the tract from the Six Nations to Beasley, the final deed was not transferred to Beasley until payment was made in full. As such, Block 2 could not be legally subdivided and sold to make payments for the initial land transfer (English and McLaughlin, 1983). Beasley did begin to sell lots, however, despite his inability to grant clear title. In 1800, Beasley sold almost 5,571 ha to predominantly German Mennonites who did not realize that the mortgage prevented them from getting clear title to their lands (Bloomfield, 1995:21). This led to the almost complete halt of settlement in 1803 and 1804 (Bloomfield, 1995:21). Beasley and Brant realized the only solution was a bulk sale of the remaining portions of Block 2 to pay off the mortgage (Bloomfield, 1995:22). Samuel Bricker who had immigrated to Block 2 in 1802 successfully convinced other German Mennonites in Pennsylvania to form the `German Company' to purchase the remaining Block 2 lands. Lots were then drawn and distributed to families that contributed to the German Company according to the number of shares owned (Bloomfield, 1995:22). Due to the tract being sold as a block, the area was not addressed in the typical manner by the local of administration of Upper Canada, with surveys and basic services. As such, roads were informally laid out by the new settlers and lots were often oddly shaped. The area's reputation for fertile and cheap lands within a predominantly German speaking community attracted non -Mennonite Germans during the early nineteenth century. Additionally, large numbers of Scottish, German and other European immigrants also came to Waterloo (Bloomfield, 1995:45-50). The earliest settlement clusters were not necessarily the areas with the best soil due to the lack of formally laid Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 122 of 224 roads, rather the earliest settlement clusters were around the forks of the Grand and Speed Rivers in the south and in the north along the road connecting John Erb's mills and Abraham Erb's mills, which are now the urban cores of the cities of Cambridge and Waterloo, respectively (Bloomfield, 1995:61). By 1846, the Township of Waterloo had a population of 4,424, and included 20 sawmills and eight gristmills (Smith 1846:205). Early residential structures tended to be one to two-storey log structures. Prior to 1850, log houses and shanties were exempt from taxes if they only had one fireplace and, as such, many were built in the Township. During the second half of the nineteenth century, large, often two-storey stone dwellings became popular. The creation of the Grand Trunk Railway, Galt & Guelph Railway and the Preston & Berlin Railway in the 1850s brought additional prosperity. Wheat and barley were the primary exports, both becoming especially lucrative when the Crimean War (1853-1856) raised British demand for Canadian Wheat (Hayes 1997:40). 4,2,4 CITY OF KITCHEVER (FORMERLY BERLIN) Originally known as Sand Hills and later as Mount Pleasant, the area was first settled in 1807 by German Mennonites Benjamin Eby and Joseph Snider. It later became known as Berlin due to its significant German immigrant population. In 1823, key founders of Kitchener's furniture industry, John Hoffman and Samuel Bowers, partnered together to create the first Canadian furniture business (Uttley, 1932). Bowers later withdrew from the partnership and Hoffman's brother purchased his interest (Uttley, 1932). The Hoffman brothers later went on to introduce the steam engine to local manufacturing, commencing Kitchener's strong industrial background. Hoffman is credited with the creation of over 50 homes in Berlin (Uttley, 1932). David Miller opened the first mercantile business c.1825 and Henry B. Bowman opened the second in 1837. The 1830s brought further immigration of settlers direct from Germany, and the name was changed to Berlin With a population of over 1,000 in late 1853, Berlin was incorporated as a village. It was also during this decade that economic growth began to flourish with the introduction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856. With a population of 5,000 in the 1880s, Parsell described Berlin as "among the most substantial and progressive towns in Ontario" (H. Parsell & Co. 1881:7). Furniture making continued to be a predominant source of industry. Hartman Krug and Dan Hibner received permission from Council in 1887 to erect a factory called the H. Krug Furniture Co. Ltd. Now known simply as Krug, the furniture company is one of the few surviving furniture companies in Kitchener and has garnered international recognition. Other early industrial endeavors in the area included tanning hides, shoemaking, button manufacturing and rubber manufacturing (Uttley, 1932). Berlin was proclaimed a City on June 10, 1912 with a population of 15,195. After becoming a City, Council set about to encourage further industrial businesses to settle in Berlin. The beginning of World War I (WW1) in 1914 put a pause on this growth. WWI brought significant changes to a City with so many German descendants. German instruction in school was no longer allowed, and those with German sounding names often suffered discrimination. The biggest change brought about by WWI was the change in the City's name. In an effort to choose something "less Germanic," the name Kitchener was decided upon (Moyer, 1979:53- 56). Kitchener is one of Canada's most carefully planned communities thanks to W.H. Breithaupt. In 1920, Breithaupt's advocacy for a planning board and a city plan paid off. In 1923, the planning board engaged noted town planner T.A. Adams and his associate H. 1. Seymour. Their contract was completed in 1925, and Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 123 of 224 a comprehensive plan was the result. The plan included a complete layout and recommendations for areas of growth within Kitchener, including recommendations for development controls like zoning by-laws (Moyer, 1979:64). Following World War II (WWII), there was significant growth and progress in Kitchener. Until about 1960, taxable assessment had risen on an aggressive curve (Moyer, 1979: 83). As with most urban centres, Kitchener's downtown suffered in the 1960s through to the 1990s from the insurgence of suburban sprawl despite ongoing renewal efforts. More recent urban revitalization efforts, such as the implementation of the Streetscape Master Plan published in 2007, appear to be garnering success. 4. ;Si I t bHtUiriG m6TORI The Township of Waterloo, in which the City of Kitchener is situated, was originally part of the lands granted by the British Crown to the Iroquois or `Six Nation Indians', properly named Haudenosaunee, following the American Revolution (Young, 1880). After the Revolution (1775-1783), the Haudenosaunee lost much of their ancestral homeland in upper New York, an area now formally recognized as American territory. Mohawk leader Thayendanegea (Joseph Brant), and representatives of the Six Nations Confederacy, pressured the Crown to provide them with a land grant in Canada to replace the territory that they had lost as a result of the war. Brant selected the valley of the Grand in 1784, and the governor of Quebec, Frederick Haldimand, agreed to Brant's request and planned for the land grant (Filice, 2016). Land around the Grand River was granted to these loyalists through the Haldimand Treaty of 1784. From the start, the Haudenosaunee and the British Crown disagreed over the meaning of the Haldimand Proclamation and who held title to the Haldimand Tract (Filice, 2016). The Crown understood the Haldimand Proclamation as prohibiting the Haudenosaunee from leasing or selling the land to anyone but the Crown. In 1791, surveyor Augustus Jones completed a survey of the Haldimand Tract. By 1796, the Haudenosaunee began selling and leasing land to settlers, despite the Crown's initial objections. Brant reached a compromise agreement with Simcoe's successor, Peter Russell, whereby the Haudenosaunee could sell and lease the land, so long as they offered it to the Crown first (Filice, 2016). Brant sold approximately 350,000 acres of land to the Crown, who then distributed it to private owners, according to the arrangements he had made. On February 5, 1798, this land was parcelled out in six large blocks to specific purchasers. Block 2 of the reserve, comprising of 94,012 acres, was sold by Joseph Brant on behalf of the Six Nations in 1797. He also acted as the legal attorney for John Baptise Rousseau, James Wilson and Richard Beasley. In 1800 and 1804, Wilson and Rousseau deeded their portions of the block to Beasley (WLRO Instruments 31 and 100). In 1804, Beasley became the sole owner of Block 2 having obtained a quit claim deed from Brant for the remaining 13,430 acres (WLRO 101). On June 29, 1802 Richard Bealsey sold 60,000 acres of Block 2 to Daniel and Jacob Erb, which became the German Company Tract (GCT) (WLRO Instrument 123). Lot 3, which consisted of 448 acres of the GCT, was sold to Jacob Hershey on July 20, 1805 (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 4, No. of Memorial: 127). Two - hundred -and -twenty-four acres were sold to Samuel Eby on April 5, 1809 (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 17, No. of Memorial: 298). Benjamin Eby purchased the other 224 acres of Lot 3, GCT on March 5, 1833 (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 240, No. of Memorial: 235). Later that year, on May 27, David Weber purchased 219 acres from Benjamin Eby (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 262, No. of Memorial: 534). Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 124 of 224 In two separate transactions on May 8 and September 3, 1841, David Weber sold 50 acres and approximately 12 acres to Frederick Gaukel (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 58, No. of Memorial: 197 & Folio of Abstract: 89, No. of Memorial 290). Frederick Gaukel also bought over 6 acres of Lot 3, GCT from Samuel Eby on October 9, 1841 (WLRO Folio of Abstract: 98, No. of Memorial: 324). In transactions ranging from 1841 to 1854, John Eby acquired just over 312 acres of Lot 3, GCT from Frederick Gaukel, Samuel Eby, Elizabeth Eby and Samuel Eby's widow (WLRO, Folio of Abstract: 99, No of Memorial: 325; Folio of Abstract: 87, No of Memorial: 77; Folio of Abstract: 88, No. of Memorial: 78 and Instrument 76). The 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County confirms John Eby owned most of Lot 3, GCT and identified a dwelling footprint around the southeast corner of the lot (outside of the subject properties and not representative of either structures on the subject properties) (Figure 2, Appendix A). John Eby was the second son of Samuel and Elizabeth Eby and was married to Rebecca Bricker and farmed the land (Utley, 1937). John Eby sold 68.55 acres of Lot 3, GCT to Waterloo County on January 11, 1869 (recorded as Corporation of Co Waterloo) (WLRO Instrument 4262). This was purchased by Waterloo County to erect the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge (hereafter referred to as the House of Refuge) as required by the Municipal Act that came into effect in 1869. The property included both a 50 -room house and an associated farm (see Section 4.3.2 for more details on the House of Refuge). On April 20, 1888, Peter Itter acquired 4.2 acres of Lot 3, GCT from Waterloo County, which contained the House of Refuge house (WLRO Instrument 7835). An earlier transaction identifies that Peter Itter also purchased 100 acres of Lot 3, GCT from Veronica Brubacher on April 30, 1881. It is unclear from the land registry records how Veronica acquired part of Lot 3, GCT, but there is a transaction identifying John Brubacher owning a portion of the Lot in 1876. The 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo does not identify an owner for Lot 3, GCT, but does demonstrate that most of Lot 3 has been largely developed and includes residential areas, the Grand Trunk Railway, and a Tannery (Figure 4, Appendix A). At that time, no development was identified on the subject properties. On May 21, 1888, Plan 425 was registered under Peter Itter's name, creating a small subdivision from the 100 acres Peter acquired within Lot 3, GCT (Figure 3, Appendix A). Both 234 and 240 Frederick Street are part of the Plan 425 created by Peter Itter. +.3.1 234 i-REDERICK STRLr- Peter Itter sold Lot 3 of Plan 425 to Reuben Bowman on November 23, 1888 (WLRO Instrument 8179). The 1891 Census of Canada identified Reuben as a 37 -year-old Mennonite carpenter married to Louisa living with their children, Beatrice (9), Clayton (7), Dora (5), Edith (3) and Fredie (1) (Schedule 1, District 122, Sub- district A: 39). The census records identify the family living in a two-storey brick dwelling with 12 rooms, which does not refer to the current dwelling on the subject property. Bowman sold the property to husband and wife, Menno and Lydia Bricker on June 29, 1891 (WRLO Instrument 9550). The dwelling was likely constructed for Menno and Lydia Bricker c.1891. The 1891 Census of Canada records were recorded in April 1891, prior to the Bricker family acquiring the property, but the records indicate Menno was 50 years old and worked as a Baggageman. Their children living with them in 1891 included Hannah (22; laundress), Harry (17; dry goods) and Lindy (10; student). On June 5, 1896, Reuben and Lydia Bricker sold the property to Louisa Lehman (WLRO Instrument 12648). On May 1, 1897, the property was sold to Sarah W. Lang (WLRO Instrument 13175) and on May 11, 1906 it was sold to William A. Clarke (WLRO Instrument 20148). On August 24, 1912, the abstract records indicate that the property was sold to Elizabeth Forsyth for $4,200 (WLRO Instrument 28641). Elizabeth's husband John Forsyth had a button business. His son John David (or Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 125 of 224 Derby) Claude Forsyth, who often went by Claude Forsyth, was 18 when he joined his father in the button business and then started his own business, the John Forsyth Shirt Company, making shirts. The Company occupied the corner of Duke and Young Streets across from the current location of Kitchener City Hall. The 1911 Census of Canada records John Forsyth as 60 years old and his wife Elizabeth as 59 -years -old living with their son Claude (26) at 11 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener and his occupation is listed as "Buttons" and John D.C.'s as "Shirts," and both are identified as employers (Schedule 1, District 130, Sub -district 7: 3). The Department of Militia and Defence's 1916 Topographic Map identifies the subject property within a built-up area (Figure 5, Appendix A). Following Elizabeth's death, the property was deeded to John D.C. Forsyth on May 21, 1915 (WLRO Instrument 34208). The 1921 Census of Canada confirms John D.C. and Georgina were living at 234 Frederick Street with their daughters June (4) and Joy (1) (Schedule 1, District 136, Sub -district 28: 14). The 1921 Census of Canada identifies their dwelling was of brick construction with seven rooms. The Department of National Defence's 1929 Topographic Map identifies dwelling footprints on the subject property and on the adjacent properties along Frederick Street and the neighbouring streets (Figure 6, Appendix A). In 1917, the John Forsyth Shirt Company took over the former Star White War Factory building at 31 Young Street in Kitchener and additional factories were located in Waterloo and St. Mary's Ontario. The Forsyth Company produced dress shirts, shirts with detachable collars, pajamas, underwear, scarves and ties. Under Forsyth's management, branch offices were opened across Canada and in Manchester, England. In the mid -1940s it reportedly had the longest sewing room in Canada (KPL Collection, 2019). By 1956, the company employed 600 employees within the Region of Waterloo and by the mid-1960s that had increased to 800 employees (Image 1). John D.C. Forsyth died on June 23, 1948. In 1973, the company was sold to Dylex Ltd. of Toronto and after several subsequent owners the Kitchener plant was closed in 1992 and was demolished in 2006 (KPL Collection, 2019). On April 5, 1966, the property was passed through executors of Forsyth's will to Jane Lovell (WLRO 321094). It was sold on October 30, 1998 to Akeela Elizabeth Carberry (WLRO Instrument 1399670), and to the current owner on July 31, 2015 (WLRO Instrument WR897436). Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 20 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 126 of 224 Image 1: John Forsyth Shirt Company Sewing Room (KPL Collection) 4.3.2 240 FREDERICK STREFT 240 Frederick Street consists of Lots 4 and 5 and Parts of Lots 6 and 7, Plan 425. Peter Itter was the first owner of the residence on this property. Itter and his first wife Susannah married on February 6, 1861 and lived in Galt. They responded to a call for a new Keeper and Matron for the House of Refuge in 1880. Peter and Susannah were appointed the position as the new managers by the end of 1880 (SIRG, 2020). The 1881 Census of Canada records Peter and Susannah as Keepers of the House of Refuge and lists all their employees and the residents of the House of Refuge at the time (Schedule 1, District 168, Sub -district C: 55). The House of Refuge was built by the County of Waterloo in 1867 to adhere to the 1867 Municipal Act that required all municipalities to provide support to residents requiring assistance (SIRG, 2020). When Peter and Susannah became the keepers of the House of Refuge, they tried to make changes to the daily routines of the House. One such change included Peter removing religious services held on weekends without consulting the Standing Committee. He was reprimanded for such actions by the Warden and required to allow religious services to resume pending consultation with the Standing Committee (SIRG, 2020). Susannah died on October 27, 1886 from dropsy (an historic term used to refer to swelling, often caused by edema due to congestive heart failure) (Archives of Ontario, 1886). Peter married Alvina Klem (b.1868) 11 months after Susannah's death (SIRG, 2020). Alvina took over the position of Matron of the House, and it was at this point that physical abuse accusations emerged (SIRG, 2020). Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 127 of 224 CHARGED WITH CRUELTY. Paupers 44 Waterloo County at+(1 Tlselr t} vwporf. Bltlua!r, July 11 --Rumors having Vwets curreut against M. P. Itter, tiro kerper -•f tits ouatity poor house here. the matter was resolved into a complaint laid by A. l3. Me - Wide, a W aterino lawyer, anif taken, up toy a council eommittee. In part it was charged that Itter had cruelly lleatetl, ill treate-1 said ab d several inmates, arnnrsgit others hit A1c�.r tbr, t+cLmulc slit! Usner; (2) that tis& feeble and sick lunirtes were urglecsrd and swot lrrolierly tre ,teal or atteuded t I flat the inmates not aitpvlied with suitable food an,1 lrrnlser cloehing; that Itter has wrongfully awl unlawfully prevented aeyeral inlesatat4, who lied hecntne r:ry strong and healthy, and erre able to rams their ovis living from leaving, besides wher charges. After hroring tits charges rr•. i the cnrnmiltee visite4i the ,poor house mud then adijcluined uutd July LL Image 2: Newspaper Clip (Berlin News July 14,1893; Source: Kitchener Public Library Archives) The 1891 Census of Canada records identify Peter Itter as the House of Refuge Manager living with his second wife Alvina and their daughter May (2), as well as many domestic servants and the residents of the House of Refuge. The Census records identify the family living in a two-storey building with 50 rooms, which indicates that they lived at the House of Refuge (Schedule 1, District 122, Sub -district A: 34). Additional accusations of cruelty and abuse arose and accumulated in what became known as the `Scandal of 1893' (Image 2) (SIRG, 2020). After months of investigation into the allegations, Peter and Alvina were cleared of charges but they were asked to resign as Keeper and Matron of the House effective September 1, 1893. Following their resignation, Peter and Alvina moved out of the House of Industry and Peter began working as a carpenter again. The dwelling on 240 Frederick Street was likely constructed c.1893. The 1897-1899 and 1901-1903 Vernon's Berlin and Waterloo Directories identify Peter Itter residing on Frederick Street between Lancaster Street and Gordon Avenue. On June 6, 1911, Peter Itter sold the subject property to William J. Schmidt (WLRO Instrument 26632). The 1921 Census of Canada recorded on June 16 records William Schmidt as a 49 -year-old dentist living at 240 Frederick Street with his wife Mabel (43) and two children, Morton (12) and Deana (3) (Schedule 1, District 130, Sub -district 4: 3). The Department of Militia and Defence's 1916 Topographic Map identifies the subject property within a built-up area and depicts the footprint of the House of Refuge further east on the south side of Frederick Street (Figure 5, Appendix A). The 1929 and 1938 Topographic Maps identify dwelling footprints on the subject property as well as on the adjacent properties along Frederick Street and the neighbouring streets (Figures 6 and 7, Appendix A). The 1922-1923 City Directory indicates that William Schmidt's dentist office was located at 43 King Street East. The 1954 air photographs of Southern Ontario confirm that the subject properties are occupied by dwellings and the adjacent residential areas are built-up (Figure 8, Appendix A). Following William Schmidt's death in 1969, the property was granted to his son Morton G. Schmidt on July 3, 1973 (WLRO Instrument 501813). Morton G. Schmidt is recorded as a Clerk/Clerical and living with his wife Pauline at 240 Frederick Street in the Canada Voter's lists from 1935 through to 1974. