The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-2022-269 - Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 22-26 Charles St WStaff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 7, 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 9 DATE OF REPORT: May 14, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-269 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 22-26 Charles Street West RECOMMENDATION: For Information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated March 2022, prepared by Parslow Heritage Consulting Inc. to develop subject properties municipally addressed as 22-26 Charles Street West. The subject properties are listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage interest or value on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The subject properties are also located adjacent to 27 Gaukel Street, which is also listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage interest or value on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. Additionally, the subject properties are located within the Kitchener Downtown Cultural Heritage Landscape. The proposed development includes the construction of a 46 -storey residential building. The existing building will be integrated into the proposed development by retaining the front fagade and a portion of the west elevation of the building. The retained portion of the existing building will constitute a key portion of the podium of the new development. Heritage Planning staff are currently in the process of reviewing the HIA and will be providing detailed comments to the applicant to address any areas that require further assessment and discussion. At this time, Heritage Planning staff are seeking the committee's input on the draft HIA and these comments will be taken into consideration as staff continues to review the HIA and associated planning applications. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the June meeting. A copy of the HIA is attached to this report *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 152 of 399 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act • Planning Act APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 22-26 Charles Street West Page 153 of 399 © Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc. 883 St. Clair Avenue West, Rear, Toronto, ON, M6C 1C4 Telephone: 647-348-4887 Email: admin@phcgroup.ca Website: www.phcgroup.ca Page 155 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Content 1. Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 1 2. Personnel.......................................................................................................................3 12 3. Introduction................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Applicant Information...............................................................................................................4 Table 3: 4. Historic Research and Analysis........................................................................................ 7 4.1 Regional Overview....................................................................................................................7 4.1.1 History of Waterloo County.......................................................................................................................... 7 4.1.2 History of Waterloo Township..................................................................................................................... 8 4.1.3 History of the City of Kitchener.................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 22-26 Charles Street West History.........................................................................................10 4.2.1 Ownership History of 22-26 Charles Street West..................................................................................... 10 S. Assessment of Existing Condition.................................................................................. 18 5.1 Surrounding Landscape..........................................................................................................18 5.2 Adjoining Structures...............................................................................................................22 5.2.1 27 Gaukel Street.......................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2.2 16 Charles Street West............................................................................................................................... 22 5.2.3 18 Charles Street West............................................................................................................................... 22 5.3 22 Charles Street West...........................................................................................................23 5.4 24 Charles Street West...........................................................................................................25 6. Proposed Development................................................................................................ 36 7. Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest........................................................... 38 7.1 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries(MHSTCI)..................................40 7.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts to HCD and CHL.................................................................41 7.2.1 Victoria Park HCD........................................................................................................................................41 7.2.2 Downtown CHL............................................................................................................................................41 8. Draft Statement of Cultural Significance........................................................................ 43 9. Mitigation, Preservation, and Conservation.................................................................. 44 9.1 Alternative Mitigation Options...............................................................................................44 9.2 Evaluation of Applicable Heritage Conservation Principles....................................................45 10. Summary Statement and Recommendations................................................................. 48 11. Bibliography.................................................................................................................49 List of Tables and Figures Table 1: Pertinent Land Transactions for 22-26 Charles Street West.............................................................................. 12 Table 2: Cultural Heritage Evaluation of 22 Charles Street West.....................................................................................38 Table 3: Cultural Heritage Evaluation of 24 Charles Street West.....................................................................................39 Page 156 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Table4: Mitigation Options................................................................................................................................................44 Table 5: Assessment of Development Against General Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration.. 45 Figure 1: Location of Subject Property on Topographic Map............................................................................................. 5 Figure 2: Location of Subject Property on an Aerial Image................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3: 1919 aerial image, red arrow indicates location of Subject Property.............................................................. 14 Figure 4: Portion of 1925 Fire Insurance Plan depicting Subject Property, red outline denotes location of 22-26 CharlesStreet West............................................................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 5: Portion of 1930 aerial image, red arrow indicates location of Subject Property ............................................. 16 Figure 6: Portion of 1954 aerial image, red arrow indicates location of Subject Property ............................................. 16 Figure 7: 2018 Google aerial image, red arrow indicates location of Subject Property ................................................. 17 Figure 8: Subject Property in Relation to HDC and CHLs.................................................................................................. 19 Figure 9: Looking northwest towards Subject Property from intersection of Charles Street West and Ontario Street South, red arrow indicates Subject Property..................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 10: Looking northeast down Charles Street West from intersection of Charles Street West and Gaukel Street, red arrow indicates Subject Property................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 11: Looking east down Charles Street West, Subject Property (red arrow) is on left of image, public transit hub (green arrow) is on the right.............................................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 12: Looking down Halls Lane West from Queen Street South towards Subject Property (red arrow), existing tower emulates proposed development........................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 13: 27 Gaukel Street, Subject Property is to the right of this structure............................................................... 22 Figure 14: 16 and 18 Charles Street West......................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 15: Front fagade of 22 Charles Street West........................................................................................................... 24 Figure 16: Rear, yellow brick wall of 22 Charles Street West, red brick wall on left of image is 18 Charles Street West and the yellow brick wall on the right of the image is 24 Charles Street West............................................................... 24 Figure 17: Rear yellow brick wall of 22 Charles Street West adjacent to 16 and 18 Charles Street West ..................... 25 Figure 18: Looking northeast towards 24 Charles Street West........................................................................................ 26 Figure 19: 24 Charles Street West fagade......................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 20: Typical exterior wall with prominent pillars, cast lintels and expansive windows ......................................... 27 Figure 21: Southwest face of 24 Charles Street West, parking lot is 26 Charles Street West, transit station is visible on rightof image...................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 22: Northeast corner of 24 Charles Street West................................................................................................... 28 Figure 23: Northwest corer of 24 Charles Street West, original windows remain behind blacked out areas, red arrow indicates access point to roof............................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 24: Entrance lobby adjacent to Charles Street West............................................................................................. 29 Figure 25: Typical appearance of interior.......................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 26: Lunch room first floor....................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 27: Post and bean support structure and laminated second floor.......................................................................30 Figure 28: Exposed yellow brick support pillar..................................................................................................................31 Figure 29: Typical replacement divided light window......................................................................................................31 Figure 30: Internal stairs, modern industrial design.........................................................................................................32 Figure 31: Remnant freight elevator control hardware....................................................................................................33 Figure 32: Remnant freight elevator mechanism..............................................................................................................33 Figure 33: Unrestored roof framing and support beams..................................................................................................34 Page 157 of 399 Figure 34: Example of an original divided light metal industrial window, located in roof access area, northwest cornerof structure.............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 35: Original yellow brick and cast lintel with original metal divided light industrial window .............................35 Figure 36: Blacked out sign on rear of structure that read "General Spring Products Ltd"............................................35 Figure 37: Preliminary rendering of integration of 24 Charles Street West into proposed development ....................36 Figure 38: Proposed development footprint in relation to adjacent structures.............................................................37 Appendices Appendix A - Qualifications Appendix B — Renderings Appendix C — Development Plan Page 158 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1. Executive Summary Parslow Heritage Consultancy, Inc. (PHC) was retained by SRM Architects (the Proponent) to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario (Subject Property). The Proponent is undertaking this assessment at the request of the City of Kitchener as part of the redevelopment application for the southwest corner of Charles Street West and Queen Street South. This HIA is designed to meet the scope of work stipulated in the City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference (CoK nd) and conform to the City of Kitchener's Official Plan (CoK 2014). The purpose of this assessment is to review relevant historical documents, evaluate the potential cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) of the property, identify cultural heritage resources and assess potential impacts, and recommend mitigation options. In order to evaluate potential CHVI and recommend mitigation options, provisions in the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) under Regulation 9/06 and the Planning Act (1990) were applied. A site visit was conducted on 26 January 2022 to document the property, structure, and surrounding landscape. 24 Charles Street West contributes to the industrial heritage of the area and the larger City of Kitchener. 22 Charles Street West is also connected to the industrial heritage of the area, but has been subject to alteration and does not exhibit CHVI. 26 Charles Street West is a vacant lot and has no CHVI. The following recommendations are made: 1. Retain the Charles Street fapade of 24 Charles Street West and integrate it into the podium of the proposed redevelopment. 2. The fapade of 24 Charles Street West should be added to the Municipal Heritage Register and considered as a candidate for Part IV designation under the OHA. 3. A vibration assessment should be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction so that a "zone of influence" can be established, and appropriate monitoring can be arranged during construction activities. Adjacent properties may need to be monitored for vibration to ensure levels remain below the accepted threshold during all construction activities. Vibration monitoring will ensure that unintended impacts do not affect surrounding properties. Vibration monitoring should be carried out by persons with previous knowledge of heritage structures and the impact of vibration on heritage resources. 4. A Built Heritage Protection/Conservation Plan (BHPCP) should be developed 24 Charles Street West. The BHPCP should address the retention and preservation of all existing resources that will be integrated into the proposed development. 5. An attempt should be made to integrate salvaged post and beam components into the new building. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 Page 159 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 6. The original divided light metal windows should be retained, restored, and integrated into a public area of the new building. 7. Interpretive signage depicting the historic use of the Subject Property should be installed in a common area of the new building. March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 160 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Carla Parslow, Ph.D., CAHP Christopher Lemon, B.Sc., Dip. Heritage, CAHP Renee Hendricks, M.A. Acknowledgements Victoria Grohn Marc Villemaire Senior Cultural Resource Specialist Lead Cultural Heritage Specialist Cultural Materials and Resource Specialist Heritage Planner, City of Kitchener SRM Architects Inc. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3. Introduction Parslow Heritage Consultancy, Inc. (PHC) was retained by SRM Architects (the Proponent) to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario (Subject Property). The Proponent is undertaking this assessment at the request of the City of Kitchener as part of the redevelopment application for the southwest corner of Charles Street West and Queen Street South. This HIA is designed to meet the scope of work stipulated in the City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference (CoK nd) and conform to the City of Kitchener's Official Plan (CoK 2014). A site visit was conducted on 26 January 2022 to document the property, structure, and surrounding landscape. The Subject Property is located on the north side of Charles Street West and south of Halls Lane, with Gaukel Street to the west and Ontario Street to the east. Documentation of the property took the form of high-resolution photographs using a Nikon D5600 DSLR camera, the collection of field notes and the creation of measured drawings where necessary. The assessment strategy was derived from the National Historic Parks and Sites Branch Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings (Parks Canada 1980), Well Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation Manual on the Principles and Practice of Architectural Conservation (Fram 2003), the Historic American Building Survey - Guide to Field Documentation (NABS 2011), and the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada 2010). All accessible areas of the property and associated structures were accessed and documented. 3.1 Applicant Information Questions pertaining to the proposed development can be directed to: SRM Architects Inc. c/o Marc Villemaire 279 King Street West Suite 200 Kitchener, Ontario N2G 1131 e -Mail: mvillemaire(@srmarchitects.ca March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 162 of 399 Figure 1 - Topographic Map Ore Kingsdale A,1 A(— P.k 29 "0 05 mtral Hs,' 'l— Lps Park Alan' 7� All` 9 r l� III - pwA 55 h8 k hP.,# 61 Wzde'lo. k1olont Hope C eY egyeL,4, ype.d Pk 10 'b. 62 61'pm Ae K.toh-1 Woof Hope Cemetery 1v1111��-'-' 55 Park 7 6 iv. Rosemount S• \par e oo�' Nn 15 titre 15 1-W Duke g 4" 'o Kitchener 1, ori r, 64 K -J."" C.rnpl- Sp.,tfi d 0 P. is St Peers Loth— C.rlCha �a dr� P -k `�,ndhffl. T., 51 55 atrW,y P k 53 66 r"'k H.gh'-nd-R,-,,lli-&, Park e q, HgN�.d Rockwav C.0 t' Ir Park "r..9 dh C C .peryery Rockway a Doc AFL Fark vs Chade-,, ol G(Al Rest P�" Course Park 11-1e, P,,k e,-e'sI P"6 7 o' ources: -'sri -H ERE Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, ForestP se, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, ' 11 Eiril" Ti �� (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the, -,G I S ser Community' . 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 1:25,000 Heritage Impact Assessment Kilometers 22 - 26 Charles Street West, Kitchener oAHH Legend Study Area PA60 Page 163,of 309 Figure 2 - Modern Aerial Image Mw -W it It ,r /► O �-_ �� ilii •it.� 69 - ♦C Fi• 4, 0 4k` . 'f i4 p �. /► �� , it IL • � r At- ° • Source. E�sn, Maxar, Ge©Eye,�'Earthstar°GeograK ��l9iSDA, �SG�S�AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS U4 ONES /Airbus DS, mmunity 0 20 40 80 1:2,000 Heritage Impact Assessment Meters 22 - 26 Charles Street West, Kitchener Legend Study Area r' 7L'' Page 164 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 4 Historic Research 4.1 Regional Overview The land containing the Region of Waterloo is the traditional territory of the Attawandaron, Haudenosaunee, and Mississauga First Nations. In 1784, the Haldimand Purchase gifted Thayendanegea (Joseph Brant) and the Haudenosaunee a large tract of land along the Grand River —from Lake Erie to Elora Falls and six miles wide on each bank — which the First Nation subsequently began to subdivide and sell to settlers. In 1798 three large blocks of that original tract became the Townships of Waterloo, Woolwich, and Dumfries, the initial townships of Waterloo County. By 1852 the area was divided into five townships: Waterloo, Woolwich, Wellesley, Wilmot, and North Dumfries, and major population centers included Waterloo, Kitchener (Berlin), Preston, Hespeler, Galt, Elmira, and New Hamburg. 4.1.1 History of Waterloo County European settlement of the area began almost immediately following the separation of the county from the Haldimand Tract. The richly forested land provided numerous resources for hunting, fishing, logging, and several water sources conducive to mill construction. The first permanent European settlers in the area arrived in 1800 when Joseph Schoerg (later Sherk) and Samuel Betzner, Jr. settled along the Grand River in what is now a part of Kitchener. The first hamlets in the county were Blair and Doon, and a corduroy road along what is now King Street in Waterloo encouraged further settlement in the region. The first settlers to the region were German Mennonites from Pennsylvania, seeking land and religious protection in Upper Canada. Most were farmers, although there were also some members who served the community as millers and tradesmen. The western part of the county around Berlin (Kitchener), St. Jacobs, and Elmira was settled by predominately German Mennonites, while the southern portion near Cambridge and other areas around the Grand River, such as Fergus and Elora, attracted Scots and other British immigrants. Early government expenditures to build roads in the area encouraged pioneer settlers with a direct route from Lake Ontario, and the Grand River provided an avenue of transportation to and from Lake Erie. These transportation avenues and the different cultural backgrounds of pioneers led to a diversity of settlements throughout the region. Despite the early date of settlement, villages in the region remained quite small throughout the 1820s. The village of Preston was a thriving business district by 1830, the same year Berlin (Kitchener) was founded. In 1840, Waterloo County was officially formed from the initial three - block purchase from the Haudenosaunee and territory transferred from other districts. In 1852, the County was reorganized again and divided into three parts, forming the United Counties of Wellington, Waterloo, and Grey. Waterloo County consisted of North Dumfries, Waterloo, Wilmot, Woolwich, and Wellesley Townships. Berlin (Kitchener) was named the county seat in 1853, narrowly beating the town of Galt for the designation. By 1861, the population of Waterloo County had reached 38,750 people. German influences remained strong, in 1871, 55% of Waterloo County's population could claim German heritage, either from Continental Germany or from the Pennsylvania Mennonite pioneers. The rural PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 1501at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario population began to decrease around 1871 as cities, villages, and hamlets began to grow and consolidate. By the 1890s interurban railways allowed for easier navigation not only around Waterloo County, but to surrounding counties as well, although rail services began to disappear in the 1930s as automobiles began to proliferate. Waterloo County was dissolved in 1973 and renamed the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, which consists of the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge, and the townships of Wellesley, Wilmot, Woolwich, and North Dumfries. 