Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
HK Agenda - 2022-06-07
Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, June 7, 2022, 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Electronic Meeting The City of Kitchener has aligned with provincial changes to COVID-19 restrictions and City Hall is now open for in person services, but appointments are still being encouraged. The City remains committed to safety of our patrons and staff and continue to facilitate electronic meeting participation for members of the public. Those people interested in participating in this meeting can register to participate electronically by completing the online delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation @kitchener.ca. For those who are interested in accessing the meeting live -stream video it is available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. Please refer to the delegations section on the agenda below for registration deadlines. Written comments will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Pages 1. Commencement 2. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. Delegates must register by 2:00 p.m. on June 7, 2022, in order to participate electronically. 2.1. Item 3.2 - Christienne Uchiyama, Letourneau Heritage Consulting 2.2. Item 3.5 - Rachel Redshaw, MHBC Planning 3. Discussion Items 3.1. Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-IV-012 - 10 m 3 17 Schneider Avenue - Replace the Cedar Shingle Roof with Asphalt Shingles - DSD - 2022 -266 3.2. Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) -130- 20 m 16 142 Victoria Street South - DSD -2022-268 5. 3.3. Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 22- 20 m 152 26 Charles Street West - DSD -2022-269 3.4. Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 88- 20 m 240 92 Queen Street South - DSD -2022-271 3.5. Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-IV-010 25 m 352 & HPA-2022-IV-011 -16-20 Queen Street North - Construction of a New 34 -Storey Multi- unit Residential Building - DSD -2022-231 3.6. Sub -Committee Updates 15 m 3.7. Status Updates - Heritage Best Practices Update and 2022 Priorities, Heritage Impact Assessment Follow-ups Information Items 4.1. Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 399 Adjournment Sarah Goldrup Committee Administrator Page 2 of 399 Staff Report 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 -2022-266 SUBJECT: H PA -2022 -IV -012 17 Schneider Avenue Replacement of existing Cedar Shingle Roof with Asphalt Shingles RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2022-IV-012 be approved to permit the installation of asphalt shingles at the property municipally addressed as 17 Schneider Avenue in accordance with the supporting information submitted with the application. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present the proposed replacement of the existing cedar shingle roof with asphalt shingles. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed asphalt shingles will not negatively impact the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener committee • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of HPA-2022-IV-012 seeking permission to replace the existing cedar shingle roof with asphalt shingles at the subject property municipally addressed as 17 Schneider Avenue (Fig. 1). *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 3 of 399 Victoria Green 466 Schneider Haus 143 30 National Historic Site 462 i` ��.. 28 �r 26 22 f 26 39 S 35 C�y��DFR AI✓F 8 RI6,R 31 Mike Wagner Green (Mill St i 155 27 23 i 479 59 21 19 � 489 15 � 1 '� 520 i im Iron Horse Towers X, CO 24 * �0 24 533 SSA °"3 566 T€chnology In no tic.n andj.sgrnces- GeoSpatlal Data and AnalyticSs I City of Kitchener, Gly of Kitchener - ,/Finance and Corporate Services IS City of Kitchener Figure 1: Location Map of 17 Schneider Avenue REPORT: The subject property is located on the south side of Schneider Avenue near the intersection of Schneider Avenue and Queen Street South. It contains a two-storey residential dwelling built in 1910 in the Queen Anne architectural style (Fig. 2 & 3). L 1 5'r I it r IIIIIIIAi 1118- -! - > _ * i - _ k n - Figure 2: North (front) elevation of the house Figure 3: North and west elevation of the house Page 4 of 399 The building was recommended for designation due to its unusual method of construction, in particular the exterior wall material and the crown bullion windows. The exterior heritage attributes of the building include: • Cedar Shingle roof; • Cedar Shingling in the gable end; • All windows containing crown bullion inserts, including all such inserts, window openings, frames and sash; • All brick building fabric; • The front balcony and porch including tongue and groove flooring; and • The bracket and finial on the rear (southeast) corner of the building. The subject property was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of designating by-law 89-190 for its architectural value (Attachment B). The architectural value of the dwelling is identified in the by-law as being comprised of all building elevations, excluding the rear elevation, the roof and the eaves. However, as mentioned above, the cedar shingle roof has been identified as one of the heritage attributes of the building. The subject property is surrounded by properties that come within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) and are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. However, the subject property is not included within the VPAHCD. The subject property is, nevertheless, located within the Victoria Park Area Cultural Heritage Landscape. Proposed Cedar Shingle Roof Replacement with Asphalt Shingles The owner of the property has advised staff that the cedar shingle roof is in need of replacement (Attachment A). In some places, the cedar shingles have deteriorated significantly (Fig. 4 & 5). In other places, the cedar shingles are in poor condition, with even a portion of the shingles that have fallen off recently (Fig. 7 & 8). Deteriorated cedar shingles Page 5 of 399 Figure 4: Poor condition of cedar shingles Figure 7: Portion of missing cedar shingles Figure 8: Portion of missing cedar shingles that on rear position of the west elevation has been covered The owner's preference was to replace the existing cedar shingle roof with new cedar shingles; however, the estimated cost of this work is approximately $50,000. Staff inquired whether the owner could replace the existing cedar shingles with cedar shingles composites, which would be an appropriate substitute for the existing roof. However, the cost of that work is also approximately $50,000. The owner would like to replace the existing cedar roof shingle with black asphalt shingles as the alternate roofing material because they are more affordable. The proposed alteration meets the "Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties", especially: • Reversibility—Alterations should be able to be returned to original conditions. This conserves earlier building design and technique. • Maintenance — with continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary — with regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. The proposed alteration meets Parks Canada's The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historical Places in Canada, especially: • Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. • Evaluate the existing condition of character -defining elements to determine the possible intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. • Make any intervention needed to preserve character -defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place and identifiable on close inspection. Page 6 of 399 In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: • The existing cedar shingle roof is in poor condition; • The cost of replacing the existing cedar shingle roof with a new cedar shingle roof is very expensive; • The installation of new black asphalt shingles is appropriate; • The installation of asphalt shingles is reversible; • The designating by-law excludes the cedar shingle roof; • The installation of new asphalt shingle will not detract from the character of the designated building; and • The installation of asphalt shingles will not impact other identified heritage attributes. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and Zoning By-law. In this regard, staff confirm that a Building Permit is not required to undertake the proposed repairs. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2021 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-IV-012 Attachment B — Designating By-law 89-190 for 17 Schneider Avenue Page 7 of 399 �• A N' e 5 W c rng yi s $ b p rp •___-- O __ _ ~ nO F V1 m O y j a _ 9 W n w o •^ om a o '� e0 o u F m m c y Cl U rn a o o'n w ro N �• H '�+ m a w w v - AINO 3Sn 301dd0 NOd - n m v o o ❑ 7+ 4L C N ❑ N a+ �� � � E_ C N O O o u•Nw H ° m u u o f �. •� � W� v .r •N m ri aNi T __ : : cn aA+ A• Q J x L � F w Yi�C b Y � p3� c ° � �� N � rn yC g 3 T a G 3 e m G a0 G a ¢ 8 e Y o w •a pa eo v w.o d 3 rn 2r G > E cnti Ns "' d 'Wx F: B wrowY 'nN xz ti a LP •.a w H u a. nt C,4i Z 3 'a u 8 a c, u sa ZV 32a'9 m x f Z WN .•. AINO 3sn 3OHdo cod a e 8 of 399 9 Page 9 of 399 4 N sl Page 10 of 399 u aro q, iroroJn _ � CS" � adv .a 4 NGMN C U Lv Q. O 4 N sl Page 10 of 399 / � � t ( § ; \ ) } \ \ A \ / ) Page eyme I 0 U r. E Page 12 of 399 2022 STAFF USE ONLY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6'' Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; Page 7 of 10 _J I Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: HPA-2)21- PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY _r , J { Municipal Address: +., ,�1 i ,k- - , ,r?{.� : g!f:r d 1 Legal Description (if know): _ Building/Structure Type: .Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ❑ No 3 PROPERTY OWNER Name Address: �- City/P Phone Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company:._____ Address: City/Province/Postal Code: Phone: Email: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 13 of 399 2027 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 10 Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada ( ) 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: U On V) A Expected completion date:__ b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? 01ye5 - If yes, who did you speak to? Dp- F.