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 128 of 224 On January 11, 1993, the property was sold to Eleanor Elizabeth Wein and Kathryn Laurie Macintosh (WLRO Instrument 1191316). It was then sold to Scott Graham Kibbler and Marilyn Anne Williamson on May 4, 1995 (WLRO Instrument 1253255). It was sold to the current owner on December 16, 2019 (WLRO Instrument WR1232054). Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 23 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 129 of 224 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject properties are located at 234 and 240 Frederick Street, on the north side of Frederick Street, immediately west of Gordon Avenue in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood in the City of Kitchener. The Central Frederick Neighbourhood was identified as a CHL (L-NBR-11) in the 2014 study, City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes prepared by the City of Kitchener and Landplan Collaborative Ltd. The subject properties are surrounded by residential properties, most of which were constructed in the late - nineteenth century, apart from a late -twentieth century 17 -storey residential apartment building, the Acadian Apartments, located on the northeast corner of Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue and a three-storey multi -unit apartment building located directly north of the tower. The houses in the neighbourhood are generally closely spaced and massed in a manner that creates a uniform streetwall, however an orderly sense of individuality is also apparent given the unique detailing of each structure (City of Kitchener, 2014). 239-241 Frederick Street, a heritage property designated under Part IV of the OHA, is situated directly adjacent from the subject property at 240 Frederick Street. The following descriptions of the subject properties are based on a site visit conducted on December 22, 2020, by Lindsay Benjamin, Cultural Heritage Specialist. Access to the entire property, including the interior of the dwelling at 240 Frederick Street was granted, and access to the property and exterior of 234 Frederick Street was provided. Based on discussions with the City of Kitchener's Heritage Planner, this HIA was scoped to only focus on the exterior of 234 Frederick Street as the property is not anticipated to be directly impacted by the proposed development. 5.1 234 FREDERICK STREET The subject property is an approximately 0.18 -acre rectangular property containing a Queen Anne residence that has been converted to office space. The building's fagade is oriented towards Frederick Street and includes a minimal setback. Frederick Street is considered a west -east road, and orientation descriptions will be based on this understanding. An asphalt driveway is located on the west side of the property and extends beyond the west side of the dwelling to a large, paved parking lot that comprises the rear of the lot. :x.1.1 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS The front yard of the subject property consists of a grass boulevard and lawn, one tree and a landscaped garden that surrounds the fagade of the building (Image 3). A concrete walkway leads from the sidewalk north to the front steps and west to the driveway. An additional concrete pathway leads from the sidewalk along the east property line to the entrance in the rear addition. An asphalt driveway is accessed from Frederick Street and travels along the west side of the building to the back of the lot (Image 4). The rear of the property is fenced and consists of a paved parking area with two large trees along the west property boundary (Image 5). A portion of the north side of the fence between 240 and 234 Frederick Street has been removed, providing an opening between the two lots. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 130 of 224 Image 3: View of fagade (south elevation) and front yard landscape features from sidewalk looking north Image 5: View of the rear parking area looking east to 240 Frederick Street 5.1.2 9UILDING Image 4: View of the driveway looking south Oriented towards Frederick Street, the building on the subject property is a two-storey structure with a two - and -a -half storey front gable projection featuring elements reflective of the Queen Anne style (Image 3). The building has a hipped and irregular roofline clad in asphalt shingles with a front facing gable peak including fish scale shingles and lattice work over paired rectangular windows. The wide overhanging eaves include wood soffit and fascia. The structure is built of brick and clad in stucco painted cream and features half- timbering painted white on the upper storey. The foundation course is clad in plaster made to resemble cut - stone blocks. The property is accessed from an enclosed porch addition on the fagade. It appears that the building was originally constructed to a T-shaped plan. A sympathetic two-storey addition with a flat and sloped roof is located on the rear of the dwelling and projects two bays from the north side of the east elevation. The addition is clad in stucco and board and batten. The front porch also appears to have been altered in the past and a portion is enclosed. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 131 of 224 5.1.3 BUILDING EXTERIOR The fagade (south elevation) is three -bays wide, asymmetrically arranged and features a variety of textures and detailing (Image 3). A set of concrete steps with stepped rusticated stone railings lead to the offset front entrance (Images 6 and 7). The rectangular, contemporary, double front doors include a transom and are flanked by a large plate glass window (Image 6). A City of Kitchener Heritage Landmark plaque is affixed to the west of the entrance (Image 8). The entrance is set within an enclosed porch (likely a later alteration) that reflects the Arts and Crafts style with heavy stucco pillars with a top cap supporting overhanging eaves with simple paired brackets (Image 3). The decorative multi -paned windows in the east bay on the main floor reflect the playful configuration of Queen Anne windows (Image 13). Other typical examples are visible in the upper storey, grouped in three within each bay. The windows in the centre and east bay on the main level feature painted rusticated stone sills, and the remainder of the building's windows appear to be wood sills. The west side of the fagade features a projecting bay with rectangular, multi -paned windows topped with four -paned transoms located on each of the three sides on the lower storey (Images 11 and 12). The upper storey of the projecting bay includes simple one -over -one windows topped with paired decorative wood brackets exhibiting a sunburst motif in the corners (Images 9 and 10). Above the bay is a front facing gable peak clad with fish scale shingles and lattice work over paired rectangular windows (Image 9). Another gable with lattice work projects over the hipped roof of the centre bay (Image 3). The roof line features overhanging eaves (Image 10) and the upper storey of the fagade is clad in board and batten. The west elevation (Image 16) includes the two-storey and rear one -and -a -half storey portion of the building. The two-storey section is three bays and includes a varied fenestration with a group of three decorative multipaned windows and transom (Image 17), like the fagade, flanking each side of a projecting, stucco -clad chimney on the lower storey (Image 18). These window openings are segmentally arched. A smaller window is located to the north and also includes a multipaned transom (Image 19). The upper storey features board and batten detailing and one narrow, rectangular multipaned window on the north side of the elevation (Image 18). The yellow brick chimney projects from the roofline in the centre of the elevation. The one -and -a - half storey portion of the west elevation (Image 21) is two bays and includes one narrow, rectangular multipaned window on the main level (Image 20) and a single -pane square window on the upper level (Image 19). The north elevation consists of the one -and -a -half storey portion of the building with a gable peak and return eaves as well as the two-storey rear addition to the east (Image 22). The original portion of the building is bisected by a projecting brick chimney clad in stucco (Image 23). On the upper storey, a rectangular multipaned window flanks the east side of the chimney and a smaller two paned window flanks the west side. It appears that the bottom of this window has been filled in. The main level includes one rectangular multipaned window on the east side of the chimney. The lower portion of this window also appears to have been enclosed. One boarded square window opening is located in the foundation. A small, enclosed basement entrance containing one contemporary door set within a small structure with a gable roof is located on the west side of the elevation (Image 24). The addition has a flat and sloped roof as it connects with the original structure (Image 25) and includes a painted white brick chimney (Image 26). The upper storey features one multipaned window on the east side and a row of six multipaned windows to the west. The main level includes an entrance accessed by a set of wood steps and a grouping of three sets of three multipaned windows. An overhanging eave begins on the west side of the addition at the top of the main level and continues around the east side of the building (Image 30). Vinyl paneling is located beneath the row of windows on the main level. It appears that a crawl space is located below a portion of the addition, which is concealed by a wood planked wall above the foundation. Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 26 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 132 of 224 The east elevation (Image 28) includes the original portion of the building and the rear addition (Image 29), which projects one bay to the east, just enough to accommodate a single entrance. The original portion includes three bays, the first of which includes the Arts & Crafts inspired one -room projection with heavy stucco pillars with a top cap supporting overhanging eaves with brackets (Image 28). This bay includes a set of four decorative multi -paned windows with a rusticated stone sill. The north two bays are symmetrical and include two groups of three decorative multipaned windows topped with transoms on both storeys. The lower level window openings are segmentally arched (Image 32). The addition is accessed by a wood panel door with one large pane behind a storm door reached by a set of wood stairs with a simple wood railing (Image 31). The area below the entrance is clad with wood panels. The addition features board and batten on both storeys and a varied fenestration. One simple, rectangular multipaned window is located in the north side of the lower storey and two multipaned windows of differing orientation are located on each side of the upper storey. 4 " mIRE d ■ Image 6: Detail of front (south) entrance Image 8: Detail of City of Kitchener Heritage Landmark plaque Image 7: Detail of concrete front stairs Image �vDetail of projecting bay on fagade (south elevation) Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener ;ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 27 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 133 of 224 Image 10: Detail of brackets and window in projecting bay on fagade (south elevation) 000 �f 1 Image 12: Detail of main floor multipaned window with transom in projecting bay (south elevation) PV_ Image 14: Detail of plaster foundation course Image 11: Detail of main floor windows in projecting bay (south elevation) Image 13: Detail of entrance and east bay of fagade (south elevation) Image 15: Southwest corner of 234 Frederick Street Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 28 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 134 of 224 Image 16: West elevation of 234 Frederick Street Image 18: Detail of projecting chimney on west elevation v Ii■ Image 20: Detail of multipaned rectangular window on west elevation Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 17: Detail of group of three multipaned windows with transom on west elevation 1 Image 19: Detail of varied fenestration and transition from two-storey to two -and -a -half storey west elevation Image 21: Northwest corner of 234 Frederick Street WSP ebruary 2022 Page 29 Page 135 of 224 01Tin YUI T111'i1,111" L, Image 22: North elevation of 234 Frederick Street PW 1,� 11j: s Image 24: Detail of basement access enclosure on north elevation. Image 26: Detail of brick chimney painted white projecting from roof of addition Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 23: Detail of gable peak and projecting chimney in north elevation. Image 25: Detail of addition on north elevation Image 27: Southeast corner of 234 Frederick Street WSP =ebruary 2022 Page 30 Page 136 of 224 Image 28: East elevation of 234 Frederick Street Image 30: Detail of wide overhanging eaves with wood soffit and fascia on east elevation �- OEMMIM LIM mug U. Image 32: Detail of grouped, decorative multipaned windows with transom on east elevation Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. f`s Image 29: Detail of east elevation of add;*i^^ Image 31: Detail of entrance to rear addition on east elevation Image 33: Detail of south bay featuring Arts & Crafts influences on east elevation WSP =ebruary 2022 Page 31 Page 137 of 224 Image 34: Southeast corner of 234 Frederick Street 5.2 240 FREDERICK STREET The subject property is an approximately 0.47 -acre rectangular property containing a Queen Anne style structure on the south half of the lot and a detached garage and open space on the north half. The building has been converted to office space and is currently vacant. The dwelling is oriented towards, and moderately setback from, Frederick Street on a large lot for the neighbourhood. Located on the northwest corner of Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue, the side yard is also set back from Gordon Avenue. Frederick Street is considered a west -east road, and orientation descriptions will be based on this understanding. An asphalt driveway is located on the east side of the property, accessed from Gordon Avenue, and extends beyond the north side of the dwelling to the detached garage. J. --. I LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS The front (south) and east yard of the subject property consist of a grass boulevard (Image 35) lined with a short, decorative, painted wrought iron fence with quad spear finials and gates (Image 36 and 37). The fence terminates just beyond the north side of the driveway accessed from Gordon Avenue. Beyond the fence a large open manicured lawn surrounds the building in all directions. Coniferous and deciduous trees are spread out along the east (Images 38 and 39) and west sides of the lot (Image 40), and a flag pole is located in the southeast corner (Image 35). A narrow stone walkway leads from the sidewalk on the north side of Frederick Street to the dwelling's front porch (Image 36). An additional walkway leads from the driveway, south to the two-storey veranda on the east elevation. Simple flower beds were observed along the front half of the building's foundation. An asphalt driveway travels east -west behind the building in the rear of the property, leading to a detached two -car garage (Image 41). The rear of the lot has been cleared and graveled save for three mature coniferous trees in the southeast corner and one in the northwest corner (Image 42). A row of cedar hedges lines the north property boundary. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 138 of 224 Image 35: View of the front (south) and east yard from Frederick Street looking north Image 37: Detail of decorative metal fence on east side of the property looking south Image 39: Detail of driveway and coniferous trees looking northwest Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 36: Detail of decorative metal fence gate and stone walkway leading to front entrance Image 38: View of east side yard looking north to rear yard Image 40: View of west side yard looking south to Frederick Street, note deciduous tree WSP ebruary 2022 Page 33 Page 139 of 224 0 Image 41: Detail of driveway looking west to detached two -car garage ti ,9 ? BUILDING Image 42: View of rear yard looking north, note cedar hedges at north property line Oriented towards Frederick Street, the dwelling on the subject property is a two -and -a -half storey structure designed in the Queen Anne style with identical bays projecting from the south, west and east elevations (Image 43). The building has a steeply pitched, irregular roof clad in asphalt shingles with overhanging eaves and a decorative cornice line (Image 44), a front facing gable peak including fish scale shingles and lattice work above paired rectangular windows. The structure is clad in yellow brick painted cream laid in a stretcher bond configuration (Image 45) and includes many decorative wood elements painted brown and white, notably the details of the two verandas. The fenestration of the building is varied and all the windows include painted rusticated stone headers and sills and many include wood or metal storm windows. The dwelling features a foundation of even -coursed, cut -stone blocks with raised mortar joints (Image 46). The primary access is via the covered wraparound veranda on the south elevation. Image 43: View of fagade (south elevation) Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 44: Detail of overhanding eaves and decorative cornice line WSP ;ebruary 2022 Page 34 Page 140 of 224 Image 45: Detail of painted brick cladding, note yellow brick beneath 5.2.3 BUILDING EXTERIOR f �t sem- �,� � - � .. --� ,� • _ - .. a J Image 46: Detail of foundation with even -coursed, cut -stone blocks with raised mortar joints The fagade (south elevation) is three -bays wide, asymmetrically arranged and features a variety of textures and detailing (Image 43). A set of wood steps with painted wood newel posts with a round newel cap and wood railings lead to the offset front entrance (Images 47 to 49). The front door includes a wood storm door in front of a wood panel door (Image 50) containing an intricately hand painted stained-glass window and decorative hardware (Image 51). The entrance is set within a covered wraparound veranda characteristic of the Queen Anne style. The veranda wraps around the southeast side of the building and is supported by turned wood posts (Image 52). It features many decorative elements such as spindlework, brackets and railings painted white and brown (Image 53). The lower level of the porch is clad in wood lattice. Although not accessible from the interior, the upper level of the veranda includes a railing system of turned posts and a decorative frieze (Image 47). The west side of the fagade features a two-storey projecting bay with a large square picture window with a multipaned transom of coloured glass flanked by two rectangular windows with coloured glass transoms on the lower storey (Image 54). The upper storey of the projecting bay includes simple one -over -one windows, with a pair of windows located in the centre of the bay. The corners of the projecting