4.1.2 History of Waterloo Township Waterloo Township was known as Block Two of the three -block purchase from the Haldimand Tract and consisted of approximately 94,000 acres. Richard Beasley acquired 60,000 acres from Thayendanegea in 1796, although Beasley was prohibited by deed from subdividing the block until the entirety of the mortgage was paid to the Haudenosaunee. However, Beasley began selling lots anyway to meet his financial obligations. In 1800 alone Beasley sold over 14,000 acres to Mennonite settlers, although the recent immigrants did not know they would not receive title on their lands until Beasley met his mortgage obligations. This led to a panic among the newly arrived Mennonites, culminating in a formal agreement between Thayendanegea and Beasley, which allowed Beasley to sell the bulk of Block Two to cover his mortgage, while also giving the Mennonite buyers the legal title to lots they had already purchased. Subsequently Beasley sold 60,000 acres to the German Company of Pennsylvania in 1803, represented by Daniel Erb and Samuel Bricker, whose purchase absolved Beasley of all financial obligation towards the Haudenosaunee and even allowed him to retain 10,000 acres for his own use, which he sold into the 1830s. The 60,000 acres purchased by the German Company was subdivided into 128 lots of 448 acres each, and 32 lots of 83 acres each. Lots were randomly selected to ensure fairness, leading to non -adjacent lots owned by the same person, and roads were often inconsistent between urban and rural areas. The German Company was composed mostly of Mennonites from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Prior to 1830 most settlers in Waterloo Township were Mennonite, although there was also a small population of Pennsylvania River Brethren, a similar Anabaptist group also known as Dunkers or Tunkers. As the 19th century progressed, Waterloo Township became less Mennonite in character, although pockets of strong Mennonite settlement remain (Region of Waterloo 2017). Initially part of the Gore District, the area was incorporated in 1816 and named Waterloo Township after the decisive British victory against Napoleon Bonaparte the previous year. It was also the first township settled out of the five that would go on to comprise the County of Waterloo. Most early settlement was along the Grand River due to geographic accessibility, rather than fertility of the land. By 1818, the township's population had reached 1,850, which grew to 2,000 by 1831. By the 1830s, most of the available land within Block Two had been purchased, and many of the original subdivisions were divided for a second time and resold. By the second half of the 19th century most of the settlers moving into Waterloo Township were artisans, merchants, tradesmen, and labourers instead of farmers. Water sources provided power for grist and sawmills, as well as distilleries. The area also hosted several tanneries, and by 1851 there were numerous factories March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 166 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario that produced farm implements and furniture. Settlers who were searching for rural land bought in other townships, such as Wilmot and Woolwich. By the mid -1850s the first railways were laid in Waterloo Township. The initial rail line was the Grand Trunk Railway, opened in 1856 with three stops at Shantz Station, Berlin (Kitchener), and Breslau. The railway ensured that Waterloo Township would continue to be the most settled and industrialized of all the other townships within the County of Waterloo. The railway continued to expand throughout the county, providing a faster and more accessible means of transportation for most of the populace, although Waterloo Township remained the centre of economic life within the county (Region of Waterloo 2017). Waterloo Township was consolidated and renamed Waterloo Region in 1973; the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo absorbed the western section of the township, and the land east of the Grand River was designated as part of an expanded Woolwich Township. As a result, the former Waterloo Township ceased to exist as a political and geographic entity. 4.1.3 History of the City of Kitchener The largest city in the Grand River watershed, the City of Kitchener was founded in 1806 as Ebytown by Benjamin Eby, a Mennonite preacher (later bishop in 1812). Initially concentrated around the southeast side of Queen Street, the residents of Ebytown encouraged manufacturers to set up business in the settlement. Other important settlers in Ebytown were Joseph Schneider, John Erb, Abram Weber, and David Weber. Joseph Schneider settled on the south side of Queen Street in 1807 and cleared a rudimentary road through the area, allowing "Schneider's Road" to become the nucleus of Berlin. The Schneider's 1816 house is still standing. The hamlet of Berlin wasn't officially established until 1830 when Phineas Varnum, a tenant of Joseph Schneider, opened a blacksmith shop on the site of the Walper House Hotel. A tavern and a general store soon followed, and the area's first furniture warehouse also opened in 1830. By 1846 the population of Berlin was reported to be 400 "mostly German" individuals. In 1853 Berlin was named the seat of Waterloo County when hotelier Friedrich Gaukel donated a parcel of land to be used as a courthouse and jail near the corner of what is now Queen Street North and Weber Street. The first city council meeting sat on January 24 of that year and consisted of 12 members from the five townships and two villages (Canadian Encyclopedia nd). In 1856 the Grand Trunk Railroad was laid through Berlin, ushering in an age of industrialization as factories and more substantial homes began to replace the original settler's log cabins. Berlin quickly became the industrial centre of the area, and in 1910 was the first inland Ontario city to have access to affordable power from the hydroelectric plant at Niagara Falls. The name of the city was changed from Berlin to Kitchener in 1916 due to anti -German sentiment during the First World War, a movement spearheaded by local business owners. The city was named for Herbert, Lord Kitchener, a field marshal killed at sea the same year as the name change. During the Second World War, Kitchener was the site of a Women's Army Corps training base. The construction of Highway 401 in 1960 provided direct access to the city and encouraged further development in roadside industrial parks. However, a recession in the 1980s led to many industries leaving Kitchener and not returning. Ease of transportation and general proximity to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) has led to Kitchener to become a bedroom community for GTA workers. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 4.2 22-26 Charles Street West History 4.2.1 Ownership History of 22-26 Charles Street West The property municipally identified as 22-26 Charles Street West enters the historic record as Block 2 on the Grand River, initially granted by the Crown to Richard Beasely, James Wilson, and John Rousseau in February 1798. In June 1802, 60,000 acres were sold to Daniel and Jacob Erb as the German Company Tract, and was subsequently subdivided for sale to early Mennonite settlers, as seen in the initial settlement of Waterloo Township. In 1805, Benjamin Hershey purchased Lot 17, consisting of 448 acres, from the Erbs. Hershey sold all 448 acres to Joseph Schneider two years later in 1807. Born in 1772 in Pennsylvania, Schneider's family had immigrated from Germany to that state in 1736. Joseph followed brothers Christian and Jacob to Upper Canada in 1806, settling on Lot 17. Schneider assisted in opening the first road through Kitchener, called "Schneider's Road" as late as the 1870s, which ran from his farmstead in the vicinity of modern-day Kitchener to Dundas (Good and Tiessen 1985). Schneider was also involved in the construction of early local schools and the first Mennonite meeting house. Schneider founded a sawmill around 1816 on Schneider Creek, and leased land to Phineas Varnum for a blacksmith shop and tavern, which was located where the Walper Hotel now sits. These two businesses (the sawmill and the blacksmith shop) formed the nucleus of the developing settlement of Sand Hills, renamed Ebytown and then Berlin. In the 1830s he sold the parcel where Varnum's blacksmith shop had stood to a fellow German, Frederick (Friedrich) Gaukel, who developed a hotel at what is now the intersection of King and Queen Streets. Schneider died in 1843, and his son Joseph E. Schneider continued to oversee his father's farming and milling operations. After the elder Schneider's death, Joseph E. Schneider sold another 2 acres to Frederick Gaukel, who by this point had expanded his land holdings along the north side of King Street, east of Queen Street, and was looking to expand further. Gaukel was born in 1785 in Wurttemberg and immigrated to Pennsylvania in 1804. In approximately 1820, Gaukel moved to Waterloo Township after hearing of a settlement of German Mennonites located in Upper Canada. He opened a distillery shortly after his arrival, and in 1833 purchased land from Joseph Schneider on which to build a hotel (Wust 1985). Gaukel moved into the growing commercial center of what was then called Ebytown, although the name of the settlement was changed to Berlin shortly after. Gaukel's Inn was the center of civic life in the small, predominately German community, and in 1841 and 1846 Gaukel bought addition property near his hotel to promote municipal development (Wust 1985). He provided land for a courthouse and Waterloo Township Hall, and was integral in the campaign to designate Berlin as the Waterloo County Seat in 1852. Frederick Gaukel died the following year in 1853, leaving his estate to son Levi Gaukel and grandson Henry Stroh. After Gaukel's death, his land holdings were subdivided and sold. In 1859, Lots 17 —19 (the Subject Property) was sold to Urban Brinzer, along with other lands. Urban Brinzer in turn sold the same lots to David Kuntz in 1868, who sold to John A. Mackie in 1871. The first recorded use for the Subject Property under the designation of Plan 380 was as a curling and skating rink, known as the Berlin Curling and Skating Rink Company, sold from John A. Mackie in September 1883. The first skating rink in Kitchener was at the corner of Erb and Regina Streets, although in 1883 a 1 March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 168 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario coalition of Scottish -Canadian Berliners constructed this indoor rink near Gaukel Street, within the current Subject Property. This rink consisted of a frame structure over a natural ice rink and was replaced by the Granite Club in 1927 (Mills 2016). Bedding, Textile, and Clothing Usage In 1891, the Berlin Curling and Skating Rink sold Lot 19 plus 10 feet on the east of the lot to Charles F. Brown and Menno Erb. Charles Brown, a local furniture manufacturer whose main factory was housed on King Street West, joined a partnership with Menno Erb, a Mennonite furniture maker, after 1880. The two combined their furniture endeavours and began manufacturing mattresses and gloves (Waterloo Region Generations nd). In 1898, the executors of Charles Brown's estate deeded the property to Menno Erb, who continued business as the M. Erb Company until 1911 when the area was sold to the Berlin Bedding Company. President H.D. McKellar oversaw operations, which consisted of manufacturing mattresses and similar products. The Berlin Bedding Company does not seem to have lasted long at the Charles Street location, as in 1915 the executors of Menno Erb's estate passed the property again to Henry and William Dunker, who ran a construction firm together. In 1917, the Dunkers gave the Star Whitewear Company a lease option on the property. The Star Whitewear Company was initially located at 31 Young Street, near Duke Street, but that building was purchased by John Forsyth in 1908. In 1915 the Star Whitewear Company is still listed as operating in Berlin, likely at this location (Harpell 1915). In 1919, both the Dunker and Star Whitewear Company sold their holdings to Westmount Improvements. In January 1920, the lot was acquired from Westmount Improvements by Ames Holden Felt Company, a subsidiary of Ames Holden McCready, Limited. Ames Holden McCready, a Canada - wide company that initially began as a boot and shoe manufacturer, had since branched out into making rubber products, mostly tires for the growing number of automobiles in the country. In 1919, Ames Holden McCready built a rubber manufacturing plant near the corner of King and Victoria Streets to begin the production of tires in Berlin. However, by 1923 the factory was purchased by B.F. Goodrich and maintained operations in the same location until the plant's closure in 1980 (the building was demolished circa 1997) (Mills 2017). Despite their interests in tire production, Ames Holden McCready continued to produce shoes and boots, many of which were lined with felt to stand up to harsh Canadian winters. It appears that rather than outsource their production, the Ames Holden McCready had its own felt and cloth companies in addition to its rubber and shoe plants. Fischman Springs and General Spring Products, Ltd. In 1925, Ames Holden McCready sold the property to John M. Bullas, a local businessman. At this time, it isn't known what Bullas' intent for the properties at 22-26 Charles Street West were, but it might have been intended as an expansion of his furniture storage and distribution business located on Joseph Street. In the 1950s his sons, Ross and Roy, operated a multi -use commercial and retail space on the south side of Charles Street West, where the bus terminal sits. The Bullas' were integral in developing Charles Street into a modern thoroughfare, as until the 1950s it was more like a lane that dead -ended at Ontario Street (Fear 2014). Without the influence of the Bullas Brothers, Charles Street might never have reached Queen Street, let alone beyond. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario In 1928, John Bullas granted the property to the Fischman Spring Company. Founded in 1922 by the Wuest family, Fischman Spring Company was initially located on Halls Lane north of the Subject Property. Their twenty employees made metal springs and upholstered items like mattresses, cushions, and movie seats. As the company grew a larger space was required and the company expanded to the south, towards Charles Street. In 1942, during the Second World War, the company name was changed to General Spring Products and began producing automobile seats. They supplied to major automobile manufacturers that operated both in and out of Canada, such as Ford Motors. In 1950 General Springs Products expanded to a larger factory located at 60 Ottawa Street, and opened a head office on Kent Street soon after. In 1954 General Springs Products was bought out by American Metal Products, later Lear -Seigler, and the Charles Street plant was sold (Dominion Bureau of Statistics 1959). Lear -Seigler ran three plants in Kitchener: the Ottawa Street plant, the Kent Street plant, and a plant at Manitou Drive that closed in 2015. None of the other plants are still in operation (UNIFOR 2015). Restaurant and Food Service In 1957 the sale between General Spring Products and Kaymoore Limited was finalized. Kaymoore Limited appeared to be a restaurant management company, as several dining establishments filled the space formerly occupied by General Spring: Cosmo's Factory, Ali Baba Steakhouse, and finally, Charlie's Ristorante and Tavern (The Cord Weekly 1981). Kaymoore's holdings at the Charles Street location was sold to another restaurant management company, Krebs Restaurants, in 1986. Kaymoore Limited appears to have dissolved in 2017, according to Ontario court documents. In 2012, the property was transferred to Charles by the Park, Inc., and transferred again in 2021 to 26 Charles Kitchener, Inc. Table 1: Pertinent Land Transactions for 22-26 Charles Street West Inst. Grantee Comment ------ February 1798 Crown Richard Beasely, James Patent, Block 2 Grand Wilson, John Rousseau River, 94,012 acres 123 June 1802 Richard Beasely Daniel & Jacob Erb Bargain and Sell, Part Block 2, 60,000 acres 132 July 1805 David &Jacob Erb Benjamin Hershey Bargain and Sell, German Company Tract Lot 17, 448 acres 1839 April 1807 Benjamin Hershey Joseph Schneider Bargain and Sell, GCT Lot 17, 448 acres 405 July 1838 Joseph Schneider ------- Will 94 February 1844 Exrs of Joseph Schneider Joseph E. Schneider Bargain and Sell, Part Lot 17, 324 acres 244 February 1846 Joseph E. Schneider Frederick Gaukel Bargain and Sell, Part Lot 17, 2 acres 3 roods 18 perches 240 December 1853 Frederick Gaukel Levi Gaukel & Henry Will, Part Lot 17, 2 acres 3 Stroh, executors roods 18 perches March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 170 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 956 January 1859 Exrs of Frederick Gaukel Urban Brinzer Bargain & Sell, Lots 17 — 19+OL 2029 January 1868 Urban Brinzer et ux David Kuntz Bargain & Sell, Lots 17 — 19 + OL, F. Gaukel Survey 3735 June 1871 David Kuntz et ux John A. Mackie Bargain & Sell, Lots 17 — 19 + OL, F. Gaukel Survey 5716 September John A. Mackie et ux Berlin Curling & Skating Bargain & Sell, 1 acre 7 1883 Rink Co. perches Lot 19 + others 9664 October 1891 Berlin Curling & Skating Rink Charles F. Brown & Bargain & Sell, Lot 19 + 10 Menno Erb feet east of lot 13504 January 1898 Frederick Snyder & David Menno Erb Deed, lot et al undivided'/ Brown, exrs Charles F. Brown share w/ 10 ft east side Lot 20304 June 1900 Menno Erb et ux The M. Erb Company Bargain & Sell, Lot 19 Ltd 27558 March 1911 The M. Erb Company Ltd The Berlin Bedding Co Bargain & Sell, [Illegible] 34786 November 1915 Lydia & Ephraim & Aaron Erb, Henry & William H. C.O.P. Sale, Lots et al Maggie Buchanan, exrs Dunker Menno Erb 36662 April 1917 Henry & William Dunker The Star Whitewear Lease Option Company 40026 July 1919 Henry & William Dunker, The Westmount Bargain & Sell, part lot et Star Whitewear Company Ltd Improvements al 41203 December 1919 The Robe & Clothing Westmount Quit Claim Deed Company Ltd Improvements 41427 January 1920 Westmount Improvements Ames Holden Felt Coy, Bargain & Sell, part lot et Ltd al 48185 December 1922 Ames Holden Felt Coy, Ltd Ames Holden Grant, part lot et. al. McCready Ltd 55715 November 1925 Ames Holden McCready Ltd John M. Bullas Grant, .31 acres part Lot et. al. 61392 August 1928 John M. Bullas, et ux The Fischman Spring Grant, Lot et al sub. to Company, Ltd mortgage 152622 April 1957 General Spring Products Ltd Kaymoore Ltd Grant, .31 acres Lots etc. 485280 December 1971 Kaymoore Ltd Cosmo's Factory Notice of Lease, part Lots Limited 17, 18, & 20, Lot 19; 10 - year term 561642 December 1975 Kaymoore Ltd, et al Ali Baba Steakhouse Notice of Lease, part Lots Ltd 16, 17, 18 & 20, Lot 19 611424 January 1976 Ali Baba Steakhouse Charlie's Restaurant, Assignment of Lease, No. Ltd 561642 PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 58R-5079 May 1986 Plan Reference Plan Reference, part Lots 16,17,&18 Re: nos. 583529,270061,& 383642 853255 June 1986 Kaymoore Ltd Krebs Restaurants, Inc Transfer, Part Lots 17, 18, & 20 and Lot 19 (save except part Lot 17 being Parts 2, 3, & 4 on 58R- 5079, plus ROW over Part 5&3) WR692197 June 2012 Krebs Holdings, Inc Charles by the Park, Inc Transfer WR988662 October 2016 Charles by the Park, Inc. The Crown, Certificate of Requirement represented by the MOECC WR1399765 December 2021 Charles by the Park, Inc 26 Charles Kitchener Transfer (Planning Act) Inc. Figure 3: 1919 aerial image, red arrow indicates location of Subject Property March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 172 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario A0 rp "P11/m wil x ct Figure 4: Portion of 1925 Fire Insurance Plan depicting Subject Property, red outline denotes location of 22-26 Charles Street West PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at "001 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 5: Portion of 1930 aerial image, red arrow indicates location of Subject Property AV" RIP dllll�t MW { ' r y � I Al AL: Air { IL Figure 6: Portion of 1954 aerial image, red arrow indicates location of Subject Property March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 174 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario IN lrt®r,4e. .�/iw t on Figure 7: 2018 Google aerial image, red arrow indicates location of Subject Property All PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5. Assessment of Existing Condition 5.1 Surrounding Landscape 22-26 Charles Street West is located on the north side of Charles Street West, east of Gaukel Street, west of Ontario Street South, and south of Halls Lane West. The Subject Property is part of a former industrial area that was developed in the early to late 19th and early 20th century. Currently, the area is undergoing significant redevelopment, transforming the neigbourhood into a live/work area adjacent to public transit. The 22-26 Charles Street West Subject Property contains three units, 22 Charles Street West is a small two-storey brick, highly modified industrial support building, 24 Charles Street West is a large two-storey former industrial production facility that has been reconfigured into office space, and 26 Charles Street West is a parking lot that serves the surrounding area. 22-26 Charles Street West is located one block north of the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District (HCD) and within the Downton Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) (Figure 8). The Victoria Park HCD was established in 1996 under by-law 96-91. The Victoria Park HCD was established to conserve the area's excellent examples of late -19th and early -20th century residential architecture, set around an historic park (Galvin, 2012). The Downtown CHL is directly tied to the founding of the city and contains remnants of the city's commercial functions that date to the 1850's (CoK 2014). March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 176 of 399 Figure 8 - Heritage Conservation Districts & Cultural Heritage Landscapes r' "sem.. •� � � .