�CS,4l J c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes - If yes, who did you speak to?, _ d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number___ ❑ No ❑ No Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 14 of 399 2022 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a 'complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being irnpos' rovided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent e Date:__ () Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 9. AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I/W hereby authorize Signature of Owner/Agent:` Signature of Owner/Agent: ,, owner of the land that is subject of this application, Date: Date: to act on my / our behalf in this regard. The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act if you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 15 of 399 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 -2022-268 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 130-142 Victoria Street South RECOMMENDATION: For Information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated December 2021, prepared by Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. regarding a proposal to develop the subject properties municipally addressed as 130-142 Victoria Street South. One of the subject properties, 142 Victoria Street South, is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. Another property, 130 Victoria Street South, was proposed for listing by staff; however, at the owner's request Council chose not to list the property. The property addressed as 130 Victoria Street South is located adjacent to a listed property at 131 Victoria Street South. Additionally, all of the subject properties are located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) as defined in Kitchener's Cultural Heritage Landscape Study dated 2014 and approved by Council in 2015. The Warehouse District CHL has been identified as possessing historical integrity, cultural value and community value with heritage attributes generally being identified as `industrial landmarks.' The proposed development comprises a twenty-five (25) storey residential building with two (2) storeys of underground parking. There will be retail on the ground floor, live/work units, and shared offices on the second floor. The proposed building will front onto Victoria Street South and parking will be accessed off Victoria Street South. The building's podium is six (6) storeys and 20.6 metres in height with a fagade divided generally into five bays. The proposed development includes the demolition of all the three subject properties. The HIA determined that only 142 Victoria Street South meets the criteria for designation under *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 16 of 399 Ontario Reg. 9/06. As such, the HIA mainly focuses on the potential impacts of the proposed development on 142 Victoria Street South. 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: • Planning Act • Ontario Heritage Act APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 130-142 Victoria Street South Page 17 of 399 FINAL REPORT: LHC Heritage -= =' Planning and q ~ 1 t o tl Archaeology 837 Princess Street, Suite 400 Kingston, ON K7L 1 G8 Phone: 613-507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 E-mail: info@lhcheritage.com This page has been left blank deliberately Project # LHCO247 Page 19 of 399 Report prepared for: Nusrat Govindji (Owner) 1232119 Ontario Inc. 564 Strathmere Crescent Waterloo ON N2T 2K2 Report prepared by: Hayley Devitt Nabuurs, MPI Lisa Coles, BA (Hons) Colin Yu, MA Jordan Greene, BA Reviewed by: Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP Project # LHCO247 Page 20 of 399 Project # LHCO247 RIGHT OF USE The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of Nusrat Govindji (the "Owner"). Any other use of this report by others without permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings, and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only the Owners and approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies as well as any appeal bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of Owners and approved users. REPORT LIMITATIONS The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A: Project Personnel. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. All comments regarding the condition of any buildings on the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not a structural engineering assessment of the buildings unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues associated with any buildings on the property or the condition of any heritage attributes. The review of policy and legislation was limited to that information directly related to cultural heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, access to archives were limited Archaeological potential has not been assessed as part of this HIA. iv Page 21 of 399 Project # LHCO247 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the complete report including background, results as well as limitations. LHC was retained 11 February 2021 by Nusrat Govindji (the "Property Owner") to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 130, 138, and 142 Victoria Street South (the "Properties") in the City of Kitchener (the "City"), in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the "Region"). The Property Owner is proposing to build a 25 -storey residential building with two -storeys of underground parking, retail on the ground floor, and live/work units and shared offices on the second floor. This HIA is being prepared to evaluate the cultural heritage value of the Properties, outline heritage planning constraints, assess potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the properties and surrounding area, and identify mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen impacts. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries' (MHSTCI) Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. The HIA resulted in the following findings and recommendations In LHC's professional opinion, the property municipally known as 130 Victoria Street South meets criteria 1.i. of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical value, the property municipally known as 138 Victoria Street South does not meet the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06, and the property municipally known as 142 Victoria Street South meets criteria 1.i. of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical value. Potential project -related adverse impacts were identified for all heritage attributes of 130 and 142 Victoria Street South if the buildings are removed for the proposed development. Alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid these potential impacts were explored and found to not be feasible within the context of the project. A combination of Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development (Option 4) and Panelization (Option 5) is the preferred option. This alternative helps partially mitigate the loss of the Properties' heritage attributes. The reuse of salvaged materials and retention of key elements as architectural inspiration in a distinctive corner component of the podium, reflects the heritage attributes within the new development. This option also sees the extensive reuse of salvaged buff bricks from both 130 and 142 Victoria Street South and the incorporation of heritage attributes from both properties as design features in communal spaces. This includes use of the drive-thru canopy in an exterior amenity space above the podium. It is recommended that as design progresses and is refined, additional elements from the Properties, such as the Victoria Apartments front entrance and the date stone, be incorporated to the fullest extent possible. Should the date stone be incorporated into the development, it is recommended that it be accompanied by interpretive plaquing or signage to avoid the creation of "fake heritage". Page 22 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Table of Contents RIGHTOF USE........................................................................................................................ IV REPORT LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................... IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTIES...........................................................................1 1.1 Properties Owner.................................................................................................1 1.2 Properties Location..............................................................................................1 1.3 Properties Description..........................................................................................1 1.4 Properties Heritage Status...................................................................................1 2.0 STUDY APPROACH...........................................................................................................6 2.1 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2018) .........6 2.2 Legislative/Policy Review.....................................................................................9 2.3 Historic Research.................................................................................................9 2.4 Site Visit.............................................................................................................10 2.5 Impact Assessment............................................................................................10 3.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK....................................................................................................12 3.1 Provincial Planning Context................................................................................12 3.1.1 The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13.............................................................12 3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020).....................................................................12 3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18.........................................................13 3.1.4 Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005.................................................................14 3.1.5 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) ..........15 3.1.6 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25.................................................................16 3.1.7 Provincial Planning Context Summary...............................................................16 3.2 Regional Planning Context.................................................................................16 3.2.1 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) .......................................16 3.2.2 Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (2002) ...................20 3.2.3 Regional Planning Context Summary.................................................................21 3.3 Local Planning Context......................................................................................21 3.3.1 City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014)..................................................................21 3.3.2 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 (2019) ................................26 3.3.3 Local Planning Context Summary......................................................................28 4.0 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS...........................................................................................30 Page 23 of 399 Project # LHCO247 4.1 Early Indigenous History....................................................................................30 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500-8000 BCE)..........................................................................30 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-1000 BCE).......................................................................30 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE — CE 1650)...........................................................30 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth -Century Historic Context......................................31 4.3 Region of Waterloo............................................................................................34 4.4 City of Kitchener.................................................................................................34 4.5 Property History.................................................................................................35 4.5.1 130 Victoria Street South...................................................................................35 4.5.2 138 Victoria Street South...................................................................................37 4.5.3 142 Victoria Street South...................................................................................38 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................46 5.1 130 Victoria Street South...................................................................................46 5.2 138 Victoria Street South...................................................................................53 5.3 142 Victoria Street South...................................................................................58 5.4 Surrounding Context..........................................................................................65 5.5 Adjacent Heritage Properties..............................................................................68 6.0 EVALUATION ...................................................................................................................72 6.1 130 Victoria Street South...................................................................................72 6.1.