bay are topped with paired decorative wood brackets with a sunburst motif. Above the bay is a prominent, front facing gable peak clad with fish scale shingles and lattice work over paired rectangular windows (Image 55). A small gable window is located on the hipped roof. A large rectangular multipaned window is located to the east of the entrance on the lower storey (Image 50) and a smaller set of paired rectangular windows are located on the upper storey. A paired rectangular window opening is located in the foundation of the projecting bay (Image 56). All the windows include painted rusticated stone headers and sills. The west elevation includes a projecting bay in the centre of the elevation that reflects the decorative detailing and fenestration of the bay on the fagade and east elevation (Image 58). A painted brick chimney extends from the elevation, south of the projecting bay, and is left unpainted, revealing the brown brick construction above the roof line (Image 59). A single -pane rectangular window is located in the foundation between the projecting bay and chimney (Image 62), and two single -pane windows are located in the foundation of the projecting bay. A one -storey, one -room addition projects from the west elevation, north of the projecting bay and includes one small multipaned window on the main level and a door leading to a small porch on the upper level (Image 63). The porch appears to have been recently rebuilt. One main level Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 141 of 224 multipaned window is located north of the small projecting addition, with a foundation window located directly below it. The foundation of the addition appears to be concrete that has been molded to reflect the cut -stone foundation of the rest of the building (Image 65). The north elevation exhibits the least amount of architectural detail as it does not include a projecting bay. This elevation features a gable peak bisected by a projecting painted chimney that is unpainted above the roof line, revealing its brown brick construction (Image 67). Two one -over -one rectangular sash windows flank the chimney on the upper storey and a similar window is located on the east side of the main level. A small brick structure with a flat roof projects from the northeast corner of the elevation and encloses access to the basement via a set of stairs (Images 68 and 69). A square opening with a rusticated stone header and sill in the northwest side of the foundation has been enclosed (Image 70). The two-storey porch extending from the east elevation is visible on the east side of this elevation. The east elevation includes a projecting bay in the centre of the elevation that closely reflects the decorative detailing and fenestration of the bay on the fagade and west elevation (Image 72). A two-storey veranda is located north of the projecting bay (Image 76) and is accessed by a set of wood steps that lead to a porch and wood storm door (Image 79) in front of a painted wood panel door (Image 80). This veranda features decorative elements like those observed on the one -storey wraparound veranda, such as turned wood posts, spindlework, brackets and railings painted white and brown (Image 78). The lower level of the porch is clad in wood lattice and the upper level is enclosed. Eight single -pane windows comprise the east elevation of the veranda, and two make up the north side (Image 77). The upper storey features lattice brackets, spindlework and a decorative frieze. One upper storey, rectangular, multipaned window is located south of the projecting bay (Image 81). Image 47: Detail of front entrance on fagade (south elevation) Image 48: Detail of wraparound verandah on southeast corner of building Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 36 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 142 of 224 Image 49: Detail of decorative, wood front porch steps Image 51: Detail of hand -painted stained glass in front door f.i! � W - 1 Image 53: Detail of painted, wood decorative elements of wraparound verandah Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. i 0 -OW,, -W_ . .-- . _ . Image 50: Detail of wood storm door and wood -panel front door with decorative stained glass Image 52: Detail of wraparound front verandah looking south Image 54: Detail of main floor window in south projecting bay, note multipaned transom with coloured glass WSP =ebruary 2022 Page 37 Page 143 of 224 Yk . Image 55: Detail of gable peak of south projecting bay Image 56: Detail of foundation window in south elevation Image 57: Southwest corner of 240 Frederick Street Image 59: Detail of gable peak and chimney in west projecting bay Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 58: West elevation of 240 Frederick Street 1 - --' ff -MM ,... Vt-r Image 60: Detail of main floor large picture window in west projecting bay WSP =ebruary 2022 Page 38 Page 144 of 224 f Ali or a Image 61: Detail of main floor rectangular window in west projecting bay Image 63: Detail of window in one -storey addition, note recently rebuilt porch above Image 65: Detail of molded concrete foundation of one -storey addition Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. 1 . Image 62: Detail of foundation window in west elevation Image 64: Detail of brackets in west projecting bay Image 66: Northwest corner of 240 Frederick Street WSP ebruary 2022 Page 39 Page 145 of 224 Image 67: North elevation of 240 Frederick Street kY- Image 69: Northeast corner of brick structure providing access to basement 73 6-- Image 71: Northeast corner of 240 Frederick Street Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 68: Northwest corner of brick structure providing access to basement Image 70: Detail of square opening in foundation of north elevation Image 72: East elevation of 240 Frederick Street WSP =ebruary 2022 Page 40 Page 146 of 224 Image 73: Detail of gable peak in east projecting bay Image 75: Detail of main floor large picture window in east projecting bay Image 77: Detail of enclosed upper level of verandah, note eight single -pane windows Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. �► . - - -' iI �2=1 Image 74: Detail of decorative wood brackets in east projecting bay Image 76: Detail of two-storey verandah on the east elevation r �J - — Image 78: Detail of turned wood posts, spindle work and brackets on veranda WSP ebruary 2022 Page 41 Page 147 of 224 ISI *i Image 79: Detail of east entrance, note wood storm door Image 81: Southeast corner of 240 Frederick Street 5.2.4 BUILDING INTERIOR Image 80: Detail of east entrance, note wood panel - door Between 2019 and 2020, improvements have been made to the interior of the building to repair and restore the failing condition of the utilities, walls, ceilings and hardwood floors as well as the kitchens and bathrooms. Missing or severely damaged decorative elements, such as baseboards and the fire place mantel, have been sympathetically recreated. Main Floor The building is accessed through the formal entrance in the east side of the fagade (south elevation). The entrance is composed of a wood panel door containing decorative hardware and an intricately hand painted stained-glass window featuring an image of a young Victorian woman (Image 82). The painted side of the glass has been oriented toward the interior of the house. All the rooms on the main floor feature tall ceilings, lathe and plaster walls, moulded baseboards (Image 83) and window and door casings with decorative circles carved in the corner and base blocks. Portions of the baseboards were replaced with materials modeled after the original material. All the doors are solid wood panel doors. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 148 of 224 The front hallway provides access to a parlour to the west (Image 84), the basement to the north and the enclosed staircase to the upper floor to the east. The main floor is composed of four rooms, a bathroom and a kitchen. The parlour is a large room located in the south projecting bay (Image 85). It features a contemporary fire place added over the original fire box opening (the original fire place mantel was removed by the previous owner) (Image 89), and a large picture window (Image 86) flanked by two sash windows with multipaned transoms of coloured glass on the south wall (Image 87). A metal hot water radiator is located below the picture window (Image 88). The flooring is composed of thin planked hardwood laid following the angles of the room on the edges and horizontally at the centre (Image 90). The wood window and door casings and baseboards in the parlour are not painted. A large opening in the north wall leads to another room located in the west projecting bay (Image 91). The layout of this room is very similar to the parlour aside from the fireplace (Images 92 to 95). The east wall was repaired and replaced with drywall (Image 94). A doorway in the west side of the north wall leads to a small galley kitchen (Images 96 and 97), and a door on the east side leads to another room, as does a door on the east wall. The kitchen has been replaced with contemporary material (Image 98) and features a square multipaned window over the sink on the west wall (Image 99). The southernmost room on the main floor is large and carpeted (Images 100 and 102) with access to a recently renovated bathroom in the northwest corner (Image 101). Portions of the baseboards in this room have been replaced with new material reflective of the building's original baseboards (Image 103). The window and door casings are much simpler and do not include decorative corner or base blocks. An exterior solid wood panel door (Image 104) with brass hardware (Image 105) is located in the east wall and provides access to the main level of the two-storey porch. A tall, built-in wood cabinet is located in the southeast corner of this room beside the exterior entrance. The room located in the east projecting bay is similar to the rooms in the other bays, however this room is carpeted and includes doorways in the northwest corner of the room (Images 106 and 107). Image 82: View of front hall entrance, with staircase to upper floor (L) and parlour (R) Image 83: Detail of moulded baseboards and door casings in front hallway Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 43 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 149 of 224 Image 84: View to front entrance from parlour Image 86: Detail of picture window with multipaned transom with coloured glass Image 88: Detail of hot water radiator below picture window Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 85: View to projecting bay in parlour, looking south Image 87: Detail of sash window with multipaned transom with coloured glass Image 89: Detail of contemporary fireplace, note it was being installed during site visit WSP ebruary 2022 Page 44 Page 150 of 224 Image 90: Detail of pattern of thin planked hardwood floor in parlor Image 92: View to west projecting bay, looking west Image 94: View to large room in west projecting bay, looking east Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 91: View to large room in west projecting bay from parlour Image 93: Detail of picture window with multipaned transom with coloured glass in west projecting bay Image 95: Detail of pattern of thin planked hardwood floor in parlor WSP ebruary 2022 Page 45 Page 151 of 224 Image 96: Detail of wood panel door that leads to kitchen Image 98: View to contemporary kitchen, looking north Image 97: View of room in west projecting bay and entrance to kitchen Image 99: Detail of multipaned sash window in kitchen, looking west Image 100: View to rooms in east and west projecting bays from rear room Image 101: View of contemporary bathroom, looking northeast Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 46 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 152 of 224 Image 102: View of rear room, looking northeast Image 104: View of rear doorway, built-in storage cabinet and doorway to large room in east projecting bay Image 106: View of large room in east projecting bay, looking southeast Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 103: Detail of replacement moulded wood baseboards in rear room Image 105: Detail of rear door hardware Image 107: View of large room in east projecting bay, looking northwest WSP =ebruary 2022 Page 47 Page 153 of 224 Second Floor The second floor is accessed via a narrow, enclosed staircase with one window on the main floor (Image 109) and another at the second floor (Image 110), and tall ceilings that curve 90 degrees at the half -landing (Image 108). It features a simple wood railing affixed to the wall and wood wall stringers that curve with the rise and arch of the staircase. The stairs lead to a central hallway that provides access to three rooms and a closet (Images 111 and 112). Like the main floor, the second floor features tall ceilings and lathe and plaster walls. The solid wood panel doors, wide wood baseboards (Image 113) and window and door casings with decorative circles carved in the corner and base blocks have not been painted (Image 114). The first room accessed from the central hallway is a recently renovated contemporary galley kitchen located in the southeast corner of the second floor (Images 115 and 116). One casement window is located in the south wall of the kitchen and features lites organized in a diamond pattern (Image 117). The room to the west is in the south projecting bay and includes a pair of sash windows flanked by two similar windows on the south wall (Images 118 and 119). This room is carpeted with a decorative hot water heater beneath the window (Image 120). A small hallway located beyond an arched doorway contains built-in wood cabinets on both sides and provides access to the large room in the west projecting bay (Images 121 and 122). The room in the west projecting bay includes thin planked hardwood and a simple hot water heater located below the windows, which resemble those in the south projecting bay (Images 123 to 126). The north side of the second floor includes a carpeted hallway (Images 127 and 129) that provides access to a contemporary bathroom (Image 130), a closet, a smaller room with a window on the north wall (Images 131 and 132), and a larger room in the east projecting bay (Images 134 to 136), the attic access (Image 133), and a doorway to the enclosed porch on the east side of the building (Image 137). An additional narrow hallway on the west side of the floor leads to an exterior door and small balcony that has been recently repaired with contemporary material, as well as a closet (Image 128). All the rooms on the north side of the floor are carpeted and contain sash windows. The enclosed porch is accessed via an interior wood panel door with a large pane of glass (Image 137) and decorative metal hardware (Image 138), and an exterior decorative wood storm door with wood detailing. A rusticated stone lintel is located above the door on the exterior (Image 141) and the yellow brick cladding is exposed on the walls of the porch (Images 139 and 140). The ceiling is of thin wood boards that have been painted, and the east and north walls are composed of casement windows. k Image 108: Detail of staircase leading to second floor Image 109: Detail of sash window with multipaned Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 48 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 154 of 224 Image 110: Detail of sash window with multipaned coloured glass above half landing in staircase Image 112: Detail of second floor hallway, looking northwest Image 114: Detail of wood door casing with decorative circle carved in corner block Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. coloured glass on main floor of staircase Image 111: View from staircase half -landing to second floor hallway Image 113: Detail of moulded wood baseboards and door casings, note they are unpainted Image 115: View of contemporary kitchen, looking east WSP February 2022 Page 49 Page 155 of 224 Image 116: View of contemporary kitchen, looking west Image 118: View of room in south projecting bay, looking northeast to kitchen Image 120: Detail of decorative hot water heater below window in south projecting bay Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 117: Detail of casement window in kitchen Image 119: View of south projecting bay, looking south Image 121: View to arched hallway between rooms in south and west projecting bays WSP ebruary 2022 Page 50 Page 156 of 224 Image 122: Detail of built-in cabinets in hallway between south and west projecting bays Image 124: View room in west projecting bay, looking west Image 126: View of room in west projecting bay, looking east Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 123: View to hallway from room in west projecting bay, looking south Image 125: Detail of hot water heater below windows in west projecting bay Image 127: View of rear, second floor hallway, looking west WSP =ebruary 2022 Page 51 Page 157 of 224 Image 128: Detail of wood panel exterior door to balcony on west elevation Image 129: View to closet, bathroom and rear room from hallway, looking north Image 130: View of contemporary bathroom, looking north Image 131: View of rear room, looking northeast Image 132: View of rear room, looking southwest Image 133: View of rear hallway, looking southeast Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 52 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 158 of 224 Image 134: View of room in east projecting bay, looking southeast Image 136: View of room in east projecting bay, looking northwest rt� Image 138: Detail of decorative hardware on screen door to enclosed porch Image 135: Detail of decorative hot water heater below windows in east projecting bay Image 137: View of exterior doors to enclosed porch, looking east r Image 139: View of enclosed porch, looking south Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 53 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 159 of 224 Image 140: View of enclosed porch, looking north Image 141: Detail of rusticated stone lintel above door in enclosed porch Attic The attic, composed of four rooms, is accessed from the hallway on the second floor via a steep, enclosed, carpeted staircase (Image 142). The baseboards and window and door casings are simpler in the attic than in the rest of the house (Image 150). All the ceilings are vaulted and the floors carpeted. The staircase leads to a large open room (Image 143), which features a gable window in the south wall (Image 146), and doorways to the other three rooms (Image 144). A metal hot water heater is located along the west wall between two doorways (Image 145) and a recessed wood shelf is located on the east wall. The other three rooms are located at the top of the south (Images 147 and 149), west (Images 151 and 152), and east projecting bays and include windows with wood sills in the three -sided walls. Each room also contains a closet. A crawlspace access is located in the north wall of the room in the west projecting bay (Image 153). The machine cut wood roof trusses and brick of the north wall's gable peak are visible within the unfinished crawlspace (Images 154 and 155). Image 142: View of attic staircase, looking down to second floor access Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 143: View of large open attic room accessed from staircase WSP =ebruary 2022 Page 54 Page 160 of 224 Image 144: View of doorways to rooms on west side of attic Image 146: Detail of gable window in south wall of central attic room r Image 145: Detail of hot water heater in attic Image 147: View of room in southwest corner of attic, looking northeast Image 148: View of room in southwest corner of attic, Image 149: Detail of paired windows in vaulted ceiling looking southwest of southwest attic room Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. WSP =ebruary 2022 Page 55 Page 161 of 224 i Image 150: Detail of simple wood baseboard and door casing in attic Image 151: View of room in northwest corner of attic, looking east Image 152: View of room in northwest corner of attic, Image 153: Detail of crawl space access in northwest looking west room of attic Image 154: View of north portion of attic, looking north Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 155: Detail of wood roof trusses in attic, looking northeast WSP ebruary 2022 Page 56 Page 162 of 224 Basement The basement is accessed via a set of wood stairs with a half -landing immediately opposite the front door (Images 156 and 157). The thick masonry walls in the basement have been plastered and lime washed and portions reveal a fieldstone foundation beneath (Image 158). The subfloor and machine cut floorjoists are visible above (Image 159), and the interior walls appear to be constructed of brick (Image 160). The floor is of poured concrete. The basement is composed of four rooms, the first of which, located in the south projecting bay, includes two single -pane windows in the foundation and houses the building's updated utilities (Images 162 and 163). The room immediately to the north is located in the west projecting bay and also includes two single -pane windows in the foundation (Image 164). This room features built-in wood shelves and wood plank doors on the doorways leading to the rooms to the north and south (Image 165). The room in the northwest corner of the basement appears to have once housed the furnace and oil tank (Images 166 to 168). There is evidence that a coal chute was located in the west side of the north wall. A single -pane window is located in the west wall (Image 167). A doorway in the east side of the north wall provides access to a set of wood stairs that lead to the exterior via a wood plank door (Images 169 and 170). The ceiling in this enclosure is of wood boards and the walls are concrete (Image 171). The room on the east side of the basement is located in the east projecting bay and includes two single -pane windows in the foundation (Images 172 and 173). Doorways are located on the north and south walls with a built-in wood cabinet located on the west wall between them. Image 156: View of basement stairs from main floor Image 158: Detail of masonry walls in basement Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 157: View of stairs from basement Image 159: Detail of subfloor and machine cut floor joists WSP February 2022 Page 57 Page 163 of 224 Image 160: Detail of open section of interior basement wall, note brick construction Image 162: View of basement room below south projecting bay, looking south s-4 Image 164: View of room in middle of west side of basement, looking northeast Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 161: View from staircase access, looking north across east side of basement Image 163: View of basement room below south projecting bay, looking north 4. h f, Image 165: Detail of basement door constructed of wood boards WSP February 2022 Page 58 Page 164 of 224 Image 166: View of room in northwest corner of basement, looking southwest Image 168: View of room in northwest corner of basement, looking north Image 170: Detail of exterior door used to access basement from north elevation, looking north Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 167: Detail of single -pane window in northwest corner of basement, looking west Image 169: Detail of enclosed staircase access to rear of building, looking north Image 171: Detail of wood board ceiling in enclosed rear staircase access WSP ebruary 2022 Page 59 Page 165 of 224 Image 172: View of basement room below east projecting bay, looking west 5.2.5 r)ETACHED GARAGE Image 173: View of basement room below east projecting bay, looking northeast A detached two -car garage is located in the centre of the west side of the subject property, accessed via an asphalt driveway from Gordon Avenue (Image 174). It is a single storey, hip roofed structure with asphalt shingles and overhanging eaves clad in pebbledash and wood board and batten painted brown. The garage is set upon a concrete pad with concrete footings. The front (east) elevation includes two garage doors composed of three wood panels, each with three -over -three windows (Image 175). The south elevation includes a wood panel door on the east side of the wall (Image 176). The north and east elevations are blank and a stainless-steel stove pipe projects from the northwest corner of the roof (Image 177). The interior of the garage was not accessible during the site visit, and thus, was not documented. Image 174: View to garage and driveway looking west Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Image 175: View of east elevation of garage WSP ebruary 2022 Page 60 Page 166 of 224 Image 176: View of south elevation of garage Image 177: View of north elevation of garage 5.3 CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF 240 FREDERICK STREET The original dwelling on the subject property was constructed c.1893 and it appears that its exterior has been little altered, aside from a small, bricked, one -room addition projecting from the north side of the west elevation. No other significant additions or interventions were observed. Given the design and construction material of the garage, it does not appear to be original to the property or date to the same era as the original dwelling. A building permit was not located to confirm the construction date of the garage or addition, and the 1908 Fire Insurance Plans for Kitchener do not extend to the subject properties. Given the design of the garage, it is estimated to have been constructed around the mid -nineteenth century. 5 a STUDY AREA CONTEXT Located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL along Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue, the subject properties are surrounded by low-density residential properties to the south, west and north, most of which were constructed in the late -nineteenth century. The dwellings along Frederick Street generally consist of two-storey houses converted to commercial uses constructed using a variety of materials including brick (yellow and brown) and stucco (Images 178 to 180). They reflect styles typical of the late nineteenth century, with notable examples of finely detailed Queen Anne and Arts and Crafts architecture. One Part IV designated property, 239-241 Frederick Street (Pequegnat House), is located directly across the street from 240 Frederick Street (Image 181). The heritage attributes identified to contribute to the CHVI of the property as per Designation By -Law 90-126 include all building elevations, the roofline and interior elements (City of Kitchener, 1990). A high-density, 17 -storey apartment building, the Acadian Apartments, is located immediately east of the subject properties at the corner of Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue (Image 182). The dwellings along Gordon Avenue generally consist of two-storey houses constructed of brick (yellow and red) and reflect styles typical of the late nineteenth century, primarily Berlin Vernacular architecture (Images 183 to 185). To the north of the subject property, two-storey brick (yellow and red) residences reflective of the Queen Anne style are observed fronting Clarence Place (Images 186 and 187). Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 167 of 224 Image 178: View of Frederick Avenue streetscape, looking west toward subject properties Image 180: View of Frederick Avenue streetscape, looking west toward Pequegnat Avenue Image 182: View of 17 -storey apartment building located immediately east of subject properties EM Image 179: View of Frederick Avenue streetscape, looking west beyond subject properties Image 181: View of 239-241 Frederick Street, located directly across from subject properties Image 183: View down Gordon Avenue streetscape from Frederick Street, looking north Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 62 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 168 of 224 Image 184: View down Gordon Avenue streetscape from Frederick Street, looking south toward subject properties Image 186: View of Clarence Place streetscape, looking west from Gordon Avenue 5.5 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 5.5.1 QUEEN ANNE Image 185: Detailed view to subject property from Gordon Avenue, looking south Image 187: Detailed view to subject properties from Clarence Place The structures on both subject properties were constructed in the Queen Anne architectural style. The style is believed to have been created by R.N. Shaw in England and spread across Canada via American architectural magazines (Fram, 2003:27). Largely based on rural, rustic Elizabethan and Jacobean forms, the style included some Classical motifs in vogue during Queen Anne's reign from 1702-14 (Fram, 2003:27). This style is also tied to the Arts & Crafts movement, reflecting similar design inspiration, which was "to build according to medieval building principles to return to neighbourhoods and towns that had craftsmanship and community at their hearts" (Kyles, 2016). Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 63 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 169 of 224 The Queen Anne style dates to the late Victorian era, first being constructed in the 1870s and becoming most popular between 1890 and 1914 (Parks Canada, n.d.; Kyles, 2016). Like many of the larger residential styles prominent during the final decades of the nineteenth century, the Queen Anne style was fueled by the wealthy upper -middle classes in Canada (Kyles, 2016). The generally large homes were designed to impress, including many rooms and ornate living areas (Kyles, 2016). Primarily a residential style, builders of Queen Anne style structures generally focused on asymmetrical facades, steeply -pitched and irregular rooflines, front -facing gables, overhanging eaves, circular or square towers with turrets in corners, unusual windows, wraparound verandas, highly ornamented spindles, fish scale siding, detailed textures and bright colours (Parks Canada, n.d.; Fram, 2003:27). The style can be challenging to define due to its eccentricities and has been described as "...exuberant and excessive, fanciful and flamboyant..." (Parks Canada, n.d.). The Queen Anne style represented a movement away from the sober classical decoration of earlier eras, introducing more flexible natural designs like sunbursts and flower patterns (Parks Canada, n.d.). Houses in this style were often painted vibrant colours or included richly hued brickwork to emphasize the ornate details and textures (Parks Canada, n.d.). Fittingly, the style has been referred to as "painted ladies" due to their use of colour and "lacy details" (Kyles, 2016). The Queen Anne style is seen in Ontario's large -lot suburban and small-town settings, notably in wood -clad versions. However, large numbers of narrow -lot versions in terra cotta, masonry and wood were built in Toronto, London and other cities (Fram, 2003:27). Queen Anne style houses are commonly found in the City of Kitchener, with a concentration observed in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood, notably on Frederick Street, Clarence Place and Ahrens Street West. A comparative analysis of examples of the style are found in Section 5.6 that follows. 5.6 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized heritage properties in the City of Kitchener, and to determine if the subject property at 240 Frederick Street "is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method" as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Comparative examples were drawn from Part IV designated properties within the City of Kitchener. Residential dwellings were selected from this data set, with a preference for buildings of similar age, style, typology and material. Five comparable designated properties were identified within the City of Kitchener (see Table 1 below). This analysis does not represent all available properties, but the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. A comparative analysis was not completed for 234 Frederick Street as the property's CHVI has been confirmed through its designation under Part IV of the OHA. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 170 of 224 Table 1: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of similar age, style and/or typology to 240 Frederick Street Address Recognition Picture Age Material Style 234 Part IV 1891 Stucco Queen Anne influences; irregular - Frederick Designated plan; asymmetrical fagade; two - Street storey; two storey bay projection; 14"1 half-timbering of upper storey; multi -pitched roof with front -facing gable peak with decorative lattice - = detail and paired window, overhanging eaves; ornate wood - brackets; tall rectangular window openings; windows with small - paned decorative ornamentation; front door with transom. 239-241 Part IV c.1890 Stucco Queen Anne; irregular -plan; Frederick Designated over asymmetrical fagade; two -and -a - Street yellow half -storeys; two storey bay brick projection; hip roof with front - facing gable peak with sunburst and paired window; overhanging eaves; wood brackets; tall rectangular window openings. Part IV s. 1889-90 Yellow Queen Anne; irregular -plan; 37 Ahrens Street Designated; brick asymmetrical fagade; two -and -a - West Part V half -storeys; two storey bay Designated projection; hip roof with front - (Civic Centre r_ facing gable peak with fish scale Neighbourhood shingles and paired window; Heritage overhanging eaves; decorative Conservation cornice line; wood brackets; tall District) rectangular window openings; decorative brick work; two storey wraparound verandah with spindlework. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. WSP February 2022 Page 65 Page 171 of 224 41 Ahrens Part IV c.1890 Stucco Queen Anne; irregular -plan; Street Designated; asymmetrical fagade; two -and -a - West Part V half -storeys; two storey bay Designated projection; hip roof with front - (Civic Centre facing gable peak with fish scale Neighbourhood shingles, lattice detail and paired Heritage window; overhanging eaves; Conservation wood brackets; tall rectangular District) " window openings; large -paned windows with smaller decorative panes; two-storey verandah with spindlework. 176 Part IV c.1890 Yellow Queen Anne; irregular -plan - Victoria Designated brick asymmetrical fagade; two - Street storeys; two storey bay North projection; hip roof with steep front -facing gable peak with round - headed windows and brick drop .� moulds; overhanging eaves; wood brackets; tall rectangular window openings. Of these examples, the following architectural elements characteristic of the Queen Anne style were observed: • Type: All five are residential examples of the Queen Anne style. • Plan: All five examples are built to an irregular plan. • Height: Each example is two or two -and -a -half storeys. • Roof: All examples have multi -pitched and hipped roof lines with multiple gables, including a large front facing gable with decorative detailing. Four of the examples include paired rectangular windows in the front -facing gable peak. All include overhanging eaves. • Cladding: Three examples are constructed of yellow -brick, and two have a stucco exterior. As is the case of one example, it is likely that brick (yellow or red) exists beneath the stucco cladding. • Facade: All examples have asymmetrical facades. • Verandas: Two examples include verandas with decorative spindlework, one of which wraps around the house. • Decorative Elements: Each example exhibits decorative elements such as brackets, wood lattice work, fish scale shingles, sunbursts, brickwork and/or wood spindlework. • Windows: All examples include a variety of window types and sizes, three of which include large panes with smaller panes organized in decorative patterns. Four include rectangular window Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 172 of 224 openings, one features segmentally arched window openings, and one includes round headed window openings. Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public right-of-way, it appears that all fives examples have undergone alterations. Four have seen their verandas enclosed, four examples have a rear addition and one has a side addition. This comparative analysis suggests that the residence at 240 Frederick Street demonstrates representative elements of the Queen Anne style including: the two -and -a -half storey height, irregular plan; asymmetrical fagade; two-storey bay projection; hip roof with front -facing gable peak with fish scale shingles and lattice detail above the paired window; overhanging eaves; wood brackets; tall rectangular window openings and windows with small -paned detail; two-storey, wraparound verandah with decorative spindlework. Constructed c.1893, the house is not an early example of the Queen Anne style of architecture, which can date from the 1870s. Lastly, as there are at least five examples of Queen Anne dwellings designated under Part IV and/or Part V of the OHA and numerous properties included on the Municipal Register, this is not considered to be a rare or unique example. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each structure from the public right-of-way. As such, the O. Reg. 9/06 evaluation (see Section 7) has not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 67 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 173 of 224 6 CONSULTATION 6.1 CITY OF KITCHENER The City of Kitchener's Heritage Planner, Victoria Grohn, was contacted via teleconference on November 24, 2020 to inquire about heritage interests related to the subject properties and to confirm the scope of the HIA. Ms. Grohn confirmed the scope of the HIA as outlined in the Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment— Terms of Reference included within the Record of Consultation for the Pre -Submission Consultation Meeting held on April 7, 2020. She indicated that 240 Frederick Street is currently included on the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register as a listed, non -designated property of CHVI and 234 Frederick Street is designated under Part IV of the OHA. She also noted that 239-241 Frederick Street, a heritage property designated under Part IV of the OHA, is situated adjacent to the subject property at 240 Frederick Street. Ms. Grohn indicated that the subject properties are contained within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL (L-NBR-11), which was identified in the 2014 study, City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Within the Record of Consultation, Ms. Grohn included the Statement of Significance prepared for 240 Frederick Street in support of its listing on the Municipal Heritage Register, as well as Designation By -Law 90-162 for 234 Frederick Street. Following Ms. Grohn's review of the March 4, 2021 draft of this HIA submitted to the City of Kitchener, a follow-up teleconference was held on October 19, 2021 to discuss her comments on the draft report. Notably, the preferred approach for incorporating the revised plans for the development into the report were discussed as the proponent had proactively adopted the draft HIAs recommendation to explore increasing the separation distance between 240 Frederick Street and the development by moving the proposed structure further north on the lot. It was determined that this proactive refinement to the site plan would be best described through revisions to Section 9 of this HIA. 6.2 rEDEfLAND PROVINCIAL REVIEW The MHSTCI's list of Heritage Conservation Districts was reviewed and the study area was not found to be located within a designated district (MHSTCI, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database was searched, as was the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. The subject properties are not commemorated with an OHT plaque nor recognized with a federal heritage designation. It also does not appear that the subject properties are subject to an OHT conservation easement. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 174 of 224 7 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION The property at 234 Frederick Street has been designated under Part IV of the OHA, as such a cultural heritage evaluation according to O. Reg. 9/06 is not necessary. However, as the property was designated in 1990, prior to amendments to the OHA in 2005 detailing the requirements of a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, an updated statement and heritage attributes list is included in the following section. As documentation of the interior of the building was not included in the scope of this HIA, no interior heritage attributes are noted. The property at 240 Frederick Street is not municipally designated under the OHA; however, it is listed on the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register as a non -designated property of CHVI. As such, an evaluation will be completed to confirm and update its CHVI in Section 7.2. The description of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL, evaluated significance, and heritage attributes extracted from the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes study are included in Section 7.5. 