�, r, ./ �'� • Ck F'NTRE N BI lVr oD HC11 r AN JC �'� �,: � _ f � � _ 'fit; •„',� r Downtown CHL 411 At lb 010 1 , n *I(. Victoria Park CHL VICTORIA PARK HCD A. '?.4T �� • iA � � 4 •e Source:Es �Ma�r, eoEy`e*E-arthstar Geographies, NE Airbus • =, s USDA, USGS, AeroGRID'tIGN, and t e Gi Use Co, u i 0 0.03750.075 0.15 1:4,000 Heritage Impact Assessment Kilometers Legend 22 - 26 Charles Street West, Kitchener Study Area Heritage District Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 177 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 9: Looking northwest towards Subject Property from intersection of Charles Street West and Ontario Street South, red arrow indicates Subject Property Figure 10: Looking northeast down Charles Street West from intersection of Charles Street West and Gaukel Street, red arrow indicates Subject Property 1 March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 178 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 11: Looking east down Charles Street West, Subject Property (red arrow) is on left of image, public transit hub (green arrow) is on the right Figure 12: Looking down Halls Lane West from Queen Street South towards Subject Property (red arrow), existing tower emulates proposed development PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5.2 Adjoining Structures 5.2.1 27 Gaukel Street This structure was formerly a suitcase and bag factory as identity on the 1925 Fire Insurance Plan. Structure is currently commercial rental space that is undergoing renovation. The structure is of the same early 20th century industrial design as 24 Charles Street West. 27 Gaukel Street serves as an anchor point for Charles Street, contributing to the overall industrial design of Charles Street West between Gaukel Street and Ontario Street South. Figure 13: 27 Gaukel Street, Subject Property is to the right of this structure 5.2.2 16 Charles Street West 16 Charles Street West is home to a restaurant and is part of an industrial structure that has been repurposed into commercial spaces. The structure is of comparable age to that of 24 Charles, as indicated by the 1925 Fire Insurance Plan. Originally, the structure was home to a dye facility associated with the production of textiles. The fapade of 16 Charles Street West has been reconfigured and no longer reflects its industrial roots. 5.2.3 18 Charles Street West 18 Charles Street West is part of the same structure as 16 Charles Street West and is home to a print shop specializing in silk screening. Like 16 Charles Street West, the fapade of 18 Charles Street West has been altered and no longer reflects its industrial roots. March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 180 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 14: 16 and 18 Charles Street West 5.3 22 Charles Street West 22 Charles Street West is a two-storey brick structure with rectangular plan. The front fapade is currently painted black with the east side being constructed of red brick and the north face constructed of yellow brick. The structure is contained between 18 and 24 Charles Street West and postdates both 18 and 24 Charles Street West. The structure is industrial in design and has been subject to modification in the form of a glass column and modern windows. The structure abuts both 24 and 18 Charles Street West and was constructed post -1925. The structure is utilitarian in nature and does not present with any architectural features of note. Historical research suggests 22 Charles Street West was constructed as a support structure for the Fischman Spring Company located at 24 Charles Street West. While 22 Charles Street West and 24 Charles Street West abut one and other, there is no internal connection between the structures. 22 Charles Street West was constructed as an infill building occupying a discreet parcel of land depicted in the 1925 Fire Insurance Plan of the area. No access to the interior of 22 Charles Street West was permitted for this HIA. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 1501at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 15: Front fagade of 22 Charles Street West Figure 16: Rear, yellow brick wall of 22 Charles Street West, red brick wall on left of image is 18 Charles Street West and the yellow brick wall on the right of the image is 24 Charles Street West March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 182 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 17: Rear yellow brick wall of 22 Charles Street West adjacent to 16 and 18 Charles Street West 5.4 24 Charles Street West 24 Charles Street West is a large two-storey V shaped yellow brick industrial structure, constructed ca.1920. The building has been subject to extensive renovation in order to transform it into modern industrial office space. The structure has a partial basement which houses the mechanical room located along Charles Street West, the remainder of the structure is constructed slab on grade. The second floor is constructed of dimensional lumber laid on edge, supported by a post and beam substructure. The roof is flat and accessible via a small hatch in the northwest corner of the structure. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 1501at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Street Wes Figure 18: Looking northeast towards 24 Charles Street West Figure 19: 24 Charles Street West farade March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 184 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 20: Typical exterior wall with prominent pillars, cast lintels and expansive windows Figure 21: Southwest face of 24 Charles Street West, parking lot is 26 Charles Street West, transit station is visible on right of image PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 22: Northeast corner of 24 Charles Street West Figure 23: Northwest corer of 24 Charles Street West, original windows remain behind blacked out areas, red arrow indicates access point to roof March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 186 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Interior 24 Charles Street West Figure 24: Entrance lobby adjacent to Charles Street West Figure 25: Typical appearance of interior PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 26: Lunch room first floor Figure 27: Post and bean support structure and laminated second floor 1 March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 188 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 28: Exposed yellow brick support pillar Figure 29: Typical replacement divided light window PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 ' ' \ __* VP ` @ 32 I Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 31: Remnant freight elevator control hardware Figure 32: Remnant freight elevator mechanism. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at "001 34 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 35: Original yellow brick and cast lintel with original metal divided light industrial window Figure 36: Blacked out sign on rear of structure that read "General Spring Products Ltd" PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario s Proposed D' •i The development proposal is for the redevelopment of the parcel of land bounded by Charles Street West, Halls Lane West, 27 Gaukel Street, and 18 Charles Street West, municipally identified as 22-26 Charles Street West. The proposed redevelopment outlines the construction of a 46 - storey residential condominium tower. The proposal outlines the retention of the south fapade and a portion of the west wall of 24 Charles Street West. The retained walls would be integrated into the proposed development and comprise a key portion of the podium of the proposed tower (Figure 37, Appendix B). Figure 37: Preliminary rendering of integration of 24 Charles Street West into proposed development March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 194 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario HALLS LANE WEST HALLS LANE WEST s' ow I' ---------- i 2x.,26 I 4 CHARLES DEVELOPMENT ^"1YJz f I �I 44 STOREY TOWER=.�.... 454 UNITS { wA�4 E �: ouSLhYi� . .. CHARLES STREET WEST �'[IYFL RdL fi� ERI6TIIAiSRFTRIMIf E%ISfY14 LRST 1 Figure 33: Proposed development footprint in relation to adjacent structures PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 PagWeof 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 7. Evaluati®n ®f Cultural Heritage Value or interest Ontario Regulation 9/06 prescribes the criteria used for evaluating a property being considered for designation under Section 29 of the OHA. Section 29 of the OHA outlines that, to be designated, a property must meet "one or more" of the criteria grouped into the categories of Design/Physical Value, Historical/ Associative Value and Contextual Value (MHSTCI 2006). Table 2 lists these criteria and identifies if the criteria were met at 22 Charles Street West. Table 3 identifies if the criteria were met at 24 Charles Street West. 26 Charles Street West was not subject to evaluation, given its condition as a parking lot. Table 2: Cultural Heritage Evaluation of 22 Charles Street West IIIIIIIIIIIII� Criteria RP O.Reg.9/06 Criteria Met Justification (Y/N ) 7 The property has design value or physical value because it, I. is a rare, unique, representative None observed, common 20th century utilitarian or early example of a style, type, N brick structure expression, material, or construction method, II. displays a high degree of N None observed craftsmanship or artistic merit, or III. demonstrates a high degree of None observed technical or scientific N achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, I. has direct associations with a N The current structure appears to have been theme, event, belief, person, associated with Fischman Springs Company, activity, organization or though no direct association was identified institution that is significant to a community, II. yields, or has the potential to N The property and associated structure do not yield, information that present with the potential to yield information contributes to an understanding that could contribute to our understanding of a of a community or culture, or community or culture III. Demonstrates or reflects the N None observed work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. The property has contextual value because it, I. is important in defining, Highly modified 20th century supplementary maintaining or supporting the N support structure of intermediate age character of an area, II. is physically, functionally, visually Unknown historical function or historically linked to its N surroundings, or is a landmark. N The structure does not serve as a local landmark March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 196 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Based on the criteria set forth by Regulation Reg. 9/06, 22 Charles Street West does not display CHVI as it pertains to design value, historic and associative value, or contextual value. Table 3: Cultural Heritage Evaluation of 24 Charles Street West mr Criteria O.6eg.9/06 Criteria WW Met Justification (Y/N ) The property has design value or physical value because it, IV. is a rare, unique, representative Structure is representative of early 20th century or early example of a style, type, Y industrial architecture expression, material, or construction method, V. displays a high degree of N None observed craftsmanship or artistic merit, or VI. demonstrates a high degree of None observed technical or scientific N achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, IV. has direct associations with a Y Has direct association with the industrial theme, event, belief, person, manufacturing history of Kitchener, the current activity, organization or structure appears to have been built c.1920 and institution that is significant to a was utilized by the Fischman Springs Company community, V. yields, or has the potential to N The property and associated structure do not yield, information that present with the potential to yield information contributes to an understanding that could contribute to our understanding of a of a community or culture, or community or culture VI. Demonstrates or reflects the N None observed work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. The property has contextual value because it, IV. is important in defining, Important in maintaining and supporting the maintaining or supporting the Y industrial manufacturing history of the area character of an area, V. is physically, functionally, visually Remnant of 20th century industry, industrial or historically linked to its manufacturing was prevalent in the area and key surroundings, or Y to the prosperity of the Kitchener area, building supports the historic industrial character of the area I,-; a landmark. N The structure does not serve as a local landmark Based on the criteria set forth by Regulation Reg. 9/06, 24 Charles Street West does retain and display CHVI as it pertains to design value, historic and associative value, and contextual value. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Once integrated into the proposed development, the fapade of 24 Charles Street West should be considered for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 7.1 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) The MHSTCI Info Sheet#5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans were reviewed to further assess seven potential negative impacts on the Subject Property's CHVI arising from the proposed site redevelopment: Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes orfeatures. ► Fapade of 24 Charles Street West will be retained ► Demolition of 22 Charles Street West will have minimal impact on the streetscape Alteration that is not sympathetic, or incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance. ► Fapade of 24 Charles Street West will be retained and rehabilitated and continue to contribute to the historic industrial character of the area Shadows created that alter the viability of a heritage attribute or an associated natural feature or plantings, such as a garden. ► No shadow studies were undertaken as a part of this HIA. The proposed development will result in the creation of shadows but will not result in shadows that will alter the visibility or functionality of heritage attributes or associated natural features or plantings within the HCD Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship. ► Proposed development will incorporate the fapade of 24 Charles Street West into the podium of the redevelopment, which will be stylistically sympathetic to the heritage resource ► Located within 150m of Part V protected structures contained within the Victoria Park HCD Direct or indirect obstruction significant views or vistas within, from or of built and natural features. ► Proposed development will not impact significant views into or out of 22-26 Charles Street West A change in land use where the change in use may impact the property's CHVI; ► Industrial character of the area will be reflected in the proposed design Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils and drainage patterns that may adversely affect archaeological or cultural heritage resources. ► Construction may uncover previously unidentified archaeological and cultural heritage resources. A chance find procedure should be enacted as part of the construction process 1 March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 198 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 7.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts to HCD and CHL The proposed development is one block north of the Victoria Park HCD and within the Downtown CHL. The potential impacts to each of these heritage areas is addressed below. 7.2.1 Victoria Park HCD The Victoria Park HCD was established to conserve the area's excellent examples of late -19th and early -20th century residential architecture, set around an historic park (Galvin, 2012). The northern boundary of the HCD, along Joseph Street, is one block south of the Subject Property, on the opposite side of a Region of Waterloo transit terminal. The criteria of MHSTCI Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans were reviewed to assess potential negative impacts on the HCD arising from the proposed redevelopment. The proposed development will not result in the destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features of the HCD. Nor will it result in an alteration that is not sympathetic, or incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance of the HCD. The proposed development will result in the creation of shadows but will not result in shadows that will alter the visibility or functionality of a heritage attribute or associated natural features or plantings within the HCD. The proposed development will not result in the isolation of any heritage attributes associated with the Victoria Park HCD. As proposed the development will not result in direct or indirect obstructions of significant views or vistas within, from or of built and natural features associated with the HCD. 7.2.2 Downtown CHL The Downtown CHL is directly tied to the founding of the city and contains remnants of the city's commercial functions that date to the 1850's (City of Kitchener, 2014). The Subject Property is located along the south boundary of the CHL. The criteria of MHSTCI Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans were reviewed to assess potential negative impacts on the Downtown CHL arising from the proposed redevelopment. As identified in Section 7.1, the following also apply to the Downtown CHL: Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes orfeatures. ► Fapade of 24 Charles Street West will be retained ► Demolition of 22 Charles Street West will have minimal impact on the streetscape Alteration that is not sympathetic, or incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance. ► Fapade of 24 Charles Street West will be retained and rehabilitated and continue to contribute to the historic industrial character of the area Shadows created that alter the viability of a heritage attribute or an associated natural feature or plantings, such as a garden. ► No shadow studies were undertaken as a part of this HIA. The proposed development will result in the creation of shadows but will not result in shadows that will alter the visibility or functionality of a heritage attributes or associated natural features or plantings within the CHL PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 1501at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship. ► Proposed development will incorporate the fapade of 24 Charles Street West into the podium of the redevelopment, which will be stylistically sympathetic to the heritage resource ► Located within 150m of Part V protected structures contained within the Victoria Park HCD Direct or indirect obstruction significant views or vistas within, from or of built and natural features. ► Proposed development will not impact significant views into or out of 22-26 Charles Street West. March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 200 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 8. ®raft Statement of Cultural Significance Based on the criteria set forth by Regulation Reg. 9/06, 24 Charles Street West does retain and display CHVI as it pertains to design/physical value, historical and associative value, and contextual value. 24 Charles Street West is a representative example of early -20th century industrial architecture. The structure was constructed c.1920 as an industrial production facility. Since construction the structure has housed several industries, all of which contributed to the economic prosperity of the area, and the City of Kitchener. The structure stands as a reminder of the industrial manufacturing history of the area. Heritage Attributes Exterior ► Shallow setback from Charles Street West ► Rectangular plan ► Flat roof ► Cast concrete lintels ► Yellow brick ► Prominent integrated pillars ► Prominent and expansive windows Interior ► Post and beam support structure ► Laminated dimensional lumber floor and roof structure ► Four original divided light metal windows (northwest corner of structure) PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 9. Mitigation,• • Conservation The proposed redevelopment outlines the retention of a significant portion of 24 Charles Street West. The fapade will be preserved and incorporated into the podium of the proposed condominium development. The redevelopment will retain examples of the identified heritage attributes of 24 Charles Street West as identified in the Draft Statement of Significance (Section 8). Existing materials, including original metal frame industrial windows, will be salvaged from the northwest corner of the structure and incorporated into the entrance vestibule of the new structure. The design as proposed works to retain the identified CHVI of the property and preserve the industrial heritage of the surrounding area. 9.1 Alternative Mitigation Options The following alternative mitigation options were considered and pros and cons of each mitigative measure are presented (Table 4). 1. Restoration of the extant structures for continued use as a mixed residential and retail location 2. Retention of 24 Charles Street West fapade and integrate it into the proposed re -development and demolition of 22 Charles Street West 3. Relocation of structures and renovate for adaptive reuse 4. Salvage of building materials and subsequent demolition of structures Table 4: Mitigation Options AWPros - No alteration to existing street scape or - Prevents redevelopment of identified heritage attributes the area - Retention of embodied energy - Severally limits the economic viability of the property - Retention of embodied energy of 24 - Separates the fapade from Charles Street West the heritage associated with - Retention of identified heritage features the historical use of the pertinent to the fapade property - Provides for the retention of heritage - Addition of the tower will attributes while providing for the re- introduce new shadows to development of the area the area - Allows a significant portion of the existing - Loss of structure at 22 pedestrian street scape to remain Charles Street West and March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 202 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario - Diversion of waste from landfill - Opportunity for creative integration of heritage elements into new construction - Provides resources for the preservation of other listed and designated heritage features - Provides for the retention of key heritage features while allowing for the development of infrastructure needed for the continued growth of the surrounding community - Loss of heritage structure - Loss of heritage character of the area The proposed retention and integration of the 24 Charles Street West fapade is the best option for this property. Integration provides for the retention of heritage attributes and retains a key part of the existing street scape. 