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation....................................................................72 6.1.2 Summary............................................................................................................74 6.2 138 Victoria Street South...................................................................................74 6.2.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation....................................................................74 6.2.2 Summary............................................................................................................76 6.3 142 Victoria Street South...................................................................................76 6.3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation....................................................................76 6.3.2 Summary............................................................................................................79 6.3.3 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest................................79 6.3.4 Heritage Attributes.............................................................................................79 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................81 8.0 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES..........................................87 8.1 Potential Impacts to 142 Victoria Street South...................................................87 vii Page 24 of 399 Project # LHCO247 8.2 Summary of Potential Impacts............................................................................89 9.0 CONSIDERED MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES...............................90 9.1 Considered Options...........................................................................................90 9.1.1 Option 1: On-site Retention in Current Use........................................................90 9.1.2 Option 2: On-site Retention in Alternate Use......................................................90 9.1.3 Option 3: Relocation Within the Parcel...............................................................90 9.1.4 Option 4: Retention of 142 Victoria Street South and Integration into Proposed Development......................................................................................................90 9.1.5 Option 5: Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development......................................................................................91 9.1.6 Option 6: Demolish Existing Structure and Redevelop.......................................91 9.2 Preferred Option.................................................................................................91 10.00ONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................93 SIGNATURES..........................................................................................................................94 11.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................95 11.1 Policy and Legislation Resources.......................................................................95 11.2 Mapping Resources...........................................................................................97 11.3 Archival Resources............................................................................................98 11.4 Additional Resources.........................................................................................99 APPENDIX A: PROJECT PERSONNEL................................................................................102 APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY....................................................................................................104 APPENDIX C: CITY DIRECTORY RECORDS FOR THE PROPERTIES ...............................109 APPENDIX D: LAND REGISTRY RECORDS FOR THE PROPERTIES................................113 130 Victoria Street South Lot 10..........................................................................................113 138 Victoria Street South Lot 9............................................................................................116 142 Victoria Street South Lot 8............................................................................................119 List of Figures Figure1: Location Plan...................................................................................................................4 Figure2: Site Plan..........................................................................................................................5 Figure 3: Surveyor Thomas Ridout's map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 1821 ....................... 32 Figure4: Haldimand Tract.............................................................................................................33 Figure 5: Advertisement for Macintosh Cleaners Ltd. in the 1940 city directory ............................ 36 Figure 6: Macintosh Cleaners in 2016 after closing.......................................................................37 viii Page 25 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Figure 7: 1931 city directory entry listing new house and new apartments .................................... 37 Figure 8: 1815, 1861, and 1881 historic maps showing the Properties..........................................40 Figure 9: 1875 Birds -Eye View showing approximate location of the Properties ...........................41 Figure 10: 1925 and 1947 Fire Insurance Plans showing the Properties.......................................42 Figure 11: 1927, 1933, 1969, and 1976 topographic maps showing the Properties .......................43 Figure 12: 1930, 1945, 1955, and 1963 aerial photos showing the Properties..............................44 Figure 13: 1975, 1990, and 2003 aerial photos showing the Properties ........................................ 45 Figure 14: View northwest of southeast fagade.............................................................................47 Figure 15: View southwest of parking lot.......................................................................................48 Figure 16: View of interior entrance from main door......................................................................48 Figure 17: View northwest of northeast elevation.......................................................................... 49 Figure 18: View southeast of northeast elevation..........................................................................49 Figure 19: View of rusted metal brackets on northeast elevation ................................................... 50 Figure 20: View of rusted metal grate on northeast elevation........................................................ 50 Figure 21: View southeast of northwest and southwest elevations................................................51 Figure 22: Panoramic view northeast of southwest elevation........................................................ 51 Figure 23: View northeast of southwest and southeast elevation .................................................. 52 Figure 24: View southwest of fagade............................................................................................. 54 Figure 25: Panoramic view of northeast elevation.........................................................................54 Figure 26: View southwest of northwest elevation.........................................................................55 Figure 27: View northwest of northwest elevation and southwest elevations ................................. 55 Figure 28: View northwest of southwest elevation.........................................................................56 Figure 29: View of northeast basement window............................................................................56 Figure 30: View southwest of porch.............................................................................................. 57 Figure 31: View northeast of porch brackets and opening............................................................. 57 Figure 32: View southwest of southeast fagade............................................................................ 59 Figure 33: View northwest of southwest corner............................................................................. 59 Figure 34: View of main entrance..................................................................................................60 Figure 35: View southwest of northeast elevation.........................................................................60 Figure 36: View southwest of northwest elevation.........................................................................61 Figure 37: View southeast of southwest elevation.........................................................................61 Figure 38: Interior of first floor unit, general conditions..................................................................62 Figure 39: Interior, front stairs.......................................................................................................62 Figure40: Laundry room...............................................................................................................63 Figure 41: First floor hallway......................................................................................................... 63 Figure42: Rear stairs...................................................................................................................64 Figure 43: Window in rear stair well.............................................................................................. 64 Figure 44: View southwest along Victoria Street South................................................................. 66 Figure 45: View northeast along Victoria Street South..................................................................66 Figure 46: View of adjacent development.....................................................................................67 Figure 47: View north of parking lots behind Properties................................................................ 67 Figure 48: View northwest of residential land use.........................................................................68 Figure 49: Listed property at 131 Victoria Street South looking southeast across from Properties 69 Figure 50: View northeast of the northwest and southwest elevations of 120 Victoria Street......... 