7.1 UPDATED STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST FOR 234 FREDERICK STREET 7.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PLACE 234 Frederick Street is a two-storey brick structure clad in stucco built c.1891 in the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.18 -acre parcel of land located on the north side of Frederick Street in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the building. 7.1.2 HERITAGE VALUL 234 Frederick Street is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. The design value relates to the architecture of the structure, which reflects the Queen Anne style with Arts and Crafts elements. The building is typical of the middle-class houses erected on Frederick Street, east of Lancaster Street East, during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. Characteristic of the Queen Anne style, the building is two -storeys in height and features an asymmetrical fagade, steeply pitched irregular roof with overhanging eaves, a prominent gable facing Frederick Street, varied fenestration and detailed textures and decorative elements like wood brackets and fish scale shingles. The Arts and Crafts style is tied to the Queen Anne architectural tradition, reflecting similar design inspiration exemplified in the structure through the heavy stucco porch pillars, rusticated stone window sills and board and batten cladding of the upper storey and rear addition. The residence at 234 Frederick Street was built c.1891 for Menno Bricker and was later purchased by Elizabeth and John Forsyth as a family home in 1912. John Forsyth was in the button business and his son, John D.C. Forsyth, after learning the business from his father, became the founder of the Forsyth Shirt Company. The Forsyth Company produced dress shirts, shirts with detachable collars, pajamas, underwear, scarves and ties. Under Forsyth's management, branch offices were opened locally, across Canada and in Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 175 of 224 Manchester, England. In the mid -1940s the company reportedly had the longest sewing room in Canada. John D.C. Forsyth made a significant contribution to the social and economic development of Berlin (now Kitchener) through his business and work with various local boards and associations. After the death of his mother Elizabeth, the property was deeded to John D.C. where he resided until his death in 1948. The Forsyth family continued to reside on the property until 1966. The property's contextual value relates to the contribution the structure makes to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street streetscape, as well as the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, which are comprised largely of architectural styles typical of the late nineteenth century, with notable examples of finely detailed Queen Anne and Arts and Crafts residences. The development of 234 Frederick Street corresponds to the development of Kitchener during the explosive growth of industry in the late -nineteenth and early -twentieth centuries. 7.1.3 LIST OF HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES The cultural heritage attributes that reflect the CHVI of 234 Frederick Street include: - All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including: o Two-storey height and massing, including two-storey projecting bay on west side of fagade (south elevation); o Asymmetrical fagade; o Steeply pitched irregular roof with overhanging eaves and gable facing Frederick Street featuring fish scale shingles and lattice detail over paired rectangular windows opening; o Brick chimney on the west and north elevations of the original portion of the structure; o Wood brackets with sunburst motif; o Windows and window openings, including multipaned windows with transoms and other multipaned windows; o Rusticated stone sills; o Door openings; and o Faux rusticated stone foundation. - All elements related to the Arts and Crafts architectural style of the house, including: o One -storey enclosed front porch on the fagade (south elevation) featuring heavy stucco pillars with top cap, overhanging eaves, simple paired brackets and multipaned windows; and o Board and batten cladding on the upper storey. - All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the building on the property and its contribution to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street streetscape. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 176 of 224 7.2 EVALUATION OF 240 FREDERICK STREET USING ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 O. Reg. 9/06 provides criteria for determining whether a property has CHVI. If a property meets one or more of the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06, a property is eligible for designation under the OHA. This evaluation was informed by the Statement of Significance prepared for the property by the City of Kitchener in 2013. Table 2: Evaluation of 240 Frederick Street as ►ger O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria CRITERIA O. REG. 9/06 CRITERIA MET (Y/N) JUSTIFICATION 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or Y 240 Frederick Street contains a representative example of a early example of a style, type, Queen Anne residence built c.1893. Although not an early expression, material, or construction structure continues to display a high -degree of craftsmanship. example of the style, the subject property was built in the first method, technical or scientific achievement. decades of the application of the Queen Anne style to home techniques common to its time. design in Ontario. In accordance with the findings of the i. has direct associations with a I Y 1240 Frederick Street is associated with Peter and Alvina Itter, comparative analysis in Section 5.6, the building demonstrates elements of the Queen Anne style in its asymmetrical fagade with detailed textures and intricate painting, two -and -a -half storey height, steeply pitched irregular roofline, front facing gable with fish scale shingles, highly decorated wraparound veranda and varied fenestration. As such, 240 Frederick Street is considered a representative example of Queen Anne architecture in the City of Kitchener. ii. displays a high degree of Y The structure at 240 Frederick Street has been well -conserved craftsmanship or artistic merit, or and little altered since it was first constructed c.1893. It appears that most decorative elements, such as the woodwork, veranda and windows, remain intact. The maintained integrity of the structure continues to display a high -degree of craftsmanship. iii. demonstrates a high degree of N The structure does not display a high -degree of technical or technical or scientific achievement. scientific achievement. The building displays construction techniques common to its time. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a I Y 1240 Frederick Street is associated with Peter and Alvina Itter, theme, event, belief, person, activity, who built the dwelling c.1893 on approximately 4.2 acres of land organization or institution that is purchased from the Waterloo County House of Industry and significant to a community, Refuge. Between 1880 and 1893, Peter, joined by Alvina in 1887, managed the House of Refuge, one of the first institutions built, financed and governed by Waterloo County and one of the first municipally funded poorhouses in Ontario to admit an inmate. Shortly after Alvina joined Peter in managing the House, physical abuse allegations began to be reported, ultimately resulting in a scandal in 1893 in which Peter and Alvina were investigated by the Standing Committee of the House for charges against them made by inmates, staff members and locals. Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Pane 71 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 177 of 224 Allegations included neglect and abuse in some cases resulting in the death of inmates. Peter and Alvina were asked to resign as the Keeper and Matron of the House on September 1, 1893. Following their resignation, Peter returned to work as a carpenter, his previous occupation. By 1911, he began to build houses on Frederick Street, Gordon Avenue, Irvin Street and Clarence Place. Peter had two streets in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood named after his sons, Gordon (Avenue) and Irvin (Street), both of whom passed away as children. Although 240 Frederick Street is directly associated with the House of Refuge, an institution significant to the community, and Peter and Alvina Itter, individuals that impacted the community, the association is negative and reflects historic harms committed against the well-being and lives of individuals under the care of the County of Waterloo in the late -nineteenth century. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield N The subject property does not yield information that contributes information that contributes to an to the understanding of a community orculture. understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work N It is likely that that dwelling on the subject property was or ideas of an architect, artist, constructed by Peter Itter, however this was could not be builder, designer or theorist who is confirmed through the historic research compiled. As such, the significant to a community. property cannot be confirmed to be attributed to any architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist significant to the community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, Y 240 Frederick Street is important in defining, maintaining and maintaining or supporting the supporting the character of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood, character of an area, which is largely comprised of late -nineteenth century low-density residences. The property contributes to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes, which are characterized by architectural styles typical of the late -nineteenth century, with notable examples of finely detailed Queen Anne and Arts and Crafts architecture as well as Berlin Vernacular residences. The development of 240 Frederick Street corresponds to the development of Kitchener during the explosive growth of industry in the late -nineteenth and early -twentieth centuries. The setting is noteworthy as the house is located on an open corner lot uniquely large for the neighbourhood. ii. is physically, functionally, visually Y The subject property is physically, visually and historically linked or historically linked to its to its surroundings as it has undergone little alteration and surroundings, or continues to contribute visually to the historic streetscape along Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue. iii. is a landmark. N The subject property has not been identified as a local landmark, nor is it known to be a destination or used as a navigation point such that it might be considered a landmark. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 178 of 224 7.3 RESULTS OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION Based on the evaluation of the property at 240 Frederick Street against the criteria outlined in O. Reg. 9/06, the subject property has been confirmed to possess CHVI. As such, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest has been provided that updates the Statement of Significance prepared for the property by the City of Kitchener in 2013. Following this evaluation and a review of the interior of the building, no interior heritage attributes were noted. 7.4 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST FOR 240 FREDERICK STREET 7.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PLACE 240 Frederick Street is a two -and -a -half storey brick house built c.1893 in the Queen Anne architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.47 -acre parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Gordon Avenue and Frederick Street in the Central Frederick Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. 7,4.2 HERITAGE VALUE 240 Frederick Street is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values The design value relates to the architecture of the house as a representative example of the Queen Anne style. The building is typical of the middle-class brick houses erected on Frederick Street, east of Lancaster Street East, during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. Characteristic of the Queen Anne style, the building is two -and -a -half storeys in height and features an asymmetrical fagade, steeply pitched irregular roof with overhanging eaves, a prominent gable facing Frederick Street, an elaborately decorated single - storey wraparound veranda as well as a two-storey veranda, varied fenestration and decorative elements like wood brackets, fish scale shingles, spindlework, frieze and multicoloured glass. To emphasize the ornate detailed textures of the residence, as is common of the style, all decorative elements have been intricately painted. 240 Frederick Street is associated with Peter and Alvina Itter, who built the dwelling c.1893 on land purchased from the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge. Between 1880 and 1893, Peter, joined by Alvina in 1887, managed the House of Refuge, one of the first institutions built, financed and governed by Waterloo County and one of the first municipally funded poorhouses in Ontario to admit an inmate. Shortly after Alvina joined Peter in managing the House, physical abuse allegations were reported, ultimately resulting in a scandal in 1893 in which Peter and Alvina were investigated by the Standing Committee of the House for charges against them made by inmates, staff members and locals. Allegations included neglect and abuse in some cases resulting in the death of inmates. Peter and Alvina were asked to resign as the Keeper and Matron of the House on September 1, 1893. Following their resignation, Peter returned to work as a carpenter, his previous occupation. By 1911, he began to build houses on Frederick Street, Gordon Avenue, Irvin Street and Clarence Place. Peter had two streets in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood named after his sons, Gordon (Avenue) and Irvin (Street), both of whom passed away as children. Although Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 179 of 224 240 Frederick Street is directly associated with the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge, an institution significant to the community, and Peter and Alvina Itter, individuals that impacted the community, the association is negative and reflects historic harms committed against the well-being and lives of individuals under the care of the County of Waterloo in the late -nineteenth century. The property's contextual value relates to the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes, as well as the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, which are comprised largely of architectural styles typical of the late -nineteenth century, with notable examples of finely detailed Queen Anne and Arts and Crafts architecture, as well as Berlin Vernacular residences. The development of 240 Frederick Street corresponds to the development of Kitchener during the explosive growth of industry in the late -nineteenth and early - twentieth centuries. The setting is noteworthy as the house is located on an open corner lot uniquely large for the neighbourhood. 7.4.3 LIST OF HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES The cultural heritage attributes that reflect the CHVI of 240 Frederick Street include: - All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including: o Two -and -a -half storey height and massing including two -and -a -half storey projecting bays on the east, south and west elevations; o Asymmetrical south fagade; o Painted brick cladding; o Steeply pitched irregular roof with overhanging eaves and gables facing east, south, and west featuring fish scale shingles and lattice detail over paired rectangular window openings; o Wood brackets with sunburst motif; o One -storey front porch that extends around the east corner of the building featuring spindlework porch supports, ornamentation, and frieze; o Two-storey rear porch (east and north elevation) featuring spindlework porch supports, ornamentation, and frieze; o Windows and window openings, including: ■ One -over -one windows with rusticated stone headers and sills; ■ Large square picture windows and multipaned windows with transoms and multicoloured glass; and ■ Storm windows. o Doors and door openings in south, east and west elevations, including: ■ Wood panel door with hand painted stained-glass window and decorative hardware on the fagade (south elevation); and ■ Storm doors. o Foundation of even -coursed, cut -stone blocks with raised mortar joints; and Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 180 of 224 o Decorative wrought iron fence with quad spear finials and gates around the south and east sides of the property. All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the building on the property and its contribution to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes; and o Lot size. 7.5 CENTRAL FREDERICK NEIGHBOURHOOD CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE The description of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL (L-NBR-11) included below was extracted from the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes study, and details its evaluated significance and heritage attributes. The landscape has not yet been formally protected through an Official Plan Amendment. /'.j. DESCRIPTION Location: Located east of the downtown core bound by Frederick Street, Lancaster Street East, Stirling Avenue North and East Avenue. Historic Themes: Early/Significant Residential Neighbourhood Description: Adjacent to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood, the Central Frederick Neighbourhood's heritage attributes are of a similar period. Features found within its residential architecture, its streetscapes, and historical associations correspond to the development of Kitchener during the explosive growth of industry in the late - nineteenth and early -twentieth centuries. Unlike Queen Street to the north, the area along Frederick Street near the core is of a somewhat later date and includes only a few buildings of an earlier period. Although Frederick Street was the artery which connected east bound travelers to the bridge in Breslau, which would suggest that there should be a preponderance of earlier buildings along that street, there is a remarkably consistent time period for the development of most of this area including a wealth of well maintained, finely detailed homes from the second and third decade of the twentieth century. There is a limited range of architectural styles but features include attic gabled roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, porches and other details, associated with the era in which they were developed. There are remarkably few houses that have been replaced with more modern examples which speaks to the quality of the construction of these dwellings and to the quality of the environment which they create by their scale, materials, features, massing and surrounding landscapes. The houses are generally closely spaced and, on any given street, massed in a manner that creates both a uniform and domestic environment yet, because of the features unique to each dwelling, allows for an orderly sense of individuality. The presence of an attractive and consistent streetscape linked by mature trees and grassed boulevards contributes significantly to the overall character. The Edwardian period, during which these houses were constructed, was one in which the Arts and Crafts movement had a strong influence. The movement carefully considered the most appropriate features of quiet domesticity for the middle class which arose as a result of the Industrial Revolution and this flavour permeates the dwellings in this community in a manner that has appealed to a succession of generations Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 181 of 224 who have lived here. Many communities in North America are altering their planning requirements to encourage more communities similar to the Central Frederick Neighbourhood. What is different here is that this community is genuine, not a copy, and an exemplar on how to live in an urban and urbane environment. Historical Integrity: The majority of early houses, dating to first decades of the twentieth century, remain in place in this neighbourhood as do the street patterns. Cultural Value: This community represents one of the last areas to be infilled and completed according to an early street pattern prior to the layout and design of new subdivisions in the 1920s but this area already incorporated grassed boulevards which contribute to the overall character of the community. Community Value: Remarkably few of the houses in this area have been replaced or significantly altered which suggest that a high value is placed by the community on the quality of the original concept and housing designs. Character Defining Features: - The houses which are notable for the consistency of their scale, materials, features, massing and surrounding landscapes; - An orderly sense of individuality of the houses; and - The presence of an attractive and consistent streetscape linked by mature trees and grassed boulevards. Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 76 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 182 of 224 8 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS 8.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development concept for 234 and 240 Frederick Street consists of the full retention of both existing buildings on site and construction of a new four -storey, freestanding residential condominium building in the existing rear yard of 240 Frederick Street containing 32 residential units, a ground floor area of 645 m sq. and a typical floor plan (Floors 2-4) of 1,935 m sq. (see Appendix B for Site and Development Plans current as of May 2021). A consolidated parking layout will contain six surface parking spaces and 36 car stacker parking spaces. The development is proposed 3 m from the rear (north) elevation of the extant building at 240 Frederick Street. This increased separation distance represents a refinement from the previous site plan, which included a narrower 1.5 m setback, and was adopted as a recommendation of the March 4, 2021 draft of this HIA. The existing drive aisle off Frederick Street (to 234 Frederick Street) and the existing surface parking spaces (six spaces) at the rear of this lot are proposed to be retained. The existing driveway access off Gordon Avenue will be removed, with vehicular access to the new development only provided via the drive aisle from Frederick Street. IBI Group has worked with the City of Kitchener to revise the concept plans to propose a new structure with a reduced height (reduced from five to four -storeys) that is sympathetic to and distinguishable from the built heritage resources on the subject properties. Building materials, such as yellow and brown brick, have been incorporated to reflect the construction material of the house at 240 Frederick Street as well as the surrounding Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. Glass has also been incorporated to include a contemporary, neutral background to the built heritage resource. The proposed neutral colour scheme uses yellow brick for the upper storeys, brown brick for the main storey, and grey window walls with precast spandrels. The future use of the extant structure at 240 Frederick Street is anticipated to be a residential duplex or triplex. The interior of the building has recently been sensitively restored and updated to accommodate the anticipated future residential use. The development proposes to remove five large coniferous trees from the north half of the lot at 240 Frederick Street. A landscape plan prepared by IBI Group (2021) for the development proposes to maintain the hedgerow along the north boundary of the property and some of the mature trees in the northeast corner of the lot to provide a visual buffer for the low-density residential properties to the north. A Victorian -inspired garden with seating is proposed between the extant structures at 234 and 240 Frederick Street. Portions of the extant wrought iron fence at 240 Frederick are planned to be conserved and repurposed in the garden area. The landscape plan proposes additional large caliper trees around the periphery of the property, and coniferous shrubs are planned along the east side of the new development to screen views from the east. See Appendix C for the landscape plan and tree preservation plan. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 183 of 224 8.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS The MHSTCI's Ontario Heritage Toolkit: Resources in Land Use Planning Process identifies seven potential impacts that an undertaking may have on a cultural heritage resource (see Section 2.2.4 for the full list). As neither MHSTCI nor any other Canadian agency provides guidance on evaluating the magnitude of impact, this report uses guides published by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) from the World Heritage Convention of January of 2011. The grading of impact is based on the "Guide to Assessing Magnitude of Impact" summarized in Table 3 below. Table 3: Impact Grading IMPACT GRADING DESCRIPTION Major Change to heritage attributes that contribute to the CHVI such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. Moderate Change to many heritage attributes, such that the resource is significantly modified. Changes to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is significantly modified. Minor Change to heritage attributes, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is noticeably changed. Negligible/Potential I Slight changes to heritage attributes or the setting that hardly affects it. None 'No change to heritage attributes or setting. 8.3 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS Below, Table 4 will evaluate impacts to 240 Frederick Street, and Table 5 will evaluate impacts to 234 Frederick Street, 239-241 Frederick Street, and the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. Table 4: Evaluation of Impacts to subject property at 240 Fredrick Street CRITERIA EVALUATION Destruction of any, or part of any, Impact: None significant heritage attributes or features, Rationale: The proposed development concept does not involve the destruction of the heritage attributes of the structure, its location on the property or its lot size, which relate to its physical value. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 184 of 224 Alteration that is not sympathetic, oris incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance, Impact: Moderate Rationale: The introduction of the proposed four -storey residential condominium building on the subject property will result in a contemporary alteration to the current low-density character of the historic lot. The use of buff and brown brick and simple grey window walls aid in providing a transition to the modern building as well as a neutral background that does not compete with the architectural detail of the subject house. The proposed four -storey height of the development does not dominate the extant house and the use of sympathetic building materials and the reduced heigh further aids in the transition between both buildings. The proposed development concept will result in the alteration of a portion of the decorative wrought iron fence along the north half of the east property line. Shadows created that alter the I Impact: Negligible appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature Rationale: The new residential development will result in additional shadows or plantings, such as a garden, cast on the structure by 6:00 p.m. throughout the year. However, these shadows will not alter the appearance of the dwelling or property or impact its ability to provide active use. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its Impact: Minor surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship, Rationale: The house at 240 Frederick Street will not be isolated from its contribution to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street streetscape as the development will be located behind the structure. The south elevation has been designed as a simple grey window wall to provide a neutral background to the subject house that does not compete with its architectural detailing. The development will isolate the subject building from its contribution to the continuity and character of Gordon Avenue in a minor way as the house will be screened by the new residential development when looking south down Gordon Avenue. The view looking south to the subject house is not significant as it is primarily focused on the north elevation, which exhibits the least heritage attributes of the building's elevations and is also obscured by mature trees. Views of the streetscape looking north and west will not be impacted. The incorporation of neutral building materials into the design of the new development as well as those observed in the surrounding Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL aid in providing a transition to the modern building from the surrounding historic low-density streetscapes. Director indirect obstruction of Impact: None significant views or vistas within, from, or to built and natural features; Rationale: No significant views or vistas within, from or to the subject property were identified through this study. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 185 of 224 A change in land use such as Impact: Minor rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new Rationale: A minor variance is being sought for height, rear yard setback, and development or site alteration to fill in parking relief. The change in land use will have a minor impact on the contextual the formerly open spaces, value of the property as it relates to its current low-density contribution to the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes. Land disturbances such as a change Impact: Unknown/Potential in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an Rationale: If directed by the Region of Waterloo, an Archaeological archaeological resource. Assessment should be completed for this property. Vibration impacts from the construction of the proposed development 3 m from the subject structure may present indirect impacts. Table 5: Evaluation of Impacts to 234 and 239-241 Frederick Street and Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL CRITERIA Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features,- Alteration eatures, Alteration that is not sympathetic, oris incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance,- Heritage ppearance, Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. EVALUATION 234 Frederick Street Impact: None Rationale: The proposed development will not result in the destruction of any heritage attributes of the property as interventions will be limited to the rear parking lot. 239-241 Frederick Street Impact: None Rationale: The proposed development will be limited to the subject properties and will not result in the destruction of any heritage attributes (see Section 5.4 for list of heritage attributes) of this adjacent property. Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL Impact: None Rationale: The proposed development will not result in the destruction of any heritage attributes of the CHL. 234 Frederick Street Impact: Negligible Rationale: The proposed development will result in a slight alteration to the property through the introduction of a drive aisle connection between the rear of the lots at 234 and 240 Frederick Street. This intervention will not impact any heritage attributes of the property and will negligibly impact its appearance. Page 186 of 224 239-241 Frederick Street Impact: None Rationale: The proposed development will be limited to the subject properties and will not result in the destruction of any heritage attributes of this adjacent Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL Impact: Moderate Rationale: The introduction of the proposed four -storey residential condominium building into the CHL will result in a contemporary alteration to the landscape's predominantly low-density housing stock noted for consistency in scale, features, materials, massing and surrounding landscapes. The use of buff and brown brick and simple grey window walls aid in providing a transition to the modern building within the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscape in a manner that does not compete with the architectural detail of the surrounding houses. The reduced four -storey height proposed for the development and the use of sympathetic building materials further aids in providing a height transition. The immediately adjacent 17 -storey residential apartment building, the Acadian Apartments located at 250 Frederick Street, further provides a transition in height within the CHL to the new four -storey development and surrounding low- density land uses along Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue. Shadows created that alter the 234 Frederick Street appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature Impact: None or plantings, such as a garden; Rationale: The new development will not result in additional shadows cast on the property at 234 Frederick Street. 239-241 Frederick Street Impact: None Rationale: The new development will not result in additional shadows cast on this adjacent property. Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL Impact: Negligible Rationale: The new development will result in additional shadows cast on the landscape, primarily properties immediately to the north and east. However, these shadows will not alter the appearance of the streetscapes or buildings or impact their ability to provide active use. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its 234 Frederick Street surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship, Impact: None Rationale: The proposed development will be located in the north half of the lot at 240 Frederick Street and will not isolate 234 Fredrick Street from its Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener February 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 81 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 187 of 224 surrounding environment, context or significant relationship as it will be located behind and adjacent to the property. 239-241 Frederick Street Impact: None Rationale: The proposed development will be limited to the subject properties and will not isolate 239-241 Fredrick Street from its surrounding environment, context or significant relationship. Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL Impact: None Rationale: The proposed development will not isolate the heritage attributes of the CHL from its surrounding environment, context or significant relationship. Director indirect obstructionof 234 Frederick Street significant views or vistas within, from, or to built and natural features, Impact: None Rationale: No significant views or vistas within, from or to the subject property were identified through this study. 239-241 Frederick Street Impact: None Rationale: No significant views or vistas within, from or to this adjacent property were identified through this study. Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL Impact: None Rationale: No significant views or vistas within, from or to the CHL were identified as heritage attributes of the landscape. A change in land use such as 234 Frederick Street rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new Impact: None development or site alteration to fill in Rationale: The land use of this property will not change as a result of the the formerly open spaces; proposed development. 239-241 Frederick Street Impact: None Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Rationale: The land use of this property will not change as a result of the proposed development. Page 188 of 224 Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL Impact: Minor Rationale: A minor variance is being sought for height, rear yard setback, and parking relief at 240 Frederick Street. The change in land use represents a minor impact to the consistency of house scales, materials, features, massing and surrounding landscapes that comprise the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes in the CHL. J Land disturbances such as a change 234 Frederick Street in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an Impact: None/Potential archaeological resource. Rationale: Minimal land disturbance is proposed for this property, consisting only of resurfacing. Impacts to archaeological resources are not anticipated. Vibration impacts from the construction of the proposed development on the adjacent property at 240 Frederick Street may present indirect impacts to the structure at 234 Frederick Street. 239-241 Frederick Street Impact: None Rationale: Land disturbance will be limited to the subject properties and will not impact 239-241 Frederick Street. Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL Impact: None Rationale: Land disturbance will not impact the heritage attributes of the CHL. � a RES1„11 TS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT The preceding impact assessments have determined that without conservation or mitigation measures, the construction of the proposed development will result in: - Moderate and minor impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 240 Frederick Street; - Potential vibration impacts to the structure at 234 Frederick Street; - No impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 239-241 Frederick Street; and - Moderate and minor impacts to the identified heritage attributes of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. An options analysis of potential alternatives, mitigation and conservation options is provided in Section 9. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 189 of 224 9 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS The City of Kitchener's Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment— Terms of Reference requires that options be provided that explain how cultural heritage resources may be conserved. As such, the following alternatives were considered to avoid or reduce adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the properties at 234, 240 and 239-241 Frederick Street as well as the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL: 1) Preserve and maintain the properties at 234 and 240 Frederick Street as is with no further development. 2) Develop 234 and 240 Frederick Street as proposed. 3) Develop 234 and 240 Frederick Street as proposed but explore increasing the separation distance by moving the development further north on the lot. Following submission of the March 4, 2021 draft of this HIA to the City of Kitchener, the proponent adopted Option 3 and refined the previous site plan, increasing the separation distance between the extant residence at 240 Frederick Street and the proposed development from 1.5 m to 3 m. This increased separation distance will further mitigate potential indirect impacts to the extant structure such as land disturbance, construction vibrations, and damage from construction activities and machinery. Now that Option 3 has been adopted, only Options 1 and 2 will be further explored in this section. As IBI Group has worked closely with the City of Kitchener through an iterative process to refine a concept design for the proposed development that is sympathetic to the character of the subject properties and the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL, an option exploring detailed design refinements was not found to be necessary. 9.1 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS ANALYSIS Table 6: Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES 1) Preserve and maintain the properties at 234 and 240 Frederick Street as is with no This option would maintain Preservation would require None. the general heritage principle ongoing repair and that prefers minimal maintenance to ensure intervention to a heritage resource. It would ensure further development. that the subject properties retain all identified heritage attributes and that there conservation of the heritage attributes of 240 Frederick Street. Continued vacancy without an active use could result in detrimental physical would be no contextual impacts to the structure if impacts to the character of required repairs and security the Central Frederick measures are not undertaken. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. WSP February 2022 Page 84 Page 190 of 224 Develop 234 and D Frederick Street proposed. Neighbourhood CHL. This option would involve no direct impacts to the heritage attributes of the property at 240 Frederick Street aside from the removal of a portion of the wrought iron fence. In addition, it will not result in direct impacts to the heritage attributes of 234 or 239-241 Frederick Street or the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. As such, it is ensured that the properties will retain all identified heritage attributes. This option is consistent with Standard 3 of the Standards and Guidelines, which direct to "Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention;" Standard 5, "Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character - defining elements;" and Standard 11, "Conserve the heritage value and character - defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place." Many indirect impacts have been further mitigated through the development's Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Redevelopment of the property ensures a viable and stable new use that will improve the probability that the site will be utilized and conserved in the long-term. The limited indirect impacts of the proposed development are not cause to deny the development proposal. A portion of the wrought iron fence adjacent to the new development on the north side of the east property line will be removed to accommodate construction activity and the proposed site plan. The development is planned with a 3 m separation from the north elevation of the building at 240 Frederick Street. This proximity increases the likelihood of the subject property experiencing indirect impacts due to land disturbance, construction ibrations, and damage from construction activities and machinery. The introduction of the new residential development will screen the building at 240 Frederick Street from the Gordon Avenue streetscape when looking south. This view is not significant as it is primarily focused on the north elevation, which exhibits the least heritage attributes of the building's elevations and is also obscured by mature trees. A Cultural Heritage Conservation Protection Plan (CHCPP) is being prepared concurrently with this HIA to mitigate any indirect impacts related to land disturbance at 240 Frederick Street (WSP, 2021). As recommended by Mark Fram in Well -Preserved (2003: 189), the foundations of the new building should be kept independent from those of the extant structure at 240 Frederick Street unless part of a purposeful underpinning of the historic foundation. Care should be taken not to compromise the existing foundation during excavations for the new building. Any portions of the wrought iron fence removed along the south half of the property's periphery should be relocated post - construction. The landscape plan has recommended that portions of the fence be conserved and repurposed in the Victorian garden proposed between the subject properties (see Appendix C). Cutting the fence should be avoided. It should be removed in complete sections. The fence should be safely stored, preferably onsite, during construction. Indirect impacts to the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes and the character WSP February 2022 Page 85 Page 191 of 224 sympathetic design concept arrived at through iterative consultation with the City of Kitchener, and the site plan refinement resulting in an increased separation distance between the extant building and the new development. Landscape areas have been integrated around all edges of the development, maintaining the attractive and consistent streetscape of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL linked by mature trees and grassed boulevards. of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL have been mitigated in part through the development's sympathetic design concept incorporating simple elevations and massing providing a transition in height to the neighbouring buildings, and the incorporation of building materials reflective of the surrounding building stock. 9.2 RESULTS OF OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the review of alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis presented in Table 6, Option 2, develop 234-240 Frederick Street as proposed, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective, followed by Option 1. Option 2 would involve no direct impacts to the heritage attributes of the property at 240 Frederick Street aside from the removal of a portion of the wrought iron fence, and will not result in direct impacts to the heritage attributes of 234 or 239-241 Frederick Street or the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The increased separation distance proposed between the structure at 240 Frederick Street and the new development has also aided in further mitigating anticipated indirect impacts. Indirect impacts to the contextual value of 240 Frederick Street and the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL have been largely mitigated through the sympathetic design concept for the new development. The elevations and massing have been simplified with fewer, more sophisticated architectural features. The use of building materials and colours, such as yellow and brown brick, compatible with the subject properties and houses in the CHL, notably those included along the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue, have been incorporated into the development's cladding. As directed by the City of Kitchener, lighter materials, such as glass and grey pre -cast concrete spandrels, were integrated into the south, east and west elevations closest to the heritage buildings on the subject properties to minimize perceived mass, provide contrast and create a contemporary separation to clearly distinguish the old from new. A simple grey window wall on the south elevation was introduced to aid in providing a transition to the modern building as well as a neutral background that does not compete with the architectural detail of the heritage house. The proposed building has been designed in a manner sympathetic to the neighbouring building stock in scale, setbacks and proportions. The building footprint follows the setback of the existing houses on the west side of Gordon Avenue and maintains the grass boulevard noted as a heritage attribute of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The reduced height of the proposed structure from five -storeys to four - Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 192 of 224 storeys assists with transitions between the buildings with lower heights on the subject properties and Gordon Avenue. The reduced height also helps to mitigate potential shadow impacts, which will only negligibly impact the extant house at 240 Frederick Street after 6:00 p.m. throughout the year (IBI Group, 2022). These design considerations aid in mitigating impacts to the continuity and character that the subject properties contribute to the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes. Landscape areas have been integrated around all edges of the development, maintaining the attractive and consistent streetscape of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL linked by mature trees and grassed boulevards. Parking areas have been screened from Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue and surface parking spaces relocated to maintain uninterrupted views to the open landscaped portions of 240 Frederick Street as much as possible. A CHCPP is being prepared concurrently with this HIA to mitigate any indirect impacts related to land disturbance, construction vibrations and damage from construction activities and machinery at 240 Frederick Street. Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 87 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 193 of 224 10 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND CENTRAL FREDERICK NEIGHBOURHOOD CHL Based on the results of the historical research, field review, site analysis and evaluation of the identified built heritage resource at 240 Frederick Street against the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA, the property was confirmed to possess CHVI for its design value as a representative example of a Queen Anne style residence, its associative value for its ties to the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge and Peter and Alvina Itter, and for its contextual value as it relates to the contribution that the structure makes to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. Its List of Heritage Attributes was updated to include: - All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including: o Two -and -a -half storey height and massing including two -and -a -half storey projecting bays on the east, south and west elevations; o Asymmetrical south fagade; o Painted brick cladding; o Steeply pitched irregular roof with overhanging eaves and gables facing east, south, and west featuring fish scale shingles and lattice detail over paired rectangular window openings; o Wood brackets with sunburst motif; o One -storey front porch that extends around the east corner of the building featuring spindlework porch supports, ornamentation, and frieze; o Two-storey rear porch (east and north elevation) featuring spindlework porch supports, ornamentation, and frieze; o Windows and window openings, including: ■ One -over -one windows with rusticated stone headers and sills; ■ Large square picture windows and multipaned windows with transoms and multicoloured glass; and ■ Storm windows. o Doors and door openings in south, east and west elevations, including: ■ Wood panel door with hand painted stained-glass window and decorative hardware on the fagade (south elevation); and Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 194 of 224 ■ Storm doors. o Foundation of even -coursed, cut -stone blocks with raised mortar joints; and o Decorative wrought iron fence with quad spear finials and gates around the south and east sides of the property. All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the building on the property and its contribution to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes; and o Lot size. The property at 234 Frederick Street was designated under Part IV of the OHA, as such a cultural heritage evaluation according to O. Reg. 9/06 was not necessary. However, as the property was designated in 1990, prior to amendments to the OHA in 2005 detailing the requirements of a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, an updated statement and attributes list was prepared. The property was confirmed to possess CHVI for its design value, which reflects the Queen Anne style with Arts and Crafts elements, and for its contextual value as it relates to the contribution that the structure makes to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. Its List of Heritage Attributes was updated to include: - All elements related to the Queen Anne architectural style of the house, including: o Two-storey height and massing, including two-storey projecting bay on west side of fagade (south elevation); o Asymmetrical fagade; o Steeply pitched irregular roof with overhanging eaves and gable facing Frederick Street featuring fish scale shingles and lattice detail over paired rectangular windows opening; o Brick chimney on the west and north elevations of the original portion of the structure; o Wood brackets with sunburst motif; o Windows and window openings, including multipaned windows with transoms and other multipaned windows; o Rusticated stone sills; o Door openings; and o Faux rusticated stone foundation. - All elements related to the Arts and Crafts architectural style of the house, including: o One -storey enclosed front porch on the fagade (south elevation) featuring heavy stucco pillars with top cap, overhanging eaves, simple paired brackets and multipaned windows; and o Board and batten cladding on the upper storey. - All elements related to the contextual value, including: Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 195 of 224 o Location of the building on the property and its contribution to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street streetscape. The heritage attributes of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL identified in the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes study include: - The houses which are notable for the consistency of their scale, materials, features, massing and surrounding landscapes; - An orderly sense of individuality of the houses; and - The presence of an attractive and consistent streetscape linked by mature trees and grassed boulevards. 10.2 IDEM -1 IFICATION OF li\ lP/ CTS Based on the impact assessments completed in Section 8.3, it was determined that without conservation or mitigation measures, the construction of the proposed development will result in: - Moderate and minor impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 240 Frederick Street; o A contemporary moderate alteration to the current low-density character of the historic lot; o Moderate alteration to a portion of the decorative wrought iron fence along the north half of the east property line; o Isolation of the subject house from its contribution to the continuity and character of Gordon Avenue in a minor way as the house will be screened by the new development when looking south down Gordon Avenue, however this has been demonstrated not to be a significant view; o A minor variance will have a minor impact on the contextual value of the property as it relates to its current low-density contribution to the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes; and o Potential vibration impacts. - Potential vibration impacts to the structure at 234 Frederick Street; - No impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 239-241 Frederick Street; and - Moderate and minor impacts to the identified heritage attributes of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL: o Contemporary moderate alteration to the landscape's predominantly low-density housing stock noted for consistency in scale, features, materials, massing and surrounding landscapes; and o A minor variance represents a minor impact to the consistency of house scales, materials, features, massing and surrounding landscapes that comprise the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes in the CHL. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 196 of 224 1 Q.3 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Various conservation and mitigation measures were evaluated for 234 and 240 Frederick Street, the adjacent property at 239-241 Frederick Street, as well as the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. Based on the options analysis presented in Section 9, Option 2 was the preferred alternative from a cultural heritage perspective as the development's sympathetic design concept has mitigated many indirect impacts to the surrounding cultural heritage resources. This option would see the property developed as proposed, with an increased separation distance between the old and new structures. This may further mitigate potential indirect impacts from land disturbance, vibration, and damage from construction activities and machinery. Although the "do nothing" approach presented in Option 1 would maintain the general heritage principle that prefers minimal intervention to a heritage resource, it may result in the continued vacancy of the structure and a missed opportunity to secure a viable and stable new use that will improve the probability that the property will be utilized and conserved in the long-term. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended: That the detailed technical recommendations provided to address indirect impacts in the CHCPP prepared for 240 Frederick Street be considered to protect the heritage attributes of the subject residence before, during and after development -related activity. That indirect vibration impacts also be monitored for the property at 234 Frederick Street in accordance with the mitigation measures presented in the CHCPP. That the foundations of the new building should be kept independent from those of the extant structure at 240 Frederick Street unless part of a purposeful underpinning of the historic foundation. Care should be taken not to compromise the existing foundation during excavations for the new building. That any portions of the wrought iron fence removed along the south half of the property's periphery should be relocated post -construction. As per the landscape plan, portions of the fence that cannot be relocated post -construction should be conserved and repurposed in the Victorian garden proposed between the subject properties. That should the development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. That as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — Terms of Reference, this HIA should be submitted for review and comment to the City's Heritage Planner and Heritage Kitchener. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 197 of 224 11 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION Based on the results of the historical research, field review, site analysis and evaluation of the identified built heritage resource at 240 Frederick Street against the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA, the property was confirmed to possess CHVI for its design value as a representative example of a Queen Anne style residence, its associative value for its ties to the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge and Peter and Alvina Itter, and for its contextual value as it relates to the contribution that the dwelling makes to the continuity and character of the Frederick Street and Gordon Avenue streetscapes, as well as the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. As the property has been confirmed to possess CHVI, it can be considered a significant property eligible for designation under Part IV of the OHA. Consistent with Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS (see Section 2.2.1 for full policy), which requires "that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved," the subject property warrants conservation. It is understood that development projects pose the potential to impact local built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. As the PPS notes that CHVI is identified by the community, local municipalities are tasked with weighing the benefits of a project against the impacts. The impact assessment provided in this report has been prepared in an effort to facilitate this municipal decision making. Heritage Impact Assessment WSP 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener =ebruary 2022 Project No: 201-10290-00 Page 92 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 198 of 224 BIBLIOGRAPHY Archives of Ontario. (1886). Registrations of Deaths, 1869-1948 (MS 935, reels 1-694), Archives of Ontario, Toronto, ON. Bloomfield, E. (1995). Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical Society. Canadian Association for Conservation of Cultural Property and Canadian Association of Professional Conservators. (2009). Code of Ethics and Guidance for Practice. CAC and CAPC, Ottawa. City of Kitchener. (April 2020). City of Kitchener, Development Services Department — Planning Division, 234-240 Frederick Street, Site Plan/Minor Variance, Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — Terms of Reference. City of Kitchener. (2017). Municipal Heritage Register. Index of Non -Designated Properties. Retrieved from: www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/COR LEG Index of Non - Designated Properties.pdf Municipal Heritage Register. Part IV Designated Properties Index. Retrieved from: www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/COR LEG Part IV Designated Property Index.pdf City of Kitchener. (2014). City of Kitchener Official Plan. Retrieved from: www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN City-of-Kitchener-Official-Plan-2014.pdf City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Retrieved from: www.kitchener.ca/en/city- services/cultural-heritage-landscapes.aspx? mid =12074#Award-winning-study City of Kitchener. (2013). Statement of Significance, 240 Frederick Street. Provided by the City of Kitchener. City of Kitchener. (1990). Designation By -Law 90-162, 234 Frederick Street. Provided by the City of Kitchener. Designation By -Law 90-126, 239-241 Frederick Street. Retrieved from: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/fr/oha/details/file?id=5105 Crown -Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC). (2013). Upper Canada Land Surrenders and the Williams Treaties (1764-1862/1923). Retrieved from: www.rcaanc-cirnac.qc.ca/eng/l 360941656761 /1544619778887#uc Cumming, R. (1971). Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Halton, Ontario. Port Elgin: Ross Cumming & Sons. Dodd, C.F., Poulton, D.R., Lennox, P.A., Smith, D.G., & Warrick, G.A. (1990) The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In C. J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.), The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 321-360). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society. Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37- 74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 199 of 224 Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). The Archaic. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65- 124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. English, J. & McLaughlin, K. (1983). Kitchener. An Illustrated History. Waterloo: Wilfrid University Press. Ferris, N. & Spence, M.W. (1995) The Woodland Traditions in Southern Ontario. Revista de Arquologia Americana 9: 83-138. Filice, M. (2016). Haldimand Proclamation. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/haldimand-proclamation Fox, W. (1990). The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 171-188. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Fram, M. (2003). Well -Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundations Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation, 3rd ed. Erin, Ontario: The Boston Mills Press. Hayes, G. (1997). Waterloo County. An Illustrated History. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical Society. Heritage Resources Centre (HRC). (2009). Ontario Architectural Style Guide. Retrieved from: www.therealtvdeal.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/06/Heritage-Resource-Centre-Achitectural-Styles-Guide.pdf H. Parsell & Co. (1881). Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: H. Parsell & Co. IBI Group. (2021). 234-240 Frederick Street Shadow Study. Provided by IBI Group. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2011). Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.icomos.org/world heritage/HIA 20110201.pdf Kitchener Public Library (KPL) Collection. (2019). ION Kitchener City Hall. Stitch by Stich. Grace Schmidt Room, KPL. Retrieved from: https://h istoricallyspeakingkitchener.word press.com/tag/john-forsyth-shirt-co/ Kyles, S. (2016). "Queen Anne Revival Style (1870-1910)." Ontario Architecture. Retrieved from: www.ontarioarchitecture.com/QueenAnne.htm Library and Archives Canada 1881 Census of Canada. District: 168 Waterloo North. Sub -district: C Town of Berlin. 1891 Census of Canada. District: 122 North Waterloo. Sub -district: A Berlin. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 200 of 224 1911 Census of Canada. District: 130 North Waterloo. Sub -district: 7 Berlin 1921 Census of Canada. District: 136 North Waterloo. Sub -district: 28 Berlin Mikel, R. (2004). Ontario House Styles: The Distinctive Architecture of the Province's 18th and 19th Century Homes. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Ltd. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2019). List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage conserving list.shtml Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2007). Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www. heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/tools/tools-for-conservation/eig ht -q uiding-principles Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020 Moyer, B. (1979). Kitchener Yesterday Revisited: An Illustrated History. Kitchener: Kitchener Chamber of Commerce. Noble, W.C. (1975) Van Besien: A Study in Glen Meyer Development. Ontario Archaeology 24: pp. 3-83. Parks Canada. (2010). The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Parks Canada. (n.d.) "The Queen Anne Revival Style." Canada's Historic Places. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/32 queen anne.aspx Pope, J. H. (1877). Illustrated Historical Atlas of Halton County. Walker & Miles, Toronto. Ramsden, P.G. (1990). The Hurons: Archaeology and Culture History. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 361-384. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Region of Waterloo. (2015). Regional Official Plan. Retrieved from: www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Regional-Official- Plan/Chapter 3 consolidated rop 2015-access.pdf Shanahan, D. (2019). Between the Lakes Treaty. Retrieved from: https:Hanishinabeknews.ca/2019/12/07/ between -the -lakes - treaty/ Smith, D.G. (1990) Iroquoian Societies in Southern Ontario: Introduction and Historic Overview. In C.J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 279-290). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 201 of 224 Smith, W.H. (1846). Smith's Canadian Gazetteer — Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H.W. Rowsell. Social Innovation Research Group (SIRG). (2020). Waterloo County House of Industry & Refuge. Retrieved from: https://waterloohouseofrefuge.ca/ Peter and Alvina Itter. Retrieved from: http://waterloohouseofrefuge.ca/people/peter-and-alvina-itter/ Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C. Murphy. (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Tremaine (1861). Tremaine Map of the Waterloo County, Canada West. Toronto, ON. Uttley, W.V. (1932). Berlin, Now Kitchener in the Beginning. Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 20: Kitchener, ON. Vernon's Berlin and Waterloo Directory. (1897-1899). Vernon's Berlin and Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Years 1897 to 1899. Retrieved from: www.kpl.org/sites/default/files/directories/Vernons-BerlinWaterloo-1897- 1899.pdf Vernon's Berlin and Waterloo Directory. (1901-1903). Vernon's Berlin and Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Years 1901 to 1903. Retrieved from: www.kpl.org/sites/default/files/directories/Vernons-BerlinWaterloo-1901- 1903.pdf Warrick, G. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Waterloo Historical Society (V\/HS). (1948). "Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge." Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 35: Kitchener, ON. Wellington County. (2020). Local History. Retrieved from: www.wellington.ca/en/discover/localhistory.asp)4 Williamson, R.F. (1990) The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In C.J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 291-320). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society. WSP. (2021). Cultural Heritage Conservation Protection Plan, 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener. Prepared for Rome Transportation Inc. Heritage Impact Assessment 234 & 240 Frederick Street, Kitchener Project No: 201-10290-00 Rome Transportation Inc. Page 202 of 224 APPENDIX A FIGURES 2-8 Page 203 of 224 a -otZI r s� �y Av •" \ ea m 0 R 0 N N o z LLLL N N LU of I i � *� 00% ) ) � } oop } 3 ) 2 \/ m ` \ \\ 00% ) ) � } oop } 3 ) 2 s 0 o 0 E_� u a w 00 U 1 ' a N w O w H , �NO0U S H y r = U 3� 0 J a 0 J S Q s o w � � w S d N w 41 *OIOW e U K O Q U ¢ a 0 'C v w c � � � H °2J LL w S c.i O as N N O 00 0 N N (6 a 3 \ 2 r Jp z LLLL N N LU s APPENDIX SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS Page 211 of 224 _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ ---------------- - - - - -- - -- d" W z ""mra 3xn u�eaoea W Q Ls��ia3a3a�osz ------------------ i°. 1 zo i qua€d - r o I� I� 88ry_,Z—S 9 58 � _n x Z - Q (G— _ lool __ D� m I. I wow a N I Z Z 0 Id , a 0 X = wll o I o3 m l 1Y d `m a la 6) G-- d1S 2JVJ g H�8g8- _ I b1N0 I m 1 a o v H 3ar�saxm w (n _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ ---------------- - - - - -- - -- d" W z ""mra 3xn u�eaoea W Q Ls��ia3a3a�osz ------------------ i°. 1 zo i - r o I� I� 88ry_,Z—S 9 58 � _n x Z - Q (G— _ lool __ D� m I. I I I I _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ ---------------- - - - - -- - -- d" W z ""mra 3xn u�eaoea W Q Ls��ia3a3a�osz ------------------ i°. 1 i lx I I� I� W _ I L iS3�dd 8J S2J3;1 d1S 2JVJ saet (G— _ lool l I, ` ----------- D� m I. I I I I Z I 0 Id , a 0 X = wll o I o3 m l ---------- `m a la 6) G-- d1S 2JVJ zEe5 (—dd e)S2J31 VI -3 I �' I I• 3ar�saxm I � J " Lu Z z - ~ a � fn LL X W I F _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ ---------------- - - - - -- - -- d" W z ""mra 3xn u�eaoea W Q Ls��ia3a3a�osz % Hid-- \ /� \ (: : IN. ( ( \ \ (\ ❑❑❑ o _-n_ge (n �EVfty Q M L J w w 00 O O Q w cl c w clw w w F IQ Elp ❑ ❑ EIEIEI N Z - - - E ro E a }E� 00 0o U`n 66 ZmQU Uw�Z "ro�J uKaU DOQw ® _E 0�uaim ®® _ EEEEEEEEEEE ❑ i °olio° i �❑ s= o w IM LF o.I IFa =v o� - ° n 0 1. ■'N' -u .Ii �1, ■■ . 2! I No 6 n"Timm! ■h ®om■ r moE 000EI., • p f ■I�i�II III■ �I� �9 EMB VII 11I W ■■I .—��► �i�■IIN■i■I■.I■■aim Mani ■I.I■■ �I■I!'m!IN�!v'�I■I■■ h -- m m iil l ■ ■ ■ MEIN MEIN MEIN_ il.■��. �� f I; � I�� ���� iii N®NN�NN�® I ■'N' -u .Ii �1, ■■ . 2! I No 6 n"Timm! ■h moE 000EI., 000E p f ■'N' -u .Ii �1, ■■ . 2! I No 6 n"Timm! ■h tRJ F Efti Ah rte' Milli r - ��I i A,:I' �' _� �.■ tom' r4 -Jwf REVEAL -<� �Ilwi %��----- :� �i■i��■�i�■ice I Ir�� APPENDIX TREE PRESERVATION PLAN & LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 217 of 224 APPENDIX D QUALIFICATIONS OF AUTHOR Page 220 of 224 Lindsay Benjamin, MAES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP CULTURAL HERITAGE SPECIALIST YEARS WITH FIRM — 1.5 Profile YEARS OF EXPERIENCE - 12 Ms. Benjamin is a Cultural Heritage Specialist at WSP. She has 12 years of experience in cultural heritage conservation gained through work in private, academic and government AREAS OF PRACTICE organizations. She is practiced at providing professional heritage planning Cultural Heritage Planning recommendations and expertise on complex studies and cultural heritage assessments. Cultural Heritage Assessments Through her work as a Regional Cultural Heritage Planner, Ms. Benjamin researched, Heritage Evaluations drafted and implemented policies for the Regional Official Plan and other planning Environmental Assessments documents regarding the recognition, review and conservation of cultural heritage Heritage Conservation Districts resources, including archaeological resources, heritage bridges, scenic roads and cultural Cultural Heritage Landscape heritage landscapes. Inventories Ms. Benjamin became skillful in the evaluation and analysis of cultural heritage Bridge Inventories / Evaluations resources by serving as a Team Lead on the former Ministry of Tourism, Cultural and EDUCATION Sport's Historic Places Initiative that drafted over 850 Statements of Significance. She MAES Planning, University of was also the Primary Author of Arch, Truss and Beam: The Grand River Watershed Waterloo, ON, 2013 Heritage Bridge Inventory and Series Editor for Phase 2 of Heritage Districts Work!, a study of 32 heritage conservation districts across Ontario. BES, Honours Planning Co-op, Ms. Benjamin's experience as a consultant project manager has focused on large-scale University of Waterloo, 2007 landscape studies such as Heritage Conservation District Studies and Cultural Heritage CAREER Landscape Inventories and implementation. She is also practiced at completing Cultural Heritage Specialist, assessments for a variety of private and public -sector clients under the Planning Act or Environment, WSP, 2020 -Present through the Environmental Assessment process including CHRAs, CHERs, HIAs, Documentation and Salvage Reports, Designation Reports and Peer Reviews. Project Manager — Heritage, ARA Ltd., 2017-2020 Select Relevant Experience Cultural Heritage Planner, Region Heritage Planning of Waterloo, 2013-2017 — Bond Head Heritage Conservation District Study, Town of Bradford West Heritage Planner, Heritage Gwillimbury (2020). Project Manager completing a two-phase study including a Resources Centre, University of Background & Issues Identification Report, land use planning review, program Waterloo, 2009-2013 of public consultation, report writing, recommendations and heritage committee and council presentations. Client: Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury. Team Lead, Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, — Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory, City of Waterloo (2019). Project 2006-2007 Manager completing the identification and evaluation of 27 significant cultural PROFESSIONAL heritage landscapes, program of public consultation, report writing and ASSOCIATIONS recommendations to Council. Client: City of Waterloo. Canadian Association of Heritage — Cultural Heritage Landscape Implementation for Cultural Heritage Landscapes Professionals (CARP) within the KW Hospital Secondary Plan, City of Kitchener (2019). Technical lead completing field review, Statements of Significance and boundaries for six Member of the Canadian Institute landscapes, recommended conservation measures and report drafting. Client: of Planners (MCIP) City of Kitchener. Registered Professional Planner — Regional Implementation Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Landscape (RPP) Conservation and the Conservation of Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources (2017). Cultural Heritage Planner completing policy review and policy drafting, stakeholder consultation and staff report preparation. Cultural Heritage Assessments Selected Cultural Heritage Resource Assessments — Highway 401 Planning & Preliminary Design EA Study Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Report, Town of Colborne to Municipality of Brighton (2021). Cultural Heritage Specialist conducting a large-scale field review of Page 221 of 224 Lindsay Benjamin, MAES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP CULTURAL HERITAGE SPECIALIST hundreds of properties in a 17 km study area identifying potential cultural heritage resources. Completed report preparation, stakeholder engagement, and preliminary impact assessment. Client: Ministry of Transportation, Eastern Region. — Highway 7A & County Road 10 Intersection Improvements EA Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, Township of Cavan Monaghan (2020). Cultural Heritage Specialist conducting a field review of existing conditions of the study area, composed of a nineteenth century crossroads community. Identified recognized and potential cultural heritage resources, completed stakeholder consultation, report writing, and preliminary impact assessment. Client: Ministry of Transportation, Eastern Region. — Ottawa Street EA Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment, City of Kitchener (2019). Project Manager conducting field review identifying potential cultural heritage resources and report preparation with preliminary impact assessment. Client: MTE. Selected Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports — 8 Lviv Boulevard & 627 Albert Street Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, City of Oshawa (2021). Cultural Heritage Specialist conducting thorough historical research of the study areas, field review, photographic documentation, stakeholder consultation, evaluation of both properties according to Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 9/06 and 10/06 and recommendation of cultural heritage value or interest. Client: Ministry of Transportation, Central Region. — McDuff's Corner Presbyterian Cemetery Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Municipality of Brockton (2019). Project Manager conducting thorough historical research for study area, field review, photographic documentation, stakeholder consultation, evaluation of cemetery according to Ontario Regulation 9/06 and 10/06 and recommendation of cultural heritage value or interest. Client: Ministry of Transportation, Ontario. — Abitibi Canyon Generating Station and Little Long Main Dam Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Pinard and Harmon Townships (2018). Project Manager conducting historical research for study area in northern Ontario, remote field review, photographic documentation, Indigenous consultation, evaluation of properties according to Ontario Regulation 9/06 and 10/06 and recommendation of cultural heritage value or interest. HIA completed for Abitibi Canyon GS former Staff House. Client: Ontario Power Generation. Selected Heritage Impact Assessments — 49 Queenston Road, Town of Niagara -on -the -Lake Heritage Impact Assessment (In progress). Cultural Heritage Specialist conducting field review and interior and exterior photographic documentation of existing conditions, stakeholder consultation, assessment of potential impacts to heritage attributes, and recommended appropriate mitigation and conservation options considering retention, relocation and documentation and salvage of the property and its heritage attributes. Client: Ministry of Transportation, Central Region. — Bosworth Bridge Heritage Impact Assessment, Municipality of Mapleton (2021). Cultural Heritage Specialist completing assessment of impacts and Page 222 of 224 Lindsay Benjamin, MAES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP CULTURAL HERITAGE SPECIALIST recommendation of mitigation measures for the replacement of the circa 1949 Warren Camelback steel pony truss. Client: County of Wellington. — Old Deny Road Bridge Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Mississauga (2020). Project Manager conducting field review, stakeholder consultation, assessment of impacts and recommendation of mitigation measures for designated bridge in the Meadowvale Village HCD. Client: McIntosh Perry. — 5383-5385 Robinson Street Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Niagara Falls (2019). Project Manager evaluating impacts from proposed multi -tower hotel development adjacent to Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape, a provincially significant provincial heritage property. Completed detailed impact mitigation for each attribute of the adjacent landscape. Client: Canadian Niagara Hotels. — 120 King Street North Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo (2019). Project Manager overseeing historical research for study area, conducting field review and photographic documentation, evaluation of dwelling according to Ontario Regulation 9/06, assessed impact to heritage attributes, recommended appropriate mitigation measures. Client: JPGH Bains Property Inc. Selected Documentation/Strategic Conservation Plans — Garden City Skyway Strategic Conservation Plan, City of St. Catharines (In progress). Cultural Heritage Specialist completing the documentation that will set the long-term vision and framework for decision-making to guide the management of the provincial heritage property of provincial significance. Client: Ministry of Transportation, Central Region. — Kingston Psychiatric Hospital Strategic Conservation Plan, City of Kingston (2018). Technical lead conducting through documentation of a multi -building provincially -significant complex. Contributed to the drafting of conservation strategies and recommendations for future use. Client: Infrastructure Ontario. — 264 Governors Road Documentation and Salvage Report, City of Hamilton (2017). Project Manager completing a documentation and salvage report in accordance with the City of Hamilton's guidelines. Included archival research, field review, thorough photographic documentation, recommendations for curation and reuse of building elements. Client: Intero Development Group Inc. Heritage Designation Union Hotel (425 Huron Street) and 417 Church Street, Town of Newmarket (2018). Conducted thorough historical research, field review, evaluated properties according to Ontario Regulation 9/06, recommended designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. — Westdale Theatre, 1014 King Street West, City of Hamilton (2017). Evaluated property according to Ontario Regulation 9/06, recommended designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, presented recommendations to Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee. Page 223 of 224 'IT N N 0 'IT N q ¢ 2 n � co y)\ j §Zi |- ��\ E_— - ) \ - \ - CL cuc \ 2 Q \\ u2 Co \ 0/ Icut \/( R ;ƒ% a � \ u /se\ § § § cu cu \ / \ § \ \ � U2\B ƒ ƒ ƒ A J J J % � \ / / » cu cu cu / ) # t m f E o q \ A \ \ ( ( 7 \ ® A \ ) q ) ƒ k j j / \ ) tr g ) ) } u \ 4 E a k \ ƒ c/ \ 0 3 / \_ cl \ 2 \ > \ \ \ ) § ) ) \ } } } } # n nQmmmwmmR RR 'IT N N 0 'IT N q ¢ 2 n �