9.2 Evaluation of Applicable Heritage Conservation Principles The proposed redevelopment has been assessed against the General Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration as defined in Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada, 2010). Table 5: Assessment of Development Against General Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration Standard qW I Evaluation Standard 1: Conserve the heritage value of an Proposed design will retain the main fapade of historic place. Do not remove, replace or 24 Charles Street West as well as a substantial substantially alter its intact or repairable portion of the west wall. Retention will serve to character -defining elements. Do not move a part support and retain the industrial heritage of the of an historic place if is current location is surrounding area. character -defining element. Standard 2: Conserve changes to an historic place There are no changes that are defining that, over time, have become character -defining elements in their own right. elements in their own right Standard 3: Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. Development will retain 24 Charles Street West fapade as is and will implement a stabilization process during the proposed construction PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 1501at��1 - Opportunity for adaptive reuse of interior of 24 Charles Street historically significant portions of the West structure while allowing for the redevelopment of property - Structures remains intact - Structures are separated from their intended place within the City of Kitchener - Prohibitively expensive - Diversion of waste from landfill - Opportunity for creative integration of heritage elements into new construction - Provides resources for the preservation of other listed and designated heritage features - Provides for the retention of key heritage features while allowing for the development of infrastructure needed for the continued growth of the surrounding community - Loss of heritage structure - Loss of heritage character of the area The proposed retention and integration of the 24 Charles Street West fapade is the best option for this property. Integration provides for the retention of heritage attributes and retains a key part of the existing street scape. 9.2 Evaluation of Applicable Heritage Conservation Principles The proposed redevelopment has been assessed against the General Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration as defined in Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada, 2010). Table 5: Assessment of Development Against General Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration Standard qW I Evaluation Standard 1: Conserve the heritage value of an Proposed design will retain the main fapade of historic place. Do not remove, replace or 24 Charles Street West as well as a substantial substantially alter its intact or repairable portion of the west wall. Retention will serve to character -defining elements. Do not move a part support and retain the industrial heritage of the of an historic place if is current location is surrounding area. character -defining element. Standard 2: Conserve changes to an historic place There are no changes that are defining that, over time, have become character -defining elements in their own right. elements in their own right Standard 3: Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. Development will retain 24 Charles Street West fapade as is and will implement a stabilization process during the proposed construction PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 1501at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 204 of 399 process. West wall will need to be salvaged and recreated in order to facilitate the proposed redevelopment. Standard 4: Recognize each historic place as a Proposal outlines retention of the historic physical record of its time, place and use. Do not fapade of 24 Charles Street West. Proposed create a false sense of historical development by residential tower will be distinct from the adding elements from other historic places or existing fabric. Proposal will not result in a false other properties, or by combining features of the sense of historical development. same property that never coexisted. Standard 5: Find a use for an historic place that Proposed redevelopment will retain the requires minimal or no change to its character- identified character defining elements of the defining elements. front fapade and will work to incorporate salvaged internal elements. Standard 6: Protect and, if necessary, stabilize an Front fapade will be stabilized during historic place until any subsequent intervention is construction process prior to integration into undertake. Protect and preserve archaeological the podium of the proposed development. resources in place. Where there is potential for disturbing archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss of information. Standard 7: Evaluate the existing condition of Structure has previously been subject to character -defining elements to determine the adaptive reuse and was stabilized at that time. appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest Structure is in excellent overall condition. means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. Standard 8: Maintain character -defining elements Proposal does not call for, nor does the on an ongoing basis. Repair character -defining structure require, any significant maintenance element by reinforcing their materials using at this time. Building should be routinely recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind monitored and preventative maintenance any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of undertaken on a regular basis. character -defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes. Standard 9: Make any intervention needed to Front fapade of 24 Charles Street West will be preserve character -defining elements physically retained in situ and will be subject to and visually compatible with the historic place and stabilization during the construction process. identifiable on close inspection. Document any The stabilization process should be documented intervention for future reference. and retained for future reference. Standard 10: Repair rather than replace character- West wall will be recreated using existing defining elements. Where character defining materials. elements are too severely deteriorated to repair, and where sufficient physical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements. Where there is insufficient physical evidence, make the form, material and detailing of the new elements compatible with the character of the historic place March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 204 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 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. Standard 12: Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of an historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. Proposal outlines a development that will be visually compatible with and distinguishable from the historic fabric. Proposal will require the demolition of much of the existing structure. Only the 24 Charles Street West fapade will be retained as is. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario 10. Summary Statement and Recommendations 24 Charles Street West contributes to the industrial heritage of the area and the larger City of Kitchener. 22 Charles Street West is also connected to the industrial heritage of the area, but has been subject to alteration and does not exhibit CHVI. 26 Charles Street West is a vacant lot and has no CHVI. The retention of the 24 Charles Street west fapade conforms to accepted heritage practices as it provides for the retention and preservation of character defining elements and the overall continuation of the heritage of the area. While facadism is not typically a preferred method of preserving a heritage attribute, in this case it is the best mitigation option. The following recommendations are made: 1. Retain the Charles Street fapade of 24 Charles Street West and integrate it into the podium of the proposed redevelopment. 2. The fapade of 24 Charles Street West should be added to the Municipal Heritage Register and considered for Part IV designation under the OHA. 3. A vibration assessment should be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction so that a "zone of influence" can be established, and appropriate monitoring can be arranged during construction activities. Adjacent properties may need to be monitored for vibration to ensure levels remain below the accepted threshold during all construction activities. Vibration monitoring will ensure that unintended impacts do not affect surrounding properties. Vibration monitoring should be carried out by persons with previous knowledge of heritage structures and the impact of vibration on heritage resources. 4. A Built Heritage Protection/Conservation Plan (BHPCP) should be developed 24 Charles Street West. The BHPCP should address the retention and preservation of all existing resources that will be integrated into the proposed development. 5. An attempt should be made to integrate salvaged post and beam components into the new building. 6. The original divided light metal windows should be retained, restored, and integrated into a public area of the new building. 7. Interpretive signage depicting the historic use of the Subject Property should be installed in a common area of the new building. March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 206 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Air Photos 1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario Archive. Electronic Database available online at: https:Hmdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern- ontario/index. Last accesses December 2021. Blumenson, John 1990 Ontario Architecture: A guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the Present. Fitzhenry and Whiteside, T.H. Best Printing, Canada. Canadian Encyclopedia 2012 Kitchener -Waterloo. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener- waterloo, Accessed December 2021. City of Kitchener (CoK) 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Available online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CHL Study Report. pdf 2017 Municipal Heritage Register. www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/COR LEG Index of Non- Designated_Properties.pdf, Accessed December 2021. 1996 Victoria Park Area Kitchener: Heritage Conservation District Plan. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN Heritage Plan Vict oria Park.pdf Last accessed December 2021. n.d Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. On file with the City of Kitchener. Dominion Bureau of Statistics 1959 The Wire and Goods Industry. Queen's Printer, Ottawa, ON. Fear, Jon 2014 "Flash from the Past: Bullas Bros. site now holds Kitchener bus terminal." Guelph Mercury Tribune. Fram, Mark 2003 Well -Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundations Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation, 3rd edition. Boston Mills Press, Erin Ontario. Galvin, Kayla Jonas 2012 Heritage Conservation District Study prepared for the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Available on line at: https://uwaterloo.ca/heritage-resources-centre/sites/ca.heritage- resources-centre/files/uploads/files/Final%20Report%20-%2OVictoria%2OPark-%20FI NAL.pdf Goad, Charles 1925 Downtown Kitchener Fire Insurance Plan of 1908, Revised 1925. Underwriters Survey Bureay Ltd. Toronto, Canada. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Good, E. Reginald, Paul Tiessen 1988 "Schneider, Joseph." Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. 7. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/schneider ioseph 7E.html, Accessed January 2022. Harpell, J.J. 1915 Canadian Industry, Commerce and Finance. The Industrial and Educational Press, Ltd., Montreal, QC. Kitchener Waterloo Record 1966 "Newtex Buys Pearl Laundry." May 26. Koch, Henry 1967 "Talking Business." Kitchener -Waterloo Record, May 13. Mercer, Greg 2015 "Lear ceases production in Kitchener." The Waterloo Record, November 27. Mills, Rych 2016 "Flash from the Past: Granite Club was Kitchener's first sports multiplex." The Guelph Mercury Tribune, May 21. 2017 "Flash from the Past: Doors Open: The old and the new in education." The Waterloo Record, Sept. 15. 2002 Images of Canada: Kitchener (Berlin) 1880-1960. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC. 2021 "Flash from the Past: Foundries helped found Kitchener's industrial strength." The St. Catharine Standard, July 9. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) 2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Standards_Conservation.pdf. Last accessed May 2021. 2007 Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. 2010 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage s g.shtml, Accessed December 2022. Ontario Land Registry n.d. Ontario Land Records Abstract Index Books, retrieved from ONland.ca, accessed December 2021. Parks Canada 1980 Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings Exterior Recording Training Manual. Department of the Environment, Ottawa. ON. 2010 Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Queens Printer, Canada. 1 March 2022 2021-121 PHC Inc. Page 208 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 22-26 Charles Street West, City of Kitchener, Ontario Province of Ontario 1990a Ontario Heritage Act. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18, Accessed December 2021. 1990b Planning Act. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. Last accessed June 2020. 2020 Provincial Policy Statement. https://www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020. Last accessed July 2020. Region of Waterloo 2017 History of Waterloo Region. https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/collections-and- research/waterloo-township.aspx#, Accessed 12021. Stroh, Jacob 1930 Reminisces of Berlin (Now Kitchener). Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society 18:175 — 207. The Cord Weekly 1981 "Welcome To Charlie's" advertisement. The Cord Weekly 21(20):19. Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo, ON. UNIFOR Local 1524 2015 Historical Facts. In Amalgamated Locol1524 Newsletter. https://xdocs.net/preview/xdocs- 5e0e4c1c0be7f, Accessed 20 December 2021. University of Waterloo n.d. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo. https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/proiect/ Walker and Miles 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Waterloo and Wellington Counties, Ontario. Walker and Miles Company, Toronto, ON. Waterloo Region Generations Menno R. Erb. https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personID=18656&tree=generations, Accessed December 2021. Wust, Klaus 1985 "Gaukel, Friedrich." Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. 8. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/gaukel friedrich 8E.html, Accessed January 2022. PHC Inc. 2021-121 March 2022 rel at��1 Appendix A Page 210 of 399 Project Manager— Carla Parslow, PhD, CAHP Member in Good Standing: Dr. Carla Parslow has over 20 years of experience in the cultural heritage resource management (CHRM) industry in Canada. As the President of PHC Inc., Dr. Parslow is responsible for the for the management of CHRM projects, as well as the technical review and quality assurance of all archaeological and cultural heritage projects completed by PHC. Throughout her career, Carla has managed both large and small offices of CHRM professionals and has mobilized both large (50+) and small (4+) teams of CHRM and Environmental projects offices throughout the province of Ontario. Dr. Parslow has served as either Project Manager or Project Director on hundreds of Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessments. Dr. Parslow is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Dr. Parslow is responsible for the overall management of the work and is the primary point of contact. Dr. Parslow is also responsible for the overall quality assurance. Heritage Specialist — Chris Lemon, B.Sc., Dip. CAHP Membership Pending: Chris Lemon is a Cultural Heritage Specialist and Licensed Archaeologist (R289) with 15 years experience. He received an Honours B.Sc. in Anthropology from the University of Toronto and has completed course work towards an M.A. from the University of Western Ontario. Mr. Lemon has a Diploma in Heritage Carpentry and Joinery and a Certificate in Heritage Planningfrom Algonquin College. During his career Mr. Lemon has participated in cultural heritage assessments across Ontario as both a Senior Field Director in archaeology and as a Built Heritage Practitioner. Chris's previous experience includes representation on Joint Health and Safety Committees; he is dedicated to maintaining a safety -first focus on all job sites. Chris is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Mr. Lemon is responsible for research, reporting and analysis. Page 211 of 399 Appendix B Page 212 of 399 ®!! `,� ., 01040!f, C ►�1 srm ARCHITECTS IVC NOFI 1 1 /, J 00' e 0 J �' i6 dig / / / i. 00 I / / /0// i /No /� / / //No0 //r/0111 1 0// i° //r/ IIll " I9� a 00 '0 il, ,00 Oil001600 v, 0,y Io x "e®/ Ir'9 I �r � 1 IllIN° s I�0 '01 jog 'o it1 i, i jaa AM I16l� VIII/ ° °vs,isl t a lij� ill _ 141a�1 �" 111114 �� Irmo �,• �b 1i it I �.. n.iil I li IN °�r 1911 ■� f ill" Tin ti � h rli� HI1p iF 1P1l .11 ° !r �Rt�11nr i CII mill fr 1! PIll�gl l�"; ro- srm ARCHITECTS INC. 0, I FWM Y 11 I �Il AO% Ub. Ana,= Appendix C Page 229 of 399 HALLS LANE WEST ........... 22.26 CHARLES DM�OP ,TMNT N- EST ,WX I li, E E - -- ------- ----------------------------- - - - - CHARST EST srm 22-26 CHARLES ST. W KITCHENER SITE PLAN A1.1 -r2 1— 2111 srm ,Lo�,o„000,PM 22-26 CHARLES ST. W KITCHENER P2 FLOOR PLAN Q��y\ A2.0 - f2 22-26 CHARLES ST. W KITCHENER P1 FLOOR PLAN e� A2.1 -r2 pp ,ow....... e ax«3�oMaa"�.s.a��s, e aE��Ea e e 1N TI 11 � m IL L� fi �e - ==ow L.L.— — TL:—.-.�.—_t - -�—F 22-26 CHARLES ST. W KITCHENER P1 FLOOR PLAN e� A2.1 -r2 srm 22-26 CHARLES ST. W. KITCHENER LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN e� A2.2 -r2 �_ PARKEn RN CN,► i ERA°ovE srm 22-26 CHARLES ST. W. KITCHENER LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN e� A2.2 -r2 i e i ax�� 3�oMaa�rs.a��s, e I n f e � i I a rid i -- --- 1 i i ,owERAao�E ii i EN L srm 22-26 CHARLES ST. W. KITCHENER LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN Q��y\ A2.3 - r2 Q Q QQ Qn Q i Q f r._. ----- — _.—_._ i e i ax�� 3�oMaa�rs.a��s, e I n f e � i I a rid i -- --- 1 i i ,owERAao�E ii i EN L srm 22-26 CHARLES ST. W. KITCHENER LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN Q��y\ A2.3 - r2 i MI, srm 22-26 CHARLES ST. W. KITCHENER LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN A2.3a - r2 1— 2111 p p p q l I I „x1.3�o aa�r11 TI I s.a«s, I Ll I ' I -+ . - - . - . - . - `'J srm 22-26 CHARLES ST. W. KITCHENER LEVELS 4-6 FLOOR PLAN eR A2.4 -r2 I e p p �Ep p L — — - — — — — — II — - — - - -- L i -+ . - - . - . - . - `'J srm 22-26 CHARLES ST. W. KITCHENER LEVELS 4-6 FLOOR PLAN eR A2.4 -r2 srm 22-26 CHARLES ST. W. KITCHENER LEVEL 7 FLOOR PLAN e� A2.5 -r2 Is-rml 22-26 CHARLES ST. W KITCHENER LEVELS 8-26 FLOOR PLAN A2.6 -r2 T1�111,11,11, ls-rml 22-26 CHARLES ST. W KITCHENER LEVELS 27-44 FLOOR PLAN eR A2.7 -r2 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 7, 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 9 DATE OF REPORT: May 13, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-271 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 88-92 Queen Street South RECOMMENDATION: For Information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated March 2022 regarding a proposal to redevelop the subject properties municipally known as 88-108 Queen Street South. The subject properties 88 Queen Street South, and 90-92 Queen Street South are listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage interest or value on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. 94-108 Queen Street South do not have any heritage status. The subject properties are adjacent to a number of heritage resources: - They are adjacent to 66 Queen Street South, which is also listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage interest or value on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. - The subject properties are also located adjacent to the Victoria Park Area Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD). More specifically, the subject properties are located adjacent to 95-97 Queen Street South and 103 Queen Street South, which has been classified under Building Group `A' — which means it is of high significance. - Additionally, the subject properties are also located adjacent to the Victoria Park Area Cultural Heritage Landscape and the Kitchener Downtown Cultural Heritage Landscape. The proposed development includes the construction of a 44 -storey residential building. The existing facades of 90-92, 96-102 and 108 Queen Street South will be retained and will be integrated into the podium design of the podium of the building. 88 Queen Street South is *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 240 of 399 proposed to be demolished to accommodate the road widening of Charles Street West and the construction of a traffic visibility triangle as part of a joint venture being undertaken by the City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo. The road widening is proposed to be undertaken in tandem with the construction of the development. Heritage Planning staff are currently in the process of reviewing the HIA and will be providing detailed comments to the applicant to address any areas that require further assessment and discussion. At this time, Heritage Planning staff are seeking the committee's input on the draft HIA and these comments will be taken into consideration as staff continues to review the HIA and associated planning applications. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the June meeting. A copy of the HIA is attached to this report. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act • Planning Act APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 88-92 Queen Street South Page 241 of 399 0 W H C, a � � ps � sUtTANC� Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Project number: 2021-095 Report Type: Revised Report Date: March 2022 Click or tap here to enter text. Page 242 of 399 © Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc. 883 St. Clair Avenue West, Rear, Toronto, ON, M6C 1C4 Telephone: 647-348-4887 Email: admin@phcgroup.ca Website: www.phcgroup.ca Page 243 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Content 1. Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 1 2. Personnel.......................................................................................................................3 3. Introduction................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Applicant Information...............................................................................................................4 4. Historic Research and Analysis........................................................................................ 8 4.1 Regional Overview....................................................................................................................8 4.1.1 History of Waterloo County.......................................................................................................................... 8 4.1.2 History of Waterloo Township..................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.3 History of the City of Kitchener.................................................................................................................. 10 4.2 90-92 Queen Street South History.........................................................................................11 4.2.1 Ownership History 90-92 Queen Street South.......................................................................................... 