71 Figure 51: Perspective view.......................................................................................................... 82 ix Page 26 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Figure52: North view....................................................................................................................83 Figure53: East view.....................................................................................................................84 Figure54: West view.................................................................................................................... 85 Figure55: South view................................................................................................................... 86 List of Tables Table 1: City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Requirements ........ 6 Table 2: Regional Municipality of Waterloo Relevant Official Plan Policies .................................... 17 Table 3: City of Kitchener Relevant Official Plan Policies.............................................................. 22 Table 4: Zoning By-law 2019-051 MU -1 Permitted Uses............................................................... 27 Table 5: Zoning By-law 2019-051 MU -1 Regulations....................................................................27 Table 6: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 130 Victoria Street South .................................... 72 Table 7: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 138 Victoria Street South .................................... 74 Table 8: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 142 Victoria Street South .................................... 76 Table 9: Impact assessment of the heritage attributes of 142 Victoria Street South ...................... 87 Table 10: City Directory Records for the Properties....................................................................109 Table 11: 130 Victoria Street South Lot 10 Ownership................................................................ 113 Table 12: 138 Victoria Street South Lot 9 Ownership..................................................................116 Table 13: 142 Victoria Street South Lot 8 Ownership..................................................................119 x Page 27 of 399 This page has been left blank deliberately Project # LHCO247 Page 28 of 399 Project # LHCO247 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTIES LHC was retained 11 February 2021 by Nusrat Govindji (the "Property Owner") to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the three properties located at 130, 138, and 142 Victoria Street South (the "Properties") in the City of Kitchener (the "City"), in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the "Region"). The Property Owner is proposing to build a 25 -storey residential tower with two storeys of underground parking, retail on the ground floor, and live/work units and shared offices on the second floor. This HIA is being prepared to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the Properties and to outline heritage planning constraints affected by the proposed development. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries' (MHSTCI) Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's 2018 Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (HIA ToR). 1.1 Properties Owner The Property is owned by Nusrat Govindji (1232119 Ontario Inc.) of 564 Strathmere Crescent, Waterloo, Ontario. 1.2 Properties Location The Properties are located on the north side of Victoria Street South at the corner of Bramm Street and Michael Street in the Victoria Park area of the City of Kitchener, Ontario (Figure 1). 1.3 Properties Description The lot is rectangular, measuring approximately 55 m long by 35 m wide (Figure 2). There are three buildings each associated with a municipal address: a one -and -a -half -storey pharmacy at 130 Victoria Street South, a two -and -a -half -storey house at 138 Victoria Street South, and a three-storey apartment building at 142 Victoria Street South. A parking lot extends along the north end of the lots. 1.4 Properties Heritage Status The property located at 130 Victoria Street South was considered for listing on the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register in 2010 but was not pursued due to opposition from the owner at the time.' A Statement of Significance was prepared by the City for the property and reads: Heritage Value 130 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, 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: brick ' City of Kitchener Council, "City of Kitchener Council Minutes February 1, 2010," Laserfiche Web Link, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/5u4na5nyecpOospgkl4gljlm/14/Council%20-%202010-02-01.pdf, 27. Page 29 of 399 Project # LHCO247 construction; yellow, black and green vitrolite; and triangular metal drive-in overhang. The contextual value relates to the building's location and design. The building is located at the corner of Victoria Street South and Bramm Street. The building was designed for the corner location so that clients could drive in off of one street and exit on to the opposite street. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 130 Victoria Street South resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the construction and Art Deco architectural style of the building, including: o brick construction; o yellow, black and green vitrolite; and, o triangular metal drive-in overhang2 The property located at 132 Victoria Street South does not have heritage recognition and has not previously been considered for listing on the Municipal Register. The property located at 142 Victoria Street South was listed on the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register by Council resolution on 1 February 2010.3 A Statement of Significance was prepared by the City for the property and reads: Heritage Value 142 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design, physical, 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: yellow rugged and smooth brick construction; decorative stone details, including door surround, lintels, sills and date stone that reads "1931 "; and hung windows. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 142 Victoria Street South resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the construction and Art Deco architectural style of the building, including: o yellow rugged and smooth brick construction; 2 Michelle Wade, "DTS- 00510 Listing of Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value of Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register, "Heritage Kitchener Committee, December 16, 2009, Laserfiche Web Link, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/5u4na5nyecpOospgk]4gljlm/15/DTS-10-005%20- %20Listing%20of%2ONon-Designated%2OProperty%20of%2OCultural%20Heritage%2OValue%20.pdf. 3 City of Kitchener Council, "City of Kitchener Council Minutes February 1, 2010," 27. Page 30 of 399 Project # LHCO247 o roof and roofline; o decorative stone details, including door surround, lintels, sills and date stone that reads "1931 "; and, o window openings with hung windows4 4 Wade, "DTS- 00510 Listing of Non -Designated Property," December 16, 2009. Page 31 of 399 KEY MAP N ,., Makham Fick arena a Toronto `p G..11 1, 'u Da -- c+`c4. �� Lexington L Kitt)®icr 1a/ Lincoln 1P Ebycrest.Rcl Hamilt n,'��v ' Univgsih• '^T Lontlon / NIA CA FG m D ow71 s ` f.. .di.d. Bridgepolt SCALE 1.3,000,000 4Villowdale c_ 4 tfnixh d+, Vetlnont 1s 55 of �'Vatelloo WiMid�dgepprt-ft L n►iier ngsd��leY 0t Z. Beechw•ootl- Univelsih• rn 85' Btidlegate Centl.-1 e k n . 5 4 /Upper Ciaigleitli Tf Alam' �Si ^°" nAy Beechwood Beechwood P.uk All S� � � �R�w aet`� 57 Uptown We /s �� 0� �,� E 4 Beediwood Chippend il eikir i �� Rosemount ` Heritage Park t've5t p9 \ sr w J 5%'N 1. 1'Vestmount o h / 0 Iry `` �� oc St Sx f `xaNa' ° Rununellimcit g o N'ictoria Hulls h q6 Glasgow Heiglits ��� �+ Si.E E Stanlev � Weshvale `te b��i Park �� a O� esst 7 'p West P� i Fps°h � is � r } \ F aF Hill rNe�s+ty" e'Haph , L� h'%���� Rodcw:n•� I tl �j Jt, 50 X55 Ch vrc�° ecs l; Centreville Die Folest Hulls r n� _44- 6 � 8 N h�a `g Alpine Waidau. Forest 4 \illage 53 ,fairway Heights "ILatuenti.ui F>;u5 Kitchener p„k4�.,x. y �s 7 . 0� oRd/ �Countn• �I Otixa�9 c,� '-�9t°cK pe "a mG Hills 28 69 Deer Rldg a M.11lliheinl 56� 0 0.54 1 2 Kilometers Golf Cour. 0 c O ian,shulg Strasburg Le"'- Legend g Lo` Location Plan • Properties CLIENT Nusrat Govindji PROJECT PROJECT NO. LHCO247 Heritage Impact Assessment 130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo NOTE(S) CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2021-05-10 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) PREPARED LHC 1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, DESIGNED JG NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. FIGURE # 1 Legend Properties • ter. NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) 1. Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. �0 .P TITLE Site Plan CLIENT Nusrat Govindji PROJECT PROJECT NO.LHCO247 Heritage Impact Assessment 130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo CONSULTANT yyyy-MM-DD 2021-05-10 PREPARED LHC 1HC DESIGNED JG FIGURE # 2 Project # LHCO247 2.0 STUDY APPROACH LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage resources based on the understanding, planning and intervening guidance from the Canada's Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and MHSTCI Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.5 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves: 1) Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential) through research, consultation, and evaluation—when necessary. 2) Understanding the setting, context, and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research, site visit and analysis. 3) Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage resource. The impact assessment is guided by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Information Sheet #5, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. A description of the proposed development or site alteration, measurement of development or site impact and consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods are included as part of planning for the cultural heritage resource.5 The HIA includes recommendations for design and heritage conservation to guide interventions to the Properties. 2.1 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2018) The City's HIA ToR require an assessment to determine potential impacts to cultural heritage resources by proposed development. An HIA prepared for the City: ...shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. Requirements of an HIA submitted to the City include the following: Table 1: City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Requirements Requirement Present owner contact information for properties proposed Found in Section 1.1 of this HIA. for development and/or site alteration. A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from Found in Section 4.0 of this HIA. the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). A written description of the buildings, structures and Found in Section 5.0 of this HIA. landscape features on the subject properties including: 5 Canada's Historic Places, "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada", 2010, 3; MHSTCI, "Heritage Property Evaluation" Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006, 18. 