11 4.3 History of Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dyers..........................................................................16 S. Assessment of Existing Condition.................................................................................. 17 5.1 Surrounding Landscape..........................................................................................................17 5.2 Adjoining structures...............................................................................................................21 5.2.1 88 Queen Street South............................................................................................................................... 21 5.2.2 94 Queen Street South............................................................................................................................... 23 5.2.3 96-102 Queen Street South........................................................................................................................ 24 5.2.4 108 Queen Street South............................................................................................................................. 25 5.3 Architecture and Design of 90-92 Queen Street South..........................................................26 5.3.1 Exterior Documentation............................................................................................................................. 27 5.3.2 Interior Documentation..............................................................................................................................36 6. Proposed Development................................................................................................ 49 7. Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest........................................................... 50 7.1 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries(MHSTCI)..................................51 7.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts to Area HCD and CHLs.......................................................52 7.2.1 Victoria Park HCD........................................................................................................................................52 7.2.2 Victoria Park CHL.........................................................................................................................................53 7.2.3 Downtown CHL............................................................................................................................................53 8. Statement of Cultural Significance................................................................................ 54 9. Mitigation, Preservation and Conservation................................................................... 56 9.1 90-92 Queen Street South......................................................................................................56 9.2 Alternative Mitigation Options...............................................................................................57 10. Summary Statement..................................................................................................... 59 11. Recommendations........................................................................................................60 12. Bibliography.................................................................................................................61 Page 244 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario List ®f Tables and Figures Table 1: Pertinent Land Transaction for 90-92 Queen Street South................................................................................ 11 Table 2: Cultural Heritage Evaluation of 90-92 Queen Street South Facade...................................................................50 Table3: Mitigation Options................................................................................................................................................57 Figure 1: Location of the Property on a Topographic Map.......................................................................................................5 20 Figure 2: Location of the Property on an Aerial Image....................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Location of the Property in relation to nearby heritage resources.................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Part of 'Birds Eye Image of Berlin c.1890-1899. Red arrow indicates location of 90-92 Queen Street South12 22 Figure 5: Full 1919 aerial image. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South.......................................................... 13 Figure 6: Portion of 1919 aerial image showing detail of 90-92 Queen Street South. Red arrow indicates 90-92 23 Queen Street South, pre -Art Deco fagade......................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7: Portion of 1925 Fire Insurance Plan of Subject Property. Note the fagade set back of address labelled 54 25 and alley between 54 and 50. 54 is the former address of Subject Property................................................................. 14 Figure 8: Portion of 1930 aerial image of Subject Property. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South .............. 15 Figure 9: Portion of 1945 aerial image of Subject Property. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South .............. 15 Figure 10: Portion of 1960 aerial image. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South ............................................. 16 Figure 11: Surrounding Street scape as viewed from intersection of Church Street and Queen Street South. Red arrow indicates Subject Property. Facing north................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 12: Looking south towards Subject Property from intersection of Queen Street South and King Street East. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 13: Looking down Queen Street South. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South. Facing north............ 19 Figure 14: View into Subject Property from intersection of Ontario Street South and Charles Street West. Facing southeast............................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 15: View of Subject Property from intersection of Benton Street and Charles Street East. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South. Facing west............................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 16: View from structure. Facing northeast............................................................................................................ 20 Figure 17: View from structure facing south..................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 18: Front fagade of 88 Queen Street South........................................................................................................... 22 Figure 19: North face of 88 Queen Street South. Note use of round headed windows on second floor ...................... 22 Figure 20: Transition between Edwardian fagade constructed of smooth brick and the original construction........... 23 Figure21: 94 Queen Street South...................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 22: 96-102 Queen Street South.............................................................................................................................. 25 Figure23: 108 Queen Street South.................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 24: c.2013 image depicting the original Pearl Laundry Cleaners & Dyers signage, a character defining feature ofthe structure................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 25: Front fagade of structure. Currently occupied by Phoenix Cannabis. Facing north ...................................... 28 Figure 26: Close up of cast cross located in center of front parapet............................................................................... 28 Figure 27: Detail of crest located between second floor windows. Note use of unique brick pattern ......................... 29 Figure 28: Close up of cast detail present above second storey windows...................................................................... 29 Figure 29: Close up of acanthus leaf detail used in accents on front fagade..................................................................30 Page 245 of 399 Figure 30: Egg and Dart pattern used on cast detail at separation between ashlar lower finish and upper brick finish. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 31: Detail of cast cove associated with windowsill of main structural opening...................................................31 Figure 32: Example of brass exterior lighting. Post date 2013 but are temporally appropriate to the structure ......... 32 Figure 33: Replacement door and round transom. Date to c.2013, date of structure fire............................................33 Figure 34: Evidence of past sign installation in ashlar finish............................................................................................34 Figure 35: Rear face of structure. Facing east. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South. Remnants of earlier alley can be seen to the right of structure........................................................................................................................34 Figure 36: Blind windows located in the connection that existed between Pearl Laundry store front and processing facility. Note curved window openings indicative of late 19th century construction......................................................35 Figure 37: Example of interior of first floor. Looking towards Queen Street South........................................................36 Figure 38: Main entrance to first floor commercial space...............................................................................................37 Figure 39: Example of storeroom located in rear of first floor......................................................................................... 38 Figure 40: Interior of apartment located in rear of second floor.....................................................................................39 Figure 41: Interior of second floor apartment. Wall of 88 Queen Street South is visible in window ............................40 Figure 42: Example of typical original trim in rear apartment..........................................................................................40 Figure 43: Example of original baseboard.........................................................................................................................41 Figure 44: Original trim in front apartment.......................................................................................................................41 Figure 45: Overview of front apartment............................................................................................................................42 Figure 46: Non -original windows in front apartment, facing Queen Street South.........................................................42 Figure 47: Kitchen of front apartment. Note original door on right of image.................................................................43 Figure 48: Example of original door...................................................................................................................................44 Figure 49: Remains of transom in front apartment..........................................................................................................45 Figure 50: Entrance stairs to second floor.........................................................................................................................45 Figure 51: North half of basement, facing west................................................................................................................46 Figure 52: North half of basement, facing east.................................................................................................................46 Figure 53: Double hung windows in west wall of north half of basement. Not visible from exterior ...........................47 Figure 54: South half of basement, facing east.................................................................................................................47 Figure 55: Shell refuse from button factory used as temper in concrete wall................................................................48 Figure 56: Rendering of Queen Street South faced of proposed design.........................................................................49 Appendices Appendix A - Qualifications Appendix B — Development Mapping Appendix C- Existing Statement of Significance 90-92 Queen Street South Appendix D — Current floor plans of 90-92 Queen Street South Appendix E —Shadow Study Appendix F - Renderings Page 246 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1. Executive Summary Parslow Heritage Consultancy, Inc. (PHC) was retained by SRM Architects (the Proponent) to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario (Subject Property). The Proponent is undertaking the assessment of 90- 92 Queen Street South at the request of the City of Kitchener as part of the redevelopment application for the southwest corner of Charles Street West and Queen Street South. This HIA is designed to meet the scope of work stipulated in the City of Kitchener Terms of Reference- Heritage Impact Assessment (CoK, nd) and conform to the City of Kitchener's Official Plan (CoK, 2014). The purpose of this assessment is to review relevant historical documents, evaluate the potential cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI), identify cultural heritage resources and assess potential impacts, and recommend mitigation options. In order to evaluate potential cultural heritage value or interest and recommend mitigation options, provisions in the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) under Regulation 9/06 and the Planning Act (1990) were applied. A site visit was conducted on 8 October 2021 to document the property, structure, and surrounding landscape. 90-92 Queen Street South is a unique example of the Art Deco architectural style. The fapade is the only example of the style in the area. Evaluation of the structure against Regulation 9/06 finds it to exhibit CHVI and be a candidate for Part IV protection as per Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proposed development will pursue designation of Art Deco fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South as part of the redevelopment. The following recommendations are put forth: 1. The Art Deco fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 2. The fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South should be subjected to a detailed pre -conditions survey to document the condition of the fapade materials prior to any construction activities or ground disturbance occurring on any adjacent lands. The survey should pay special attention to any pre-existing defects, as such defects could be adversely affected by ground vibrations resulting from construction activities. 3. A vibration assessment should be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction so that a "zone of influence" can be established, and appropriate monitoring can be arranged during construction activities. Adjacent properties may need to be monitored for vibration to ensure levels remain below the accepted threshold during all construction activities. Vibration monitoring will ensure that unintended impacts do not affect surrounding properties. Vibration monitoring should be carried out by persons with previous knowledge of heritage structures and the impact of vibration on heritage resources. 4. A Built Heritage Protection/Conservation Plan (BHPCP) should be developed for 90-92, 96- 102 and 108 Queen Street South. The BHPCP should address the retention and PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 Ab Page 247 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario preservation of all existing resources that will be integrated into the proposed development. 5. All structures and portions of structures which will be subject to demolition as part of this proposal be subject to salvage mitigation. Salvage mitigation helps to divert waste and promote retention of heritage elements. Salvageable materials include but are not limited to: ► Brick ► Cast lintels and window sills ► Doors and windows ► Framing components ► Architectural details, brackets, corbels ► Interior period trim ► Recyclable materials (plumbing and electrical components) Incorporation of salvaged materials from the project area into the proposed development should be considered on a case by case basis. Salvaged materials may be able to be incorporated into the design as art installations or interior accents. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 248 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Carla Parslow, Ph.D., CAHP Christopher Lemon, B.Sc., Dip. Heritage, CAHP Renee Hendricks, M.A. Acknowledgements Victoria Grohn Deeksha Choudry Marc Villemaire Senior Cultural Resource Specialist Lead Cultural Heritage Specialist Cultural Heritage Assistant Heritage Planner, City of Kitchener Heritage Planner, City of Kitchener SRM Architects Inc. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3. Introduction Parslow Heritage Consultancy, Inc. (PHC) was retained by SRM Architects (the Proponent) to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario (Subject Property). The Proponent is undertaking the assessment of 90- 92 Queen Street South at the request of the City of Kitchener as part of the redevelopment application for the southwest corner of Charles Street West and Queen Street South. This HIA is designed to meet the scope of work stipulated in the City of Kitchener Terms of Reference- Heritage Impact Assessment (CoK, nd) and the conform to the City of Kitchener's Official Plan (CoK, 2014). A site visit was conducted on 8 October 2021 to document the property, structure, and surrounding landscape. The Subject Property is located on the west side of Queen Street South and is adjacent to the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District (CoK, 1997) Documentation of the property took the form of high-resolution photographs using a Nikon D5600 DSLR camera, the collection of field notes and the creation of measured drawings where necessary. The assessment strategy was derived from the National Historic Parks and Sites Branch Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings (Parks Canada, 1980), Well Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation Manual on the Principles and Practice of Architectural Conservation (Fram, 2003), the Historic American Building Survey - Guide to Field Documentation (NABS, 2011), and the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada, 2010). All accessible areas of the property and associated structures were accessed and documented. 3.1 Applicant Information Questions pertaining to the proposed development can be directed to: SRM Architects Inc. c/o Marc Villemaire 279 King Street West Suite 200 Kitchener, Ontario N2G 1131 e -Mail: mvillemaire@srmarchitects.ca March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 250 of 399 Figure 1: Topographic Map He, � yl � .Uniroyal- Goodrich Park Waterloo - - Alount Hope Cemetery. Duka Kitchener A•loruit `1- o Park Hope Cemetery `f� c`fi V'S, IV _ 15` y�-jotr� Lips . 1 • tk •. ,i., Park Alb- sy �ti+�r F ark gorge Lippert \ Park '• ,..c'�`� 55 :sV v ` 15`kin `DUkI ;;5 B,Sr kY :r o� a c Jda lz Park Victoria J)JUbtlee'Dr+Hills t Victoria t:j;n Park Vidona Gr n �55 � �l p5 r y / 55 chs ; lar;Way i ont Highland•Rd,W Woodside Park Hlghlan, a Courts Park N 'y`N Si'�nrnai?,I F Veterans Green � D 9L 0 G,end<�le i f %L Jeece Park ,'Veterans' 4 P� Park u - �if �v ll �� C<<s �i- Lakeside ✓r Fark N Cid_ r7 •.. ( , v., Av e F:IxI>:.x 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1:25,000 KM Legend 90 - 92 Queen Street South Cl 8, rf \ 6 veu N _c Park v P \` 53` ,mac Weber 62 Park T :0 6 A i F, 5` "0. .. 94- U6 Nv Knolhvood W Park P 15 � Sl Peter Lutheran �C r Cemetery• Ir; hd Id °s. i u� r Rodcw av / P1 d n , Golf �v COUr Sources: Esri, HERE, Gar -min, Intermap, increment P Corp.,.GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, KadasterNL, Ordnance Survey, Esri_,,. Japan', METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 90 - 92 Queen Street South, Kitchener, ON Page 251 of 399 Figure 2: Modern Aerial Image - w ��.�. 1 ~ Cr •� _ '� lei � �- �` 40 IPA t ® Ope St eetMap (aid co,�"y,,tt,fi��b.utors, CC -BY -SA, Source:= E-sri, M r f Earthstar Geog apha s, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, arm_d th�e�GIS Use ommunity,, -(w ces:`Esri, HERE, Garmin, Interni^ap;i ment P Cor GEBCO, USGS, FAO,m NPS, L Geo Base, IGN, IS daster NL, Ordnance Sur-vey, Esri Japan, METrI,�Esn.C.hina OpenStreetMap contributor�sand the GISUser Cfomm pity 0 15 30 60 1:1,500 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Meters 90 - 92 Queen Street South, Kitchener, ON Legend 90 - 92 Queen Street South Page 252 of 399 Figure 3 - Heritage Conservation Districts & Cultural Heritage Landscapes 7 t � • j� D t CHL YYss i j/ • / to. own own - • , �'� z... i 1 ♦ ` n • • •Victoria Park CHL f.,i •e �► ,+, , • 4 • ; �' VICTORIA PARK HCD Victoria Park CHL A„t So Urce Esri Maxar GeoE e, Eartl'sta,AGeograph cs, •NES/Airbus USDA +USGS�AroG I , IG , and the G'I�Se -r Co mu11 0 30 60 120 1:3,000 Meters Legend 90 - 92 Queen Street South Heritage District Cultural Heritage Landscapes Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 90 - 92 Queen Street South, Kitchener, ON r. lam► Page 253 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 4 Historic Research 4.1 Regional Overview The land containing the Region of Waterloo is the traditional territory of the Attawandaron, Haudenosaunee, and Mississauga First Nations. In 1784, the Haldimand Purchase gifted Thayendanegea (Joseph Brant) and the Haudenosaunee a large tract of land along the Grand River —from Lake Erie to Elora Falls and six miles wide on each bank — which the First Nation subsequently began to subdivide and sell to settlers. In 1798 three large blocks of that original tract became the Townships of Waterloo, Woolwich, and Dumfries, the initial townships of Waterloo County. By 1852 the area was divided into five townships: Waterloo, Woolwich, Wellesley, Wilmot, and North Dumfries, and major population centers included Waterloo, Kitchener (Berlin), Preston, Hespeler, Galt, Elmira, and New Hamburg. 4.1.1 History of Waterloo County European settlement of the area began almost immediately following the separation of the county from the Haldimand Tract. The richly forested land provided numerous resources for hunting, fishing, logging, and several water sources conducive to mill construction. The first permanent European settlers in the area arrived in 1800 when Joseph Schoerg (later Sherk) and Samuel Betzner, Jr. settled along the Grand River in what is now a part of Kitchener. The first hamlets in the county were Blair and Doon, and a corduroy road along what is now King Street in Waterloo encouraged further settlement in the region. The first settlers to the region were German Mennonites from Pennsylvania, seeking land and religious protection in Upper Canada. Most were farmers, although there were also some members who served the community as millers and tradesmen. The western part of the county around Berlin (Kitchener), St. Jacobs, and Elmira was settled by predominately German Mennonites, while the southern portion near Cambridge and other areas around the Grand River, such as Fergus and Elora, attracted Scots and other British immigrants. Early government expenditures to build roads in the area encouraged pioneer settlers with a direct route from Lake Ontario, and the Grand River provided an avenue of transportation to and from Lake Erie. These transportation avenues and the different cultural backgrounds of pioneers led to a diversity of settlements throughout the region, with religious affiliations of non -Mennonites consisting of Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist. The Region of Waterloo still has the largest population of Old Order Mennonites in Canada, particularly around the St. Jacobs and Elmira areas. Despite the early date of settlement, villages in the region remained quite small throughout the 1820s. The village of Preston was a thriving business district by 1830, the same year Berlin (Kitchener) was founded. In 1840 Waterloo County was officially formed from the initial three - block purchase from the Haudenosaunee and territory transferred from other districts. In 1852 the County was reorganized again and divided into three parts, forming the United Counties of Wellington, Waterloo, and Grey. Waterloo County consisted of North Dumfries, Waterloo, Wilmot, Woolwich, and Wellesley Townships. Berlin (Kitchener) was named the county seat in 1853, narrowly beating the town of Galt for the designation. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 254 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario By 1861 the population of Waterloo County had reached 38,750 people. German influences remained strong, in 187155% of Waterloo County's population could claim German heritage, either from Continental Germany or from the Pennsylvania Mennonite pioneers. The rural population began to decrease around 1871 as cities, villages, and hamlets began to grow and consolidate. By the 1890s interurban railways allowed for easier navigation not only around Waterloo County, but to surrounding counties as well, although rail services began to disappear in the 1930s as automobiles began to proliferate. Waterloo County was dissolved in 1973 and renamed the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, which consists of the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge, and the townships of Wellesley, Wilmot, Woolwich, and North Dumfries, in addition to Waterloo Region (formerly Waterloo Township). 4.1.2 History of Waterloo Township Waterloo Township was known as Block Two of the three -block purchase from the Haldimand Tract and consisted of approximately 94,000 acres. Richard Beasley acquired 60,000 acres from Thayendanegea in 1796, although Beasley was prohibited by deed from subdividing the block until the entirety of the mortgage was paid to the Haudenosaunee. However, Beasley began selling lots anyway to meet his financial obligations. In 1800 alone Beasley sold over 14,000 acres to Mennonite settlers, although the recent immigrants did not know they would not receive title on their lands until Beasley met his mortgage obligations. This led to a panic among the newly arrived Mennonites, culminating in a formal agreement between Thayendanegea and Beasley, which allowed Beasley to sell the bulk of Block Two to cover his mortgage, while also giving the Mennonite buyers the legal title to lots they had already purchased. Subsequently Beasley sold 60,000 acres to the German Company of Pennsylvania in 1803, represented by Daniel Erb and Samuel Bricker, whose purchase absolved Beasley of all financial obligation towards the Haudenosaunee and even allowed him to retain 10,000 acres for his own use, which he sold into the 1830s. The 60,000 acres purchased by the German Company was subdivided into 128 lots of 448 acres each, and 32 lots of 83 acres each. Lots were randomly selected to ensure fairness, leading to non -adjacent lots owned by the same person, and roads were often inconsistent between urban and rural areas. The German Company was composed mostly of Mennonites from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and the final payment on Block Two was made in 1804 by Samuel and John Bricker along with Jacob, John, and Daniel Erb. Prior to 1830 most settlers in Waterloo Township were Mennonite, although there was also a small population of Pennsylvania River Brethren, a similar Anabaptist group also known as Dunkers or Tunkers. As the 19th century progressed, Waterloo Township became less Mennonite in character, although pockets of strong Mennonite settlement remain. Initially part of the Gore District, the area was incorporated in 1816 and named Waterloo after the decisive British victory against Napoleon Bonaparte the previous year. It was also the first township settled out of the five that would go on to comprise the County of Waterloo. Most early settlement was along the Grand River due to geographic accessibility rather than fertility of the land. By 1818 the township's population had reached 1,850, which grew to 2,000 by 1831. By the 1830s most of the available land within Block Two had been purchased, and many of the original subdivisions were divided for a second time and resold. By the second half of the 19th century most of the PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 1501at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario settlers moving into Waterloo Township were artisans, merchants, tradesmen, and labourers instead of farmers. These individuals settled in villages, whose more urban communities served the needs of the surrounding farmers. Water sources provided power for grist and sawmills, as well as distilleries. The area also hosted several tanneries, and by 1851 there were numerous factories that produced farm implements and furniture. Settlers who were searching for rural land bought in other townships, such as Wilmot and Woolwich. By the mid -1850s the first railways were laid in Waterloo Township. The initial rail line was the Grand Trunk Railway, opened in 1856 with three stops at Shantz Station, Berlin (Kitchener), and Breslau. The railway ensured that Waterloo Township would continue to be the most settled and industrialized of all the other townships within the County of Waterloo. The railway continued to expand throughout the county, providing a faster and more accessible means of transportation for most of the populace, although Waterloo Township remained the centre of economic life within the county. Waterloo Township was consolidated and renamed Waterloo Region in 1973; the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo absorbed the western section of the township, and the land east of the Grand River was designated as part of an expanded Woolwich Township. As a result, much of the former Waterloo Township ceased to exist as a political and geographic entity. 4.1.3 History of the City of Kitchener The largest city in the Grand River watershed, the City of Kitchener was founded in 1806 as Ebytown by Benjamin Eby, a Mennonite preacher (later bishop in 1812). Initialley concentrated around the southeast side of Queen Street, the residents of Ebytown encouraged manufacturers to set up business in the settlement. Other important settlers in Ebytown were Joseph Schneider, John Erb, Abram Weber, and David Weber. Joseph Schneider settled on the south side of Queen Street in 1807 and cleared a rudimentary road through the area, allowing "Schneider's Road" to become the nucleus of Berlin. The Schneider's 1816 house is still standing. The hamlet of Berlin wasn't officially established until 1830 when Phineas Varnum, a tenant of Joseph Schneider, opened a blacksmith shop on the site of the Walper House Hotel. A tavern and a general store soon followed, and the area's first furniture warehouse also opened in 1830. By 1846 the population of Berlin was reported to be 400 "mostly German" individuals. In 1853 Berlin was named the seat of Waterloo County when hotelier Friedrich Gaukel donated a parcel of land to be used as a courthouse and jail near the corner of what is now Queen Street North and Weber Street. The first city council meeting sat on January 24 of that year and consisted of 12 members from the five townships and two villages. In 1856 the Grand Trunk Railroad was laid through Berlin, ushering in an age of industrialization as factories and more substantial homes began to replace the original settler's log cabins. Berlin quickly became the industrial centre of the area, and in 1910 was the first inland Ontario city to have access to affordable power from the hydroelectric plant at Niagara Falls. The name of the city was changed from Berlin to Kitchener in 1916 due to anti -German sentiment during the First World War, a movement spearheaded by local business owners. The city was named for Herbert, Lord Kitchener, a field marshal killed at sea the same year as the name change. During the Second World War Kitchener was the site of a Women's Army Corps training base. The construction of 1 March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 256 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Highway 401 in 1960 provided direct access to the city and encouraged further development in roadside industrial parks. However, a recession in the 1980s led to many industries leaving Kitchener and not returning. Ease of transportation and general proximity to the Greater Toronto Area has led to Kitchener beginning to become a bedroom community for city workers. 4.2 90-92 Queen Street South History 4.2.1 Ownership History 90-92 Queen Street South The property that is municipally identified at 90-92 Queen Street South enters the historic record as part of Lot 17 of the German Company Tract. Following the expansion of Berlin (Kitchener) the property becomes part of both J.E. Schneider's Survey and C.K. Nahrgang's survey, and part of Plans 391 and 393. The land records pertaining to transactions that post-date 1897 and pre -date 1912 are illegible, and as such it is not feasible to ascertain the complete ownership history of the property with any accuracy pre -1912. Transactions prior to 1912 have little bearing on the property as David Knipfel, founder of Pearl Laundry Company, purchased the property in 1914. Between 1914 and 1938 David Knipfel makes a series of land acquisitions all related to the property that is 90-92 Queen. David Knipfel retained ownership of 90-92 Queen Street South until his death in 1961. Based on the land transaction history and available aerial images it appears the extant Art Deco fapade was constructed following David Knipfel's last purchase in May of 1938, when he acquired a small portion of land from the City of Kitchener. Historic records show that prior to establishing the Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dyers store front at 90-92 Queen Street South, the processing facilities for the business were in a large structure that occupied the current parking lot located behind 90-92 Queen Street South. Table 1: Pertinent Land Transaction for 90-92 Queen Street South Reg t#. Instrum Date GrantorGrantee ent fflp Previous Entries are Illegible 28357 B&S 16 April 1912 Charles Karapp Bach Ruth Norton Pt of Lot 33151 B&S 9 Nov 1914 Ruth and Charles Norton David Knipfel Pt of Lot 47579 Grant 20 Sept 1922 Christian E. Huehn Bach David & Lloyd Knipfel Right of Way 56035 Grant 12 Feb 1926 John J. Lembke David Knipfel Pt. of lot and wall 58579 11111 Q.0 Deed 18 May 1927 George Steinmetz David Knipfel Pt. Right of Way 59142 Grant 1 July 1927 Est of Walter Hartting Pearl Laundey Ltd. Pt. of Lot 58960 Grant 22 July 1927 Ernest G Ritchie and Burton Ritchie Pearl Laundry Ltd. Pt. of Lot and Right of way. 62563 Grant 1 May 1929 Ernest G Ritchie etal Pearl Laundry Ltd Part Lot P66036 Grant 26 Dec 1930 The Pearl Steam Laundry Ltd David Knipfel Pt. of lot and Right of way PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 67773 Grant 30 Dec 1930 Pearl Steam Laundry Ltd David Knipfel Pt. of lot and Right of way 73998 Grant 16 June 1937 The Barrie Glove Knitting Co. Ltd David Knipfel Pt of Lot and party wall agreement 75074 Grant 20 May 1938 Corpn. Of City of Kitchener David Knipfel Pt. of Lot 0.0234ac 230167 Grant 23 Oct 1961 Estate of David Knipfel Pearl Laundry Ltd Illegeble 328522 Lease 30 May 1966 Pearl Laundry Ltd. Pearl Laundry Co. Ltd $3300/year Figure 4: Part of `Birds Eye Image of Berlin c.1890-1899. Red arrow indicates location of 90-92 (ween Street South March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 258 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario ....-..-..-... -•� ..... �.. • nvm nn ncliV rLn Nom, rorY w.cr. r. cA HADA. .... .Y' LAMA D.A.a rO�f cAwA G4 tow.. .n!^f Figure 5: Full 1919 aerial image. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South Figure 6: Portion of 1919 aerial image showing detail of 90-92 Queen Street South. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South, pre -Art Deco faigade PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 7: Portion of 1925 Fire Insurance Plan of Subject Property. Note the faigade set back of address labelled 54 and alley between 54 and 50. 54 is the former address of Subject Property March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 260 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 8: Portion of 1930 aerial image of Subject Property. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South W.J&—� r Figure 9: Portion of 1945 aerial image of Subject Property. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 10: Portion of 1960 aerial image. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South. 4.3 History of Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dyers Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dyers was founded by David Knipfel in 1897. Between 1897 and 1899 the city directories list it as operating at 52 King Street West. In 1901 the business is listed at 9 Queen Street. In 1910 a Pearl Laundry is located at 54 Queen Street (original address of 90-92 Queen Street South). In 1919 the business is listed as operating from 52 Queen Street (original address of 90-92 Queen Street South). In 1928 the address is listed as 90 Queen Street. David Knipfel sells the business in 1946 to the Berlin Dye Works, owned by Abraham S. Uttley. David Knipfel only sells the company, not the structure, and enters into a long-term lease agreement with Abraham Uttley whereby Uttley continues to operate the Pearl Laundry out of the 90 Queen Street and rents the premises from David Knipfel. This arrangement continues until the death of David Knipfel in 1961. In 1961 Uttley purchases the premises. In 1966 Uttley sells the business and premises to Newtex Ltd, another Kitchener based dry cleaning company. Newtex Ltd. continues to operate but is no longer associated with 90-92 Queen Street South. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 262 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5. Assessment of • • • 5.1 Surrounding Landscape The Subject Property is located on the west side of Queen Street South, south of Charles Street West. 90-92 Queen Street South is located within a block of live/work structures that display a range of architectural styles and range in age from late -19th to mid -20th century. The Subject Property and the surrounding structures are all two storeys in height with street facing parapet walls. The Subject Property is located on a slope whereby adjacent structures vary in elevation, resulting in reduced sightlines both into and out of the structure. Historic records depict 94 and 108 Queen Street South to be examples of late- 191hcentury architecture that have remained largely unchanged. 94 and 108 Queen Street South providing a consistent and unmodified point from which to assess the surrounding structures. By comparison, 96-102 Queen Street South reflect infill construction, while 90-92 and 88 Queen Street South represent structures that have been modified from their original design through the addition of Queen Street South facing facades. 90-92 Queen Street South is located adjacent to the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District (HCD) and both the Downton Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) and Victoria Park CHL (Error! Reference source not found.). The Victoria Park HCD was established in 1996 under by-law 96-91. The Victoria Park HCD was established to conserve the area's excellent examples of late -19th and early -20th century residential architecture, set around an historic park (Galvin, 2012). The Downtown CHL is directly tied to the founding of the city and contains remnants of the city's commercial functions that date to the 1850's (City of Kitchener, n.d.). 90-92 Queen Street South is adjacent to two properties within the limits of the Victoria Park HCD (95-97 Queen Street South and 103 Queen Street South). As both properties are located within the limits of the HCD they are designated under Part V of the OHA as opposed to being individually designated under Part IV of the OHA. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 11: Surrounding Street scape as viewed from intersection of Church Street and Queen Street South. Red arrow indicates Subject Property. Facing north. Figure 12: Looking south towards Subject Property from intersection of Queen Street South and King Street East. Red arrow indicates 90-92 Queen Street South. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 264 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 13: Looking down Queen Street South. Red arrow indicates 9092 Queen Street South. Facing north. Figure 14: View into Subject Property from intersection of Ontario Street South and Charles Street West. Facing southeast. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 15: View of Subject Property from intersection of Benton Street and Charles Street East. Red arrow indicates 90-92 (ween Street South. Facing west. i Figure 16: View from structure. Facing northeast. 1 March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 266 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario I Figure 17: View from structure facing south. 5.2 Adjoining structures 5.2.1 88 Queen Street South Like 90-92 Queen Street South, 88 Queen Street South's fapade is not original to the structure. The extant fapade reflects the Edwardian architectural style popular between 1900 and 1930 (Blumenson, 1990). The north face of the structure stands in stark contrast to the Queen Street fapade and presents as an industrial adaptation of the Italianate style. Close inspection of the corner of the structure reveals a transition in brick finish, indicating the application of the Edwardian fapade over the as -built Italianate. The Edwardian fapade is constructed of highly uniformed, mechanically extruded smooth brick while the original structure is of less uniformed hand pressed brick. The visual evidence provided by 88 Queen Street South further supports the findings of 90-92 Queen Street South, as both structures are depicted in the 1925 fire insurance plan as being recessed from the street in comparison to 94 Queen Street South. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 18: Front fagade of 88 Queen Street South. Figure 19: North face of 88 Queen Street South. Note use of round headed windows on second floor March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 268 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 20: Transition between Edwardian facade constructed of smooth brick and the original construction. 5.2.2 94 Queen Street South Located south of 90-92 Queen Street South, 94 Queen Street South reflects an unaltered footprint. It is clearly identified on the 1925 fire insurance plan and provides a firm point of reference from which to assess the modifications to 90-92 and 88 Queen Street South. The front fapade has been altered from its as built form (blue section) but the overall footprint of the structure is as depicted on the 1925 fire insurance plan and as seen in the 1919 aerial image. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 21: 94 Queen Street South. 5.2.3 96-102 Queen Street South 96-102 Queen Street South is an infill structure constructed in the Edwardian style. Depicted in the 1919 aerial image as a pair of gable ended structures, the current structure bears no resemblance to the 1919 image. The 1925 fire insurance plan depicts a two-storey wood structure with a separation between it and the structure to the north. By 1945 the separation appears to be gone and it is presumed the extant structure is present. Based on stylistic similarities, it is presumed to have been constructed c.1930, coinciding with the re -facing of 88 Queen Street South. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 270 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 22: 96-102 Queen Street South. 5.2.4 108 Queen Street South 108 Queen Street South continues to present as it does in the 1919 aerial image. The style is typical of late 19t" -century commercial construction, employing a symmetrical second storey with jack arched windows and decorated brick parapet. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 23: 103 Queen Street South. 5.3 Architecture and Design of 90-92 Queen Street South The Queen Street South fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South is constructed in the Art Deco architectural style. The Art Deco architectural style was popular between 1925 and 1940 (Blumenson, 1990). While the fapade reflects the Art Deco style, the few remaining original interior features identify the structure as being of late 19" century construction. Available sources indicate that between 1919 and 1945 the front fapade of the structure underwent a renovation, resulting in the current configuration. The 1919 aerial image of the Subject Property depicts the structure prior to the Art Deco Fapade being added (Figure 5, Figure 6) and the 1925 fire insurance plan of Kitchener (Figure 7) illustrates the structure with a deep street setback that differs from the extant presentation, it also shows an alley located to the right of the structure. The same alley can be seen in the 1930 aerial image (Figure 8). The alley is no longer present in the next available aerial image dated 1945 (Figure 9). The available evidence indicates the current configuration of the structure was achieved between 1930 and 1945. Given the popularity of the style had waned by March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 272 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1940 and the world was in the grips of WWII between 1938 and 1945, it seems likely the construction occurred circa 1938, when it a small parcel of land was purchased by David Knipfel from the Corporation of the City of Kitchener. Attempts to obtain building permits or other records pertaining to the structure did not yield results, as such, an exact date of construction is unknown but given available data, a construction date of c.1938 is attributed to the structure. 5.3.1 Exterior Documentation Figure 24: c.2013 image depicting the original Pearl Laundry Cleaners & Dyers signage, a character defining feature of the structure. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 25: Front facade of structure. Currently occupied by Phoenix Cannabis. Facing north. Figure 26: Close up of cast cross located in center of front parapet. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 274 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 27: Detail of crest located between second floor windows. Dote use of unique brick pattern. Figure 28: Close up of cast detail present above second storey windows. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario _� t � �_ � - _ � -.� `• :vim.;.. � t. _ �� . C 1 5 Figure 29: Close up of acanthus leaf detail used in accents on front facade. 1 March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 276 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 30: Egg and Dart pattern used on cast detail at separation between ashlar lower finish and upper brick finish. Figure 31: Detail of cast cove associated with windowsill of main structural opening. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 32: Example of brass exterior lighting. Post date 2013 but are temporally appropriate to the structure. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 278 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 33: Replacement door and round transom. ®ate to c.2013, date of structure fire. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 34: Evidence of past sign installation in ashlar finish. Figure 35: Rear face of structure. Facing east. Red arrow indicates 90-92 (ween Street South. Remnants of earlier alley can be seen to the right of structure. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 280 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 36: Blind windows located in the connection that existed between Pearl Laundry store front and processing facility. Note curved window openings indicative of late 19th century construction. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5.3.2 Interior Documentation The interior of 90-92 Queen Street South has been extensively renovated. There are very few original elements remaining. The first floor has been completely renovated and no longer presents with any as built features. Documentation of the first floor was limited as the tenants requested that merchandise not be photographed. The second floor retains the greatest number of original features but has been subject to prior and ongoing renovations. The original features included standard trim elements. The basement shows signs of past alterations and contains no character defining elements. One item of interest observed in the basement is the use of shell button waste having been incorporated into the concrete. Historic records show that 88 Queen Street South was formerly a button factory. Discarded shells from the production of buttons were also observed in cement retaining walls associated with the rear of the property. Schematics of the current floor plan of 90-92 Queen Street South are presented in Appendix D. First Floor Figure 37: Example of interior of first floor. Looking towards Queen Street South March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 282 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 38: Main entrance to first floor commercial space. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 39: Example of storeroom located in rear of first floor. Second Floor March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 284 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 40: Interior of apartment located in rear of second floor. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 41: Interior of second floor apartment. Wall of 88 Queen Street South is visible in window. Figure 42: Example of typical original trim in rear apartment 1 March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 286 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario r�. Figure 43: Example of original baseboard Figure 44: Original trim in front apartment PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario a Figure 45: Overview of front apartment. Figure 46: Non -original windows in front apartment, facing (ween Street South March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 288 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 47: Kitchen of front apartment. Note original door on right of image PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 48: Example of original door. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 290 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 49: Remains of transom in front apartment Figure 50: Entrance stairs to second floor. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 51: North half of basement, facing west Figure 52: North half of basement, facing east. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 292 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 53: Double hung windows in west wall of north half of basement. Not visible from exterior Figure 54: South half of basement, facing east. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 55: Shell refuse from button factory used as temper in concrete wall. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 294 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario s Proposed D' •i The development proposal is for the re -development of the parcel of land bounded by Charles Street West and Queen Street South containing municipal addresses 88-108 Queen Street South, to be redeveloped into a 44 -storey residential condominium tower. The proposal outlines the retention of the existing Queen Street South facades of 90-92, 96-102 and 108 Queen Street South. The existing facades will be integrated into the new podium for the condominium towner (Appendix F). In addition to the construction of the proposed condominium, the intersection of Charles Street West and Queen Street South is to undergo safety improvements. Intersection improvements will include the widening of Charles Street West and the construction of a traffic triangle. Intersection improvements are being undertaken as a joint venture by the City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo and are proposed to occur in tandem with the proposed condominium construction. The intersection improvements will require the demolition of 88 Queen Street South. The retention of the facades of 90-92, 96-102 and 108 Queen Street South will retain the pedestrian scale of the area and allow for the existing street scape to remain largely intact. The Charles Street West fapade will incorporate a brick industrial style to reflect the industrial roots of the area and complement the existing heritage architecture of the area. The proposed development works to maintain the existing feel and pedestrian experience while providing of the intensification of the area. 96-102 Queen Street South will be retained and adapted to accommodate the entrance to the parking garage in a way that retains the aesthetic of the structure and does not impact the heritage of 90-92 Queen Street South. Figure 56: Rendering of Queen Street South faced of proposed design. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 7. Evaluati®n ®f Cultural Heritage Value or interest The fagade of 90-92 Queen Street South is a unique example of the Art Deco architectural style. 90-92 Queen Street South represents a structure that has been modified from its original design through the addition of a Queen Street South facing facade. The fagade is in good overall condition with many intact original architectural details including: cast concrete decoration, ashlar style finish on first floor with jack -on -jack stacked yellow brick second storey, full width gable parapet, and intact cast concrete business identification "Pearl Laundry Cleaners & Dyers". The fagade reflects the only example of Art Deco architecture in the area. When viewed in its entirety, 88-106 Queen Street South reflects an eclectic mix of structural facades, reflecting the changing style and depth of history associated with Queen Street South. While the entire structure at 90-92 Queen Street South was subject to documentation through this HIA, the structure is divided between the Art Deco Queen Street South fagade, and the balance of the building, which reflects a repeatedly remodeled and augmented space. Other than the fagade, the building is not attributed to a particular time period, and no other heritage attributes were observed. Given this, potential CHVI was present only in the Art Deco Queen Street South fagade. Ontario Regulation 9/06 prescribes the criteria used for evaluating a property being considered for designation under Section 29 of the OHA. Section 29 of the OHA outlines that, to be designated, a property must meet "one or more" of the criteria grouped into the categories of Design/Physical Value, Historical/ Associative Value and Contextual Value (MHSTCI 2006). Table 2 lists these criteria and identifies if the criteria were met at 90-92 Queen Street South facade. Table 2: Cultural Heritage Evaluation of 90-92 (ween Street South Facade Criteria O.Reg.9/06 Criteria Met Justification (y/N ) The property has design value or physical value because it, I. is a rare, unique, representative The fagade is representative of the architectural or early example of a style, type, y style known as Art Deco. The fagade is the only expression, material, or example of Art Deco architecture in the area. construction method, II. displays a high degree of The exterior finish and ornamentation are of high craftsmanship or artistic merit, or y quality and reflects a greater then normal level of craftsmanship and artistic intensity III. demonstrates a high degree of None observed technical or scientific N achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, I. has direct associations with a y Has direct association with the dry-cleaning theme, event, belief, person, industry, particularly the Pearl Laundry Cleaners activity, organization or and Dyers business. institution that is significant to a community, 1 March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 296 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario II. yields, or has the potential to N The property and associated structure do not yield, information that present with the potential to yield information contributes to an understanding that could contribute to our understanding of a of a community or culture, or community or culture. III. Demonstrates or reflects the N None observed. Architect is unknown. work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. The property has contextual value because it, I. is important in defining, It is important in maintaining the maintaining or supporting the y commercial/industrial character of the character of an area, surrounding area. II. is physically, functionally, visually Is visually linked to the history of the area by way or historically linked to its y of the original 'Pearl Laundry Cleaners & Dyers' surroundings, or signage. III. is a landmark. N The structure does not serve as a local landmark. Based on the criteria set forth by Regulation Reg. 9/06, 90-92 Queen Street South does retain and display CHVI as it pertains to, design value, historic and associative value and contextual value. The fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South should be considered for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 7.1 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) The MHSTCI Info Sheet#5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans were reviewed to further assess seven potential negative impacts on the property's CHVI arising from the proposed site redevelopment: Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes orfeatures. ► Demolition of the fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South is not being considered. The fapade is to be incorporated into the proposed re -development. ► In addition to the fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South the proposed development is proposing the retention of a large portion of the extant Queen Street South fapade of the development footprint. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance. ► Not applicable. No alterations are being considered at this time. ► Fapade will be retained and rehabilitated to reflect its as built configuration. Shadows created that alter the viability of a heritage attribute or an associated natural feature or plantings, such as a garden. ► Shadow studies have been undertaken (Appendix E) PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 1501at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario ► While the structure does result in new shadows they do not alter the viability of any heritage or natural features. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship. ► Proposed development will incorporate a large portion of the existing Queen Street South fapade into the podium of the re -development ► The proposed design is stylistically sympathetic to the heritage attributes of the area, particularly 90-92 Queen Street South. ► Located adjacent to Part V protected structures contained within the Victoria Park HCD the proposed development will retain the heritage features of the area and not significantly impact the relationships between existing features. Direct or indirect obstruction significant views or vistas within, from or of built and natural features. ► Proposed development will not impact significant views into or out of 90-92 Queen Street South or any other area properties. A change in land use where the change in use may impact the property's CHVI; ► The Art Deco fapade will be retained as will the CHVI of the fapade. ► Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils and drainage patterns that may adversely affect archaeological or cultural heritage resources. Past use of the property as a drycleaner will require significant quantities of contaminated soil to be removed from the area. ► Construction may uncover previously unidentified archaeological and cultural heritage resources. A chance find procedure should be enacted as part of the construction process. 7.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts to Area HCD and CHLs The proposed development is adjacent to the Victoria Park HCD, the Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) and the Downton CHL. The potential impacts to each of these heritage areas is addressed below. 7.2.1 Victoria Park HCD The Victoria Park HCD was established to conserve the area's excellent examples of late -19th and early -201h century residential architecture, set around an historic park (Galvin, 2012). The boundaries of the Victoria Park HCD are located both east and south of the Subject Property. The criteria of MHSTCI Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans were reviewed to assess potential negative impacts on the HCD, including 95-97 Queen Street South and 103 Queen Street South, arising from the proposed redevelopment. The proposed development will not result in the destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features of the HCD. Nor will it result in an alteration that is not sympathetic, or incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance of the HCD. The proposed development will result in the creation of shadows but will not result in shadows that will alter the visibility or functionality of heritage attributes or associated natural features or plantings within the HCD. The proposed development March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 298 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario will not result in the isolation of any heritage attributes associated with the Victoria Park HCD. As proposed the development will not result in direct or indirect obstructions of significant views or vistas within, from or of built and natural features associated with the HCD. The proposed development will have no direct impact on the portion of Victoria Park HCD that is adjacent to the Subject Property and will have no impact on the remainder of the HCD. The proposed development will incorporate large portions of the existing street scape and will not alter the pedestrian experience in the immediate area. 7.2.2 Victoria Park CHL The Victoria Park CHL consists of the park area within the Victoria Park HCD; Victoria Park is representative of a group of urban parks designed throughout North America in the latter part of the 19th century (CoK 2014). The north end of the Victoria Park CHL is located approximately 150 m southwest of 90-92 Queen Street South. The criteria of MHSTCI Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans were reviewed to assess potential negative impacts on the Victoria Park CHL arising from the proposed redevelopment. The proposed development will not result in the destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features of the CHL. Nor will it result in an alteration that is not sympathetic, or incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance of the CHL. The proposed development will result in the creation of shadows but will not result in shadows that will alter the visibility or functionality of heritage attributes or associated natural features or plantings within the CHL. The proposed development will not result in the isolation of any heritage attributes associated with the Victoria Park CHL. As proposed the development will not result in direct or indirect obstructions of significant views or vistas within, from or of built and natural features associated with the CHL. The proposed development will have no impact on the Victoria Park CHL. 7.2.3 Downtown CHL The Downtown CHL is directly tied to the founding of the city and contains remnants of the city's commercial functions that date to the 1850's (City of Kitchener, n.d.). The Downtown CHL is located approximately 40 m northeast of 90-92 Queen Street South. The criteria of MHSTCI Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans were reviewed to assess potential negative impacts on the Downtown CHL arising from the proposed redevelopment. The proposed development will not result in the destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features of the CHL. Nor will it result in an alteration that is not sympathetic, or incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance of the CHL. The proposed development will result in the creation of shadows but will not result in shadows that will alter the visibility or functionality of heritage attributes or associated natural features or plantings within the CHL. The proposed development will not result in the isolation of any heritage attributes associated with the Downtown CHL. As proposed the development will not result in direct or indirect obstructions of significant views or vistas within, from or of built and natural features associated with the CHL. The proposed development will have no direct impact on the Downtown CH L. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 8. Statement Of Cultural Significance 90-92 Queen Street South is recognized for its design, physical, historical and associative values The below is derived from the existing Statement of Significance. The full text of the existing Statement of Significance is provided in Appendix C. The design and physical values relate to the Art Deco architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: first floor cast concrete construction (ashlar) topped with an egg and dart mounding and acanthus leaf moldings, which are carried up and across to frame the second storey; first storey has yellow brick trim. Second storey is of yellow brick construction arranged in horizontal and vertical rows with wide shallow gable parapet wall with beaded cornice and three cast stone mouldings. Segmentally arched storefront windows, two rectangular basement windows, temporally correct lamps flank each side of store front window. Second storey has central cast concrete moldings. The historic and associated values relate to the early use of the building for the local business known as 'Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dyers'. The Art Deco design is a fapade only with likely construction date of circa 1938 Heritage Attributes from Existing Statement of Significance ► Cast concrete mouldings and finishes ► Ashlar finish first storey with yellow brick trim ► Yellow brick second storey ► Shallow gable parapet wall ► Segmentally arched storefront windows ► Rectangular basement windows ► Temporally correct exterior lights ► Round headed structural openings on either dies of storefront window ► Pairing and symmetry of rectangular second storey windows ► Cast stone crest second storey ► Rectangular Plan (see below) ► Flat roof (see below) The rectangular plan and flat roof were identified as heritage attributes in the existing Statement of Significance (Appendix C); however, the rectangular plan and flat roof pre -date the fapade, and are not heritage attributes of the Art Deco style, in this example. Once the rectangular plan and flat roof are removed from consideration as heritage attributes, the balance of the heritage attributes relate to the Art Deco fapade. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 300 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario While the entire structure at 90-92 Queen Street South was subject to documentation through this HIA, the structure is divided between the Art Deco Queen Street South fapade, and the balance of the building, which reflects a repeatedly remodeled and augmented space. Other than the fapade, the building is not attributed to a particular time period, and no other heritage attributes were observed. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 9. Mitigation, Preservation• Conservation 9.1 90-92 Queen Street South As detailed in Sections 7 and 8, 90-92 Queen Street South is divided between the Art Deco Queen Street South fapade, and the balance of the building, which reflects a repeatedly remodeled and augmented space. Other than the fapade, the building is not attributed to a particular time period, and no other heritage attributes were observed. The proposed re -development outlines the retention of the Art Deco fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South. The fapade will be preserved and incorporated into the podium of the proposed condominium development. The re -development will retain all remaining identified heritage attributes of 90-92 Queen Street South as identified in the extant Statement of Significance (Appendix C). Since the completion of the existing Statement of Significance the structure has experienced a fire, resulting in the loss of the half round transoms and doors located on either side of the storefront windows. The previously identified exterior lights have also been lost, having been replaced with temporally sympathetic exterior lights. The retention and integration of the Art Deco fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South should include the restoration of the fapade. Restoration should abide by the MHSTCI Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (MHSTCI, 2007) Respect for Documentary Evidence ► Restore doors and windows based on available images Respect for the Original Location ► Structure is being retained in its original location Respect for Historic Materials ► Repointing of the brick and stone using appropriate heritage materials ► Retain original materials and only replace if absolutely necessary Respect for Original Fabric ► Repair of holes drilled into ashlar surface ► Removal of exposed wires ► Retain original 'Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dyers' signage in place and remain visible Respect for the Buildings History ► Retain original 'Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dyers' signage Reversibility ► Any alterations must be reversable and not damage historic fabric March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 302 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario o Anchor points should be limited to mortar joints, holes should never be drilled into masonry sub straight as it results in non reversable damage to fabric of structure. Legibility ► Additions to the structure must be sympathetic too but easily distinguishable from the original structure. ► Current design showcases 90-92 Queen Street South and supports it with sympathetic surrounding design that is clearly identifiable from the original fabric of the structure. Maintenance ► Redevelopment will need to devise a maintenance program and implementation plan to ensure the longevity of the structure. 