6 MHSTCI, "Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process" Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006 Page 34 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Requirement Location building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions. The report shall include a clear statement of the Found in Section 6.0 of this HIA conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest of the subject property as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. If applicable, the statement shall also address the value and significance of adjacent protected heritage property. Documentation of the subject properties to include: current Found in Section 5.0 of this HIA. photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. An outline of the proposed development, its context, and Found in Section 7.0 of this HIA. how it will impact the properties (subject property and if applicable adjacent protected heritage properties) including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed development on the identified heritage attributes of the properties, shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties and adjacent protected heritage property. Options shall be provided that explain how the significant Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA. cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, integration of all or part of the heritage resource, Page 35 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Requirement Location relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA. and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). Proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions must be Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA. justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA. describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. The qualifications and background of the person(s) Found in Appendix A of this HIA. completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature Found in Section 11.0 of this cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and HIA referenced in the report. The summary statement should provide a full description Found in Section 10.0 of this of: HIA. • The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. • The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties, including adjacent protected heritage property. • An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. Page 36 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Requirement Location • Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. The consultant must write a recommendation as to Found in Section 6.0 of this HIA. whether the subject properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9/06. The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. Do the properties meet the criteria for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest? 2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why they do not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? 2.2 Legislative/Policy Review The HIA includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and policy framework that applies to the Property. The impact assessment considers the proposed project against this framework. 2.3 Historic Research Historical research was undertaken to outline the history and development of the Property and its broader community context. Primary historic material, including air photos and mapping, were obtained from: • Library and Archives Canada; • Department of National Defence; Page 37 of 399 Project # LHCO247 • Ancestry; • Waterloo Open Data; • University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection; • University of Toronto; and, • Kitchener Public Library. Secondary research was compiled from sources such as: historical atlases, local histories, architectural reference texts, available online sources, and previous assessments. All sources and persons contacted in the preparation of this report are listed as footnotes and in the report's reference list. 2.4 Site Visit A site visit was undertaken by Colin Yu on 26 April 2021. The primary objective of the site visit was to document and gain an understanding of the Properties and their surrounding context. The site visit included a documentation of the surrounding area, and exterior views of the structures. Interiors were not accessed due to health and safety considerations related to COVID restrictions at the time. A second site visit was undertaken on 11 November 2021 by Christienne Uchiyama. The second site visit included documentation of the surrounding area and exteriors of the three properties. Portions of the interior of 142 Victoria Street South were accessed during the November site visit. 2.5 Impact Assessment The M HSTCI's Information Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans' outlines seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or property alteration. The impacts include, but are not limited to: 1) Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features; 2) Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; 3) Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden; 4) Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; 5) Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and natural features; 6) A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and MHSCTI "Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Info Sheet #5" in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006) 10 Page 38 of 399 Project # LHCO247 7) Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The HIA includes a consideration of direct and indirect adverse impacts on adjacent properties with known or potential cultural heritage value or interest in Section 8.0. 11 Page 39 of 399 Project # LHCO247 3.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK 3.1 Provincial Planning Context In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural heritage is established as a key provincial interest directly through the provisions of the Planning Act, the OHA, and the PPS. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. These various acts and the policies under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. They also provide a legal framework through which minimum standards for heritage evaluation are established. What follows is an analysis of the applicable legislation and policy regarding the identification and evaluation of cultural heritage. 3.1.1 The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in Ontario. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part 1 (2, d): The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as ... the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.$ Under Section 1 of The Planning Act: A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Tribunal, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter ... shall be consistent with [the PPS].9 Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the province are outlined in the PPS which makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations concerning planning and development within the province. 3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The PPS provides further direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements and sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land in Ontario. Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The Province deems cultural heritage and archaeological resources to provide important environmental, economic, and social benefits, and PPS directly addresses cultural heritage in Section 1.7.1 e and Section 2.6. 8 Province of Ontario, "Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13," December 8, 2020, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90pl3, Part 1 (2, d). 9 Province of Ontario, "Planning Act," Part I S.5. 12 Page 40 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Section 1.7 of the PPS regards long-term economic prosperity and promotes cultural heritage as a tool for economic prosperity. The relevant subsection states that long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: 1.7.1e encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Section 2.6 of the PPS articulates provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology. Subsection's state: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. 2.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources.10 The definition of significance in the PPS states that criteria for determining significance for cultural heritage resources are determined by the Province under the authority of the OHA.11 The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations and recognizes that there are complex interrelationships among environmental, economic and social factors in land use planning. It is intended to be read in its entirety and relevant policies applied in each situation. A HIA may be required by a municipality in response to Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.3 to conserve built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and the heritage attributes of a protected heritage property. 3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18 The OHA and associated regulations establish the protection of cultural heritage resources as a key consideration in the land -use planning process, set minimum standards for the evaluation of 10 Province of Ontario, "Provincial Policy Statement," 2020, 29. 11 Province of Ontario, "Provincial Policy Statement," 2020, 51. 13 Page 41 of 399 Project # LHCO247 heritage resources in the province, and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest. 12 Part 1 (2) of the OHA enables the Minister to determine policies, priorities, and programs for the conservation, protection, and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. The OHA and associated regulations establish the protection of cultural heritage resources as a key consideration in the land -use planning process, set minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in the province, and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest. 13 O. Reg. 