9.2 Alternative Mitigation Options The following alternative mitigation options were considered and pros and cons of each mitigative measure are presented (Table 3). 1. Restoration of the extant structure for continued use as a mixed residential and retail location 2. Retention of extant Art Deco fapade and integrate it into the proposed re -development 3. Relocation of structure and renovate for adaptive reuse 4. Salvage of building materials and subsequent demolition of structure Table 3: Mitigation Options PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 1501at��1 - No alteration to existing street scape or - Prevents redevelopment of identified heritage attributes the area - Retention of embodied energy - Severally limits the economic viability of the property - Loss of economic revitalization of downtown core - Retention of embodied energy - Separates the fapade from - Retention of all identified heritage features the piecemeal development pertinent to the Art Deco style of the property - Provides for the retention of heritage - Addition of the tower will attributes while providing for the re- introduce new shadows to development of the area the area - Allows the existing pedestrian street scape to remain - Opportunity for adaptive reuse of historically significant portions of the PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 1501at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario structure while allowing for the redevelopment of property - Proximity to established public transit corridor - Promotes economic revitalization of downtown core 3 - Structure remains intact - Structure is separated from its intended place within the City of Kitchener - Prohibitively expensive - Diversion of waste from landfill - Loss of heritage structure - Opportunity for creative integration of Loss of heritage character of heritage elements into new construction the area - Provides resources for the preservation of other listed and designated heritage features - Provides for the retention of key heritage features while allowing for the development of infrastructure needed for the continued growth of the surrounding Adim community The proposed retention and integration of the fapade is the best option for this property. Integration provides for the retention of all heritage attributes attributed to the Art Deco design and retains a key part of the existing street scape. The current Art Deco wall of 90-92 Queen Street South is already a fapade. The structure behind the Art Deco material is of no heritage value or interest. March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 304 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 10. Summary Statement 90-92 Queen Street South is a unique example of the Art Deco architectural style. The fapade is the only example of the style in the area. Evaluation of the structure against Regulation 9/06 finds it to exhibit CHVI and be a candidate for Part IV protection as per Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proposed development will pursue designation of Art Deco fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South as part of the redevelopment. It is the recommendation of this report that the Art Deco fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South be retained and subject to designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. It is not necessary to designate the entirety of the structure as only the front fapade is representative of the Art Deco style. The front fapade is a later addition to an earlier structure this no longer presents with any CHVI. The retention of the fapade conforms to accepted heritage practices as it provides for the retention and preservation of character defining elements and the overall continuation of the heritage of the area. It also allows for the rehabilitation of a unique heritage attribute that is the only aspect of the property that is of CHVI. While facadism is not typically a preferred method of preserving a heritage attribute, in this case it is the best option as the fapade being preserved is itself a fapade that was constructed to cover the piecemeal construction of the underlying structure. The associative connection to the Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dyers enhances the heritage value of the property by providing a tangible and sustained connection between the structure and three locally developed dry cleaning institutions. In addition to the retention and integration of the facade of 90-92 Queen Street South the proposed development proposes the retention and integration of the facades of 96-102 and 94 Queen Street South, the retention of the existing Queen Street South fapade was presented as a recommendation in earlier drafts of this document and have been incorporated into the current proposal. Due to the required safety improvements and widening of the intersection of Queen Street South and Charles Street East, the retention of 88 Queen Street South is not feasible and is therefore not presented as recommendation. PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 11. Recommendations The following recommendations are put forth: 1. The Art Deco fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 2. The fapade of 90-92 Queen Street South should be subjected to a detailed pre -conditions survey to document the condition of the fapade materials prior to any construction activities or ground disturbance occurring on any adjacent lands. The survey should pay special attention to any pre-existing defects, as such defects could be adversely affected by ground vibrations resulting from construction activities. 3. A vibration assessment should be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction so that a "zone of influence" can be established, and appropriate monitoring can be arranged during construction activities. Adjacent properties may need to be monitored for vibration to ensure levels remain below the accepted threshold during all construction activities. Vibration monitoring will ensure that unintended impacts do not affect surrounding properties. Vibration monitoring should be carried out by persons with previous knowledge of heritage structures and the impact of vibration on heritage resources. 4. A Built Heritage Protection/Conservation Plan (BHPCP) should be developed for 90-92, 96- 102 and 108 Queen Street South. The BHPCP should address the retention and preservation of all existing resources that will be integrated into the proposed development. 5. All structures and portions of structures which will be subject to demolition as part of this proposal be subject to salvage mitigation. Salvage mitigation helps to divert waste and promote retention of heritage elements. Salvageable materials include but are not limited to: ► Brick ► Cast lintels and window sills ► Doors and windows ► Framing components ► Architectural details, brackets, corbels ► Interior period trim ► Recyclable materials (plumbing and electrical components) Incorporation of salvaged materials from the project area into the proposed development should be considered on a case by case basis. Salvaged materials may be able to be incorporated into the design as art installations or interior accents. .1 March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 306 of 399 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario Air Photos 1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario Archive. Electronic Database available online at: https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern- ontario/index. Last accesses December 2021. Rlumenson, John 1990 Ontario Architecture: A guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the Present Fitzhenry and Whiteside, T.H. Best Printing, Canada. Canadian Encyclopedia 2012 Kitchener -Waterloo. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener- waterloo, Accessed 1 December 2021. City of Kitchener (CoK) 2017 Municipal Heritage Register Available online at: www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/COR LEG Index of Non - Designated Properties.pdf 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Available online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CHL Study Rep ort.pdf 1996 Victoria Park Area Kitchener: Heritage Conservation District Plan Available online at https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN Heritage Plan V ictoria Park.pdf Last accessed December 2021. n.d Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. On file with the City of Kitchener. Fram, Mark 2003 Well -Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundations Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation 3rd edition. Boston Mills Press, Erin Ontario. Galvin, Kayla Jonas 2012 Heritage Conservation District Study prepared for the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Available on line at: https://uwaterloo.ca/heritage-resources- centre/sites/ca.heritage-resources-centre/files/uploads/files/Final%20Report%20- %20Victoria%2OPark-%20FINAL.pdf Goad, Charles 1925 Downtown Kitchener Fire Insurance Plan of 1908 Revised 1925. Underwriters Survey Ltd. Toronto, Canada. Kitchener Waterloo Record. 1966 Newtex Buys Pearl Laundry May 26, 1966. Koch, Henry PHC Inc. 2021-095 March 2022 rel at��1 Heritage Impact Assessment, 90-92 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1967 Kitchener -Waterloo Record Talking Business May 13, 1967. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) 2010 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Electronic resource available online. 2007 Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. 2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation. Electronic resource available online: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Standards_Conservation.pdf. Last accessed May 2021. Ontario Land Registry n.d. Ontario Land Records Abstract Index Books, retrieved from ONland.ca, accessed November 2021. Parks Canada 2010 Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Queens Printer, Canada. 1980 Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings Exterior Recording Training Manual Published under authority of the minister of the Environment, Ottawa. Province of Ontario 1990a Ontario Heritage Act. Electronic resource available online: Vis://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90ol8. 1990b Planning Act. Electronic resource available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. Last accessed 21 June 2020. 2020 Provincial Policy Statement. Electronic resource available online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020. Last accessed 4 July 2020. Region of Waterloo 2017 History of Waterloo Region. https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/collections-and- research/waterloo-township.aspx#, Accessed 1 December 2021. University of Waterloo n. d. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo Available at: https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/proiect/ Walker and Miles 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Waterloo and Wellington Counties, Ontario. Toronto, Walker and Miles March 2022 2021-095 PHC Inc. Page 308 of 399 Appendix A Page 309 of 399 Project Manager— Carla Parslow, PhD, CAHP Member in Good Standing: Dr. Carla Parslow has over 20 years of experience in the cultural heritage resource management (CHRM) industry in Canada. As the President of PHC Inc., Dr. Parslow is responsible for the for the management of CHRM projects, as well as the technical review and quality assurance of all archaeological and cultural heritage projects completed by PHC. Throughout her career, Carla has managed both large and small offices of CHRM professionals and has mobilized both large (50+) and small (4+) teams of CHRM and Environmental projects offices throughout the province of Ontario. Dr. Parslow has served as either Project Manager or Project Director on hundreds of Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessments. Dr. Parslow is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Dr. Parslow is responsible for the overall management of the work and is the primary point of contact. Dr. Parslow is also responsible for the overall quality assurance. Heritage Specialist — Chris Lemon, B.Sc., Dip. CAHP Membership Pending: Chris Lemon is a Cultural Heritage Specialist and Licensed Archaeologist (R289) with 15 years experience. He received an Honours B.Sc. in Anthropology from the University of Toronto and has completed course work towards an M.A. from the University of Western Ontario. Mr. Lemon has a Diploma in Heritage Carpentry and Joinery and a Certificate in Heritage Planningfrom Algonquin College. During his career Mr. Lemon has participated in cultural heritage assessments across Ontario as both a Senior Field Director in archaeology and as a Built Heritage Practitioner. Chris's previous experience includes representation on Joint Health and Safety Committees; he is dedicated to maintaining a safety -first focus on all job sites. Chris is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Mr. Lemon is responsible for research, reporting and analysis. Page 310 of 399 Appendix B Page 311 of 399 r -m pm.m 88 QUEEN CONDO FIRE ROUTE & EMERGENCY TURNAROUND PLAN FIRE DEPARTMENT .. "._ CONNECTION — CHARLES STREET WEST aai xaui n+noK i _ _ J �anw� 88 QUEEN DEVELOPMENT- � I REY Poowm i i i I I `F wsnx�autwxoxces m CHURCH STREET Y y Iime s r -m pm.m 88 QUEEN CONDO FIRE ROUTE & EMERGENCY TURNAROUND PLAN ---------- ----------- CHARIESST STREET ---------------- -------- ----- �E ....... CHURCH STREET 88 QUEEN CONDO SITE PLAN --- L ' n y —� p srmmx801g� 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVEL P3 FLOOR PLAN SPA2.0 - r2 --- ---------- J - - --J- - �.a - - - - �rzh -,� -- - - --- - - -- - --- iJ i ass i � -- V-1 srm �mx8019� INB 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVEL P1 -P2 FLOOR PLAN~vy — CHARLES STREET WEST — ucoxcsoev�+K 7 — — — --- r Q !.� �r I t - 3� -- o :X — — -- — —0 Bx r 6Bx I 1 t �izvcs.nusxG --------------- ------- - h srm �mx,m�� 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN - CHARLES SPA 2.2 - r4 CHARLES ST ,nEET LEST - - - - - - - - - - - --(LD IN8 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN QUEEN SPA 2.3 - r4 . ...... . .. --(LD IN8 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN QUEEN SPA 2.3 - r4 WE-- . ..... D --(LD IN8 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN QUEEN SPA 2.3 - r4 INS 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVELS 2&3 FLOOR PLANS SPA 2.4 - r4 — -- ------ --------- ----- ----- ------— }---- �— --- — w o —1 1177 T e _ _—-- T. -- -- ------------P----- -- -- --� - Filmx,nm� 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVEL 4-5 FLOOR PLAN SPA 2.5 - r4 G r) ma„ ff srm m. IN8 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVEL 6 FLOOR PLAN SPA 2.6 - r3 1-1211- 9 ----------- 6-____ 4 T 2p T A — - — - — - — - --- — - — - Bx - — - — -- 7 — - cx ---------------- ------ --------------- ------ ----- ------------ ------------ - ---------- -------- ---- I ------------ -------- ---------- G r) ma„ ff srm m. IN8 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVEL 6 FLOOR PLAN SPA 2.6 - r3 1-1211- srm m. IN8 88 QUEEN CONDO LEVEL 6 FLOOR PLAN SPA 2.6 - r3 1-1211- ! - ------ -1 a 88 QUEEN CONDO TYPICAL LEVELS 7-21 FLOOR PLANS j---------- - - — - — — - — - - — - — - — — - Ax ------------ ---------- - --A BX 1 ---------- - 3 ---------- ----------- ------ --- — ---- -- ------ -- �-ocx ------------- ------ZHfs.ul6't1Sl¢ ------- --- --- --- ----------- nn Fs-rml 88 QUEEN CONDO TYPICAL LEVEL 22-44 FLOOR PLANS IN8 88 QUEEN CONDO ELEVATIONS SPA3.1 - r2 III I II�`I{ U,,IIIIIIIIN III" TT T T 6 5x5 `n, 3 2x2 `I,l IN8 88 QUEEN CONDO ELEVATIONS SPA3.2 - r2 0 0 0 T IT T71 B. IT Y� T o TT T Ll 0" onIoil ]]Iloi to 0ul ul 88 QUEEN CONDO ENLARGED ELEVATIONS SPA3.3 - r3 Appendix C Page 326 of 399 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 84-88 QUEEN STREET SOUTH Municipal Address: 84-88 Queen Street South, Kitchener Legal Description: Plan 391 Part Lot 1 Plan 393 Part Lot 5 & 27 RP 58R-858 Parts 1-3 & 5 Year Built: c. 1920 Architectural Style: Art Deco Original Owner: Original Use: Commercial Condition: Good Description of Historic Place ;d 3A '�e.. 33 77 58 83 53 'ff 45 `C'yrs 5355 CAP 131b4 �8 �� 94 S 7031732 772 37 35.57 C _ 103• 76 The municipal address 84-88 Queen Street South includes two storefront facades. The inner storefront fagade is part of a 20th century building built in the Art Deco architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.46 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Queen Street South between Church Street and Charles Street in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the c. 1920 Art Deco facade. Heritage Value 84-88 Queen Street South is recognized for its design, physical, historical and associative values. The design and physical values relate to the Art Deco architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: a rectangular plan; flat roof; first storey cast concrete construction topped with an egg and dart moulding and acanthus leaf mouldings, which are carried up and across to frame the second storey; first storey rough yellow brick trim; second storey rough yellow brick construction arranged in horizontal and vertical rows, wide shallow gable parapet wall with beaded cornice and three cast stone mouldings; segmentally arched storefront window; two rectangular basement windows; one lamp on each side of the storefront window; one door with half round transom on each side of the storefront window; second storey 1/1 windows; and, second storey central cast concrete moulding. The historic and associative values relate to the early use of the building for the business known as Pearl Laundry. Page 327 of 399 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 84-88 Queen Street South resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Art Deco architectural style of the building, including: o a rectangular plan; o flat roof; o first storey cast concrete construction topped with an egg and dart moulding and acanthus leaf mouldings, which are carried up and across to frame the second storey; o first storey rough yellow brick trim; o second storey rough yellow brick construction arranged in horizontal and vertical rows; o wide shallow gable parapet wall with beaded cornice and three cast stone mouldings; o segmentally arched storefront window; o two rectangular basement windows; 0 one lamp on each side of the storefront window; 0 one door with half round transom on each side of the storefront window; o second storey 1/1 windows; and, o second storey central cast concrete moulding. Photos thecalwombs - � t :: Queen Street South Page 328 of 399 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 84-88 Queen Street South I 84-88 Queen Street South Page 329 of 399 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 84-88 Queen Street South Period: c. 1920 Recorder Name: EG/IlVI Description: 2 storey brown brick commercial; Art Deco Photographs: Front Fagade ® Left Fagade ® Right Fagade ❑ Rear Fagade ❑ Details ❑ Setting ❑ Date: May 20, 2009 Design or Physical Value Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a Does this structure contribute to the continuity particular architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive m unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship Is this a particularly important visual landmark and/or detail noteworthy? RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ Notes — Field Team: Art Deco; rare; attractive and unique craftsmanship and details - concrete Contextual Value RECORDER Continuity Does this structure contribute to the continuity N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 or character of the street,neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 or landscaping noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 or visual link to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark ❑ R N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ within the region, city or neighbourhood? ❑ C (indicate degree of importance) ❑ N Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ Page 330 of 399 Notes — Field Team: setting flush Integrity APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCONINDTTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Note: ifrelocated, i.e. relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 and design features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ alterations that have taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Notes Field Team: Sub -Committee: new windows Historical or Associative Value & Significance RECORDER Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or Unknown 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act? A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to our understanding of the history of a place, an went, or a people? Notes — Field Team: occupied for some time by and probably built for Pearl Laundry Sub -Committee: association with Peal Laundry N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Unknown 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Page 331 of 399 Appendix D Page 332 of 399 Floor Plan of 90/92 Queen Street South Basement First Floor Second Floor Front Rear Front Rear Front Rear Page 333 of 399 Appendix E Page 334 of 399 2 e yy 05��y T OJ a? � Rcys bry� A STS / y Xx W u o 88 QUEEN CONDO SHADOW STUDV- MARCH2IST 4 ;Z7 GST - � Uxx x (�2 U) 88 QUEEN CONDO SHADOW STUDY - SEPTEMBER 2IST r- I 2 sx 7�W Rctis r n sx 1 ChL Rctisr � �sx srm am. 88 QUEEN CONDO SHADOW STUDY - DECEMBER 2IST Appendix F Page 338 of 399 �IIIII VIII I II IIII YII ill III llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll�u�iii�iii��ii�'��r ■ mr: i1� 1 . 88 QUEEN s � Tom - I kh'RMMMMMMME Im I F I Vi w9m �,lmmmllmmm �I II II it I II II �I NI - r 1111111 Intl � y: . , 111111''IP!'�Illlllli�i�!IPIIIC:'' ou ImllIllillll��l�� !1 wo JL N QUEEN 4 r +ter �r w Woo. 61 R. Iasi 7777 TT 7 di : M- ■��■i IT 'o■ ■l� T T T T r' _rl �Tl X11 Will 0 oil `°w -sem F,� • Nil Pao _.ISI ilk �I 1 ■ ■ It in, srm • 111 • I11 "- � -• � ... VII �._ 1 rr rT �9 I11 17111!!R � 1 1 I .., rp IRwlwl r r 1 ^ 11' I11 !1!Il4ri1 I 1 I r l a writ r l r lM 411"nw I 11 I r l r 111 A1�su 1 I ^ I _ 111 Ili 11111P11F R I ` I r _ 1111 IN 111111111 �— I11 M-P.1R pit n, Mr unw • I n ry I 11 i �--:— iyl i �N �In 1. A.". 7■■■■■ 7■■M■M■■■■E■ ■■■■■1 !WO®IMM'