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06 (O. Reg. 10/06) outline criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance. Individual heritage properties are designated by municipalities under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. A municipality may list a property on a municipal heritage register under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA. A municipality may designate heritage conservation districts under Section 41, Part V of the OHA. An OHA designation applies to real property rather than individual structures. Amendments to the OHA were announced by the Province under Bill 108: More Homes, More Choices Act and came into effect on July 1, 2021. Previously, municipal council's decision to protect a property determined to be significant under the OHA was final with appeals being taken to the Conservation Review Board, who played an advisory role. With Bill 108 proclaimed, decisions are appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal for adjudication. Sections 33 and 34 Part IV and Section 42 Part V of the OHA require owners of designated heritage properties to obtain a permit or approval in writing from a municipality/municipal council to alter, demolish or remove a structure from a designated heritage property. These sections also enable a municipality to require an applicant to provide information or material that council considers it may need to decide which may include a CHIA. Under Section 27(3), a property owner must not demolish or remove a building or structure unless they give council at least 60 days notice in writing. Under Section 27(5) council may require plans and other information to be submitted with this notice which may include a CHIA. 3.1.4 Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005 The Places to Grow Act guides growth in the province and was consolidated 1 June 2021. It is intended: a) to enable decisions about growth to be made in ways that sustain a robust economy, build strong communities and promote a healthy environment and a culture of conservation; 12 Province of Ontario, "Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18," last modified April 19, 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90ol 8 13 Province of Ontario, "Ontario Heritage Act," 2021 14 Page 42 of 399 Project # LHCO247 b) to promote a rational and balanced approach to decisions about growth that builds on community priorities, strengths and opportunities and makes efficient use of infrastructure; c) to enable planning for growth in a manner that reflects a broad geographical perspective and is integrated across natural and municipal boundaries; d) to ensure that a long-term vision and long-term goals guide decision-making about growth and provide for the co-ordination of growth policies among all levels of government. 14 This act is administered by the Ministry of Infrastructure and enables decision making across municipal and regional boundaries for more efficient governance in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area. 3.1.5 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) The Properties are located within the area regulated by A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan) which came into effect on 16 May 2019 and was consolidated on 28 August 2020. In Section 1.2.1, the Growth Plan states that its policies are based on key principles, which includes: Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Metis communities. 15 Section 4.1 Context, in the Growth Plan describes the area it covers as containing: ...a broad array of important hydrologic and natural heritage features and areas, a vibrant and diverse agricultural land base, irreplaceable cultural heritage resources, and valuable renewable and non-renewable resources. 16 It describes cultural heritage resources as: The GGH also contains important cultural heritage resources that contribute to a sense of identity, support a vibrant tourism industry, and attract investment based on cultural amenities. Accommodating growth can put pressure on these resources through development and site alteration. It is necessary to plan in a way that protects and maximizes the benefits of these resources that make our communities unique and attractive places to live. 17 Policies specific to cultural heritage resources are outlined in Section 4.2.7, as follows: 14 Province of Ontario, "Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13," last modified April 19, 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05pl3, 1. 15 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," last modified 2020, https:Hfiles.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf, 6. 16 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," 2020, 39. 17 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," 2020, 39. 15 Page 43 of 399 Project # LHCO247 1. Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas; 2. Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Metis communities, in developing and implementing official plan policies and strategies for the identification, wise use and management of cultural heritage resources; and, 3. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making.'$ Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow aligns the definitions of A Place to Grow with PPS 2020 3.1.6 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 The Municipal Act was consolidated on 19 April 2021 and enables municipalities to be responsible and accountable governments with their jurisdiction.19 The Municipal Act authorizes powers and duties for providing good government and is administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Amongst the many powers enabled by the Municipal Act is the power to create By-laws within the municipalities sphere of jurisdiction.20 Under Section 11 (3) lower and upper tier municipalities are given the power to pass by-laws on matters including culture and heritage.21 Enabling municipalities to adopt a by-law or a resolution by Council to protect heritage, which may include requirements for an HIA. 3.1.7 Provincial Planning Context Summary In summary, cultural heritage resources are considered an essential part of the land use planning process with their own unique considerations. As the province, these policies and guidelines must be considered by the local planning context. In general, the province requires significant cultural heritage resources to be conserved. Multiple layers of municipal legislation enable a municipality to require a CHIA for alterations, demolition or removal of a building or structure from a listed or designated heritage property. These requirements support the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario following provincial policy direction. 3.2 Regional Planning Context 3.2.1 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP) was approved with modifications by the Ontario Municipal Board on 18 June 2015 and is currently under review. 22 The ROP sets out policies to guide growth and land use within the Region in keeping with provincial policy. 18 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," 2020, 47. 19 Province of Ontario, "Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25," last modified April 19, 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01 m25. 20 Province of Ontario, "Municipal Act," 2021, 11. 21 Province of Ontario, "Municipal Act," 2021, 11(3). 22 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," last modified June 18, 2015, https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-government/land-use-planning.aspx cover. 16 Page 44 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Chapter 3 addresses cultural heritage policies, writing that: These resources provide an important means of defining and confirming a regional identity, enhancing the quality of life of the community, supporting social development and promoting economic prosperity. The Region is committed to the conservation of its cultural heritage. This responsibility is shared with the Federal and Provincial governments, Area Municipalities, other government agencies, the private sector, property owners and the community.23 Policies related to the Identification of Cultural Heritage Resources, Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Archaeology, Heritage Planning Advisory Committees, Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, Conservation, Promotion and Research, and Scenic Roads are outlined by the ROP. Policies most relevant to the Properties and proposed development have been included below in Table 2. Table 2: Regional Municipality of Waterloo Relevant Official Plan Policies 23 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," 2015, 48. 17 Page 45 of 399 Policy Policy - Identification..Resources The Region and Area Municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources are 3.G.1 conserved using the provisions of the Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Municipal Act. 3.G.3 Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Area Municipalities will include on their register properties designated under Part IV, V or VI of the Heritage Act, and will consider including, but not be limited to, the following additional cultural heritage resources of cultural heritage value or interest: a) properties that have heritage conservation easements or covenants registered against title; b) cultural heritage resources of Regional interest; and c) cultural heritage resources identified by the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Federal or Provincial governments. HeritageCultural Landscapes 3.G.5 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Implementation Guideline for Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation. This guideline will outline the framework for identifying Cultural Heritage Landscapes, including Cultural Heritage Landscapes of Regional interest, and for documenting each individual landscape through a Cultural Heritage Conservation Landscape Plan that includes: 23 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," 2015, 48. 17 Page 45 of 399 Project # LHCO247 18 Page 46 of 399 (a) a statement of significance; (b) a listing of the cultural heritage resources and attributes being conserved within the Cultural Heritage Landscape through the use of existing planning tools, such as Heritage Act designations, listings on the Municipal Register, official plan policies, secondary plans and zoning bylaws; and (c) recommendations for additional conservation measures. 3.G.6 Area Municipalities will designate Cultural Heritage Landscapes in their official plans and establish associated policies to conserve these areas. The purpose of this designation is to conserve groupings of cultural heritage resources that together have greater heritage significance than their constituent elements or parts. 3.G.7 The Region will assist Area Municipalities with the preparation of Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plans for Cultural Heritage Landscapes of Regional interest. Archaeology 3.G.8 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Archaeological Master Plan, an associated Regional Archaeological Implementation Guideline, and maps identifying archaeological resources and areas of archaeological potential. The Master Plan will provide detailed information on the variables used to determine areas of archaeological potential and define the archaeological review process. 3.G.9 During the review of development applications and/or site plans, the Region and/or Area Municipalities will require the owner/applicant to submit an archaeological assessment conducted by a licensed archaeologist in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Archaeological Implementation Guideline following the Ministry of Tourism and Culture's Standards and Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Province, where archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential have been identified in the Archaeological Master Plan. 3.G.10 Where an archaeological assessment identifies a significant archaeological resource, the Region or Area Municipality will require the owner/applicant to conserve the significant archaeological resource by: a) ensuring the site remains undeveloped and, wherever appropriate, designated as open space by the Area Municipality; or b) removing the significant archaeological resource from the site by a licensed archaeologist, prior to site grading or construction. HeritageCultural Impact 3.G.13 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non - 18 Page 46 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Policy Policy designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 3.G.14 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3.G.13 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the Area Municipality will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality. 3.G.15 Where a development application includes, or is adjacent to, a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest which is not listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to submit a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region. 3.G.16 The Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee prior to planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy 3.G.4. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies in this Plan. 3.G.17 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations. 3.G.18 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required in this Plan relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the conservation recommendations will, wherever feasible, aim to conserve cultural heritage resources intact by: a) recognizing and incorporating heritage resources and their surrounding context into the proposed development in a manner that does not compromise or destroy the heritage resource; b) protecting and stabilizing built heritage resources that may be underutilized, derelict, or vacant; and c) designing development to be physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable from, the heritage resource. 19 Page 47 of 399 Project # LHCO247 3.G.19 Where it is not feasible to conserve a cultural heritage resource intact in accordance with Policy 3.G.18, the conservation recommendations will: a) promote the reuse or adaptive reuse of the resource, building, or building elements to preserve the resource and the handiwork of past artisans; and b) require the owner/applicant to provide measured drawings, a land use history, photographs and other available documentation of the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. 3.G.20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area Municipality as applicable. 3.2.2 Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (2002) The Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (Master Plan) includes recommendations and implementation strategies for identification, protection, promotion, and investment cultural resources in the region. The Master Plan was created as: Arts, culture, and heritage initiatives make a significant contribution to the well- being and quality of life of the residents of Waterloo Region. They reflect and enhance the community's unique identity and diversity, contribute to economic vitality, and shape future growth. Accordingly, the Region of Waterloo, alone or in partnership, will identify, protect, promote, and invest in existing resources; implement strategies to support existing and additional arts, culture, and heritage initiatives; and ensure their long-term prosperity and sustainability.24 The goals of the Master Plan are to achieve the following: 25 1. Community Identity and Character Develop a stronger cultural heritage identity for the region, one that celebrates its diversity, the character of its multiple towns and cities and the differing traditions of their founders; its natural features; and the richness of its arts, culture and heritage assets. 2. Education and Awareness Build a stronger foundation for arts, culture, and heritage within the community. 3. Coordination and Partnership Formation Encourage a greater degree of collaboration across all sectors and disciplines. 4. Resources 24 Region of Waterloo, "Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan," last modified October 2002, https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the-region/resources/Documents/artsmasterpIan.pdf, I. 25 Region of Waterloo, "Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan," last modified October 2002, IV. 20 Page 48 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Support opportunities for the development and sustainability of existing arts, culture, and heritage organizations. 5. Accessibility Maximize accessibility to arts, culture, and heritage opportunities and information. The Master Plan provides guidance and direction for the region for protecting, identifying, and enhancing cultural heritage aspects for communities, and in serving as a primary document to help develop new policies and implementation strategies. 3.2.3 Regional Planning Context Summary The Region has acknowledged the identification and conservation of cultural heritage resources is an important element of the land use planning process. Cultural heritage resources are viewed as important drivers for the Region's cultural and economic growth. The Region requires the completion of an HIA for proposed work on a listed property and assessment of archaeological potential. If the property is of Regional interest, a copy of the HIA must be submitted to the Region for review. 3.3 Local Planning Context 3.3.1 City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) The City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) was approved with modifications by the Region on 19 November 2014 and was consolidated to 2019.26 The OP guides growth, land use, and environmental protection for the City to 2031.27 Section 12 addresses cultural heritage policies which are of historical, cultural, social, economic, environmental, and educational value to the City.28 Policies relevant to the Property and proposed development have been included below in Table 3. 26 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Official Plan," last modified October 29, 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_City_of Kitchener_Official_Plan_ 2014.pdf, cover. 27 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Official Plan," 2019, 1-1. 28 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Official Plan," 2019, 12-1. 21 Page 49 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Table 3: City of Kitchener Relevant Official Plan Policies 22 Page 50 of 399 Policy Policy Objectives 12.1.1. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 12.1.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved. 12.1.3. To increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage resources through educational, promotional and incentive programs. 12.1.4. To lead the community by example with the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage resources owned and/or leased by the City. . - Policies 12.C.1.1. 12.C.1.1. The City will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act and the Municipal Act. 12.C.1.3. The City will develop, prioritize and maintain a list of cultural heritage resources which will include the following: a) properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; b) properties designated under Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act; c) cultural heritage landscapes; and, d) heritage corridors. The list may also include cultural heritage resources identified in Federal, Provincial and Regional inventories and properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings until such time as these properties are re-evaluated and considered for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register. 12.C.1.4. The City acknowledges that not all of the city's cultural heritage resources have been identified as a cultural heritage resource as in Policy 12.C.1.3. Accordingly, a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. 12.C.1.5. Through the processing of applications submitted under the Planning Act, resources of potential cultural heritage value or interest will be identified, evaluated and considered for listing as a non -designated property of cultural 22 Page 50 of 399 Project # LHCO247 23 Page 51 of 399 heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register and/or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.C.1.7. Properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest will be considered for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The cultural heritage value or interest associated with the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated based on the regulation in the Ontario Heritage Act which provides criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Archaeology 12.C.1.17. During the review of development applications or applications for site alteration, The City and/or the Region will require an owner/applicant to submit an archaeological assessment conducted by a licensed archaeologist in accordance with any applicable Regional or Provincial Standards and Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Province, where archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential have been identified in the Regional Archaeological Master Plan. 12.C.1.18. Where an archaeological assessment identifies a significant archaeological resource, the City and/or the Region and the Province will require the owner/applicant to conserve the significant archaeological resource in accordance with Ministry approvals by: a) ensuring the site remains undeveloped and, wherever appropriate, designated as open space by the City, or, b) removing the significant archaeological resource from the site by a licensed archaeologist, prior to site grading or construction. Conservation Measures 12.C.1.19. In addition to listing and designating properties under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City may use and adopt further measures to encourage the protection, maintenance and conservation of the city's cultural heritage resources including built heritage and significant cultural heritage landscapes and implement Cultural Heritage Resource Conservation Measures Policies in this Plan. These may include, but are not limited to covenants and easements pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act; by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Planning Act (Zoning By- law, demolition control, site plan control, community improvement provisions, provisions in a subdivision agreement); and by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Municipal Act (Property Standards By-law, tree by-law, sign by-law). 12.C.1.20. The City will make decisions with respect to cultural heritage resources that are consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, which require the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources. In addition, such decisions will be consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 23 Page 51 of 399 Project # LHCO247 12.C.1.21. All development, redevelopment and site alteration permitted by the land use designations and other policies of this Plan will conserve Kitchener's significant cultural heritage resources. The conservation of significant cultural heritage resources will be a requirement and/or condition in the processing and approval of applications submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.22. The City may require financial securities from the owner/applicant of an application submitted under the Planning Act, including applications for consent, site plan, draft plan of vacant land condominium and draft plan of subdivision, to ensure the conservation of the city's cultural heritage resources both during and after the development process. t Assessments and Heritage Heritage ImpacConservation Plans 12.C.1.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.C.4.6 through 13.C.4.18 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, e) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 12.C.1.24. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 12.C.1.23 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the City will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review prior to final consideration by the City. 12.C.1.25. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans. 12.C.1.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will be outlined in a Terms of Reference. In general, the contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; 24 Page 52 of 399 Project # LHCO247 25 Page 53 of 399 d) assessment of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 12.C.1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.28. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. Demolition/Damage of Cultural Heritage Resources 12.C.1.32. Where a cultural heritage resource is proposed to be demolished, the City may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. 12.C.1.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the owner/applicant will be required to prepare and submit a thorough archival documentation, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of an approval and/or permit. 12.C.1.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource, such documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and must include the following: a) architectural measured drawings; b) a land use history; and, c) photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. Archival documentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. 12.C.1.35. In the event that demolition is proposed to a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to provide written notice to the City of the intent to demolish, 60 days prior to the date demolition is proposed. The significance of the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated and Council may use the 60 days 25 Page 53 of 399 Project # LHCO247 3.3.2 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 (2019) The City currently reviewing its zoning and has two zoning by-laws Zoning By-law 85-1 and Zoning By-law 2019-051. Zoning By-law 85-1 is consolidated to 29 March 2004 and applies to all properties in the City.29 Zoning By-law 2019-051 was approved by City Council on 29 April 2019 and is currently under appeal.30 It is stage 1 of the City's zoning review and includes the ...framework of the document, definitions, general regulations, parking requirements and every zoning section with the exception of residential and urban growth centre (downtown).31 The Properties are not yet subject to Zoning By-law 2019-051 and are currently subject to Zoning By-law 85-1. They are currently zoned MU -1 Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone which supports the following uses and regulations as shown in Table 4 and Table 5.32 This zoning does not have accompanying cultural heritage regulations. 29 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1," last modified March 29, 2004, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%201 %20- %20General%2OScope.pdf, 1. 30 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051," last modified April 29, 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_CROZBY_Consolidated_Zoning_ Bylaw_Counci]_Approved.pdf. 31 City of Kitchener, "Zoning bylaw," Development and construction, last modified 2021, accessed May 4, 2021, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning-bylaw.aspx. 32 City of Kitchener, "Schedule 73," Zoning By-law 85-1, last modified August 27, 2018, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20A%20- %20Zoning%20Grid%20Schedules//SCHEDULE_73.pdf. 26 Page 54 of 399 to pursue designation of the cultural heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.C.1.36. The City may give due consideration to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act any cultural heritage resource if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant alterations or other potentially adverse impacts. Design/integration 12.C.1.46. The City will prepare guidelines as part of the Urban Design Manual to address the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the city and to recognize the importance of the context in which the cultural heritage resources are located. 12.C.1.47. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in close proximity to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or other cultural heritage resources. 12.C.1.48. Signage on protected heritage properties will be compatible and complementary to the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property and in accordance with and consistent with good conservation practice. 3.3.2 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 (2019) The City currently reviewing its zoning and has two zoning by-laws Zoning By-law 85-1 and Zoning By-law 2019-051. Zoning By-law 85-1 is consolidated to 29 March 2004 and applies to all properties in the City.29 Zoning By-law 2019-051 was approved by City Council on 29 April 2019 and is currently under appeal.30 It is stage 1 of the City's zoning review and includes the ...framework of the document, definitions, general regulations, parking requirements and every zoning section with the exception of residential and urban growth centre (downtown).31 The Properties are not yet subject to Zoning By-law 2019-051 and are currently subject to Zoning By-law 85-1. They are currently zoned MU -1 Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone which supports the following uses and regulations as shown in Table 4 and Table 5.32 This zoning does not have accompanying cultural heritage regulations. 29 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1," last modified March 29, 2004, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%201 %20- %20General%2OScope.pdf, 1. 30 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051," last modified April 29, 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_CROZBY_Consolidated_Zoning_ Bylaw_Counci]_Approved.pdf. 31 City of Kitchener, "Zoning bylaw," Development and construction, last modified 2021, accessed May 4, 2021, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning-bylaw.aspx. 32 City of Kitchener, "Schedule 73," Zoning By-law 85-1, last modified August 27, 2018, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20A%20- %20Zoning%20Grid%20Schedules//SCHEDULE_73.pdf. 26 Page 54 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Table 4: Zoning By-law 2019-051 MU -1 Permitted Uses33 Permitted Use Permitted Use Permitted Use Artisan's Establishment Canine or Feline Grooming Commercial Recreation Community Centre Craftsman Shop Day Care Facility Duplex Dwelling Dwelling Unit Educational Establishment Financial Establishment Health Clinic Health Office Home Business Hospice Lodging House Medical Laboratory Multiple Dwelling Museum Office Personal Services Printing Establishment Private Club or Lodge Religious Institution Repair Service Residential Care Facility Restaurant Retail Security or Janitorial Services Scientific Establishment Technological Establishment Communications Establishment Single Detached Dwelling Street Townhouse Dwelling Studio Tourist Home Veterinary Services Table 5: Zoning By-law 2019-051 MU -1 Regulations 34 Regulation-. Minimum Lot Width 15 metres Minimum Front Yard Abutting a Street 1.5 meters Minimum Side Yard Abutting a Street 4.5 metres Maximum Front Yard and Maximum Side Yard Abutting a Street 7.5 metres Minimum Width of Primary Ground Floor Fagade for Buildings constructed after the date that the MU -1 Zone was applied to the land 50% of the length of abutting street lines Minimum Rear Yard 7.5 metres 33 City of Kitchener, "Section 53," Zoning By-law 85-1, last modified October 7, 2013, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%2053%20- %20Low%20Intensity%20Mixed%20Use%20Corridor%2OZone%20(MU-1).pdf, 1-2. 34 City of Kitchener, "Section 53," Zoning By-law 85-1, last modified October 7, 2013, 2-3. 27 Page 55 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Regulation Requirements Minimum yard abutting any Residentially 7.5 metres zoned property Minimum Fagade Height for Buildings 6.0 metres constructed after the date that the MU -1 Zone was applied to the land Maximum Building Height 13.5 metres Minimum Floor Space Ratio for Buildings 0.6 constructed after the date that the MU -1 Zone was applied to the land Maximum Floor Space Ratio for Buildings 2.0 constructed after the date that the MU -1 Zone was applied to the land. Minimum Landscaped Area 10% of the lot area. Location of Dwelling Unit Shall not be located on the ground floor unless located within a building used only as a multiple dwelling Fagade Openings for Buildings For non-residential uses, not less than 40 constructed after the date that the MU -1 percent of the area of a primary ground floor Zone was applied to the land. fagade shall MU -1 Zone was applied to the land be devoted to display windows or entrances to the building; the horizontal distance between display windows or entrances shall not exceed 4.0 metres. Outdoor Storage No outdoor storage of goods, materials or equipment shall be permitted in any front yard or in a side yard abutting a street. This shall not, however, prevent the display of goods or materials for retail purposes. Off-street Parking In accordance with Section 6.1 of this By-law, including 6.1.2 d). Off-street Loading In accordance with Section 6.2 of this By-law. 3.3.3 Local Planning Context Summary The City considers cultural heritage resources to be of value to the community and values them in the land use planning process. Through its OP policies, the City has committed to identifying and conserving cultural heritage resources including archaeological resources. An HIA is required when a proposed development is on or adjacent to a recognized heritage property. The 28 Page 56 of 399 Project # LHCO247 City has adopted Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and will reference them when assessing proposed developments. 29 Page 57 of 399 Project # LHCO247 4.0 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 4.1 Early Indigenous History 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500-8000 BCE) The cultural history of southern Ontario began around 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Wisconsin glacier .35 During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500- 8000 BCE), the climate was like the present-day sub -arctic and vegetation was dominated by spruce and pine forests.36 The initial occupants of the province had distinctive stone tools. They were nomadic big -game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) who lived in small groups and travelled over vast areas, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometres in a single year. 37 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-1000 BCE) During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE), the occupants of southern Ontario continued their migratory lifestyles, although living in larger groups and transitioning towards a preference for smaller territories of land — possibly remaining within specific watersheds. People refined their stone tools during this period and developed polished or ground stone tool technologies. Evidence of long-distance trade has been found on archaeological sites from the Middle and Later Archaic times including items such as copper from Lake Superior, and marine shells from the Gulf of Mexico.38 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE—CE 1650) The Woodland period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE — CE 1650) represents a marked change in subsistence patterns, burial customs, and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of pottery making. The Woodland period is sub -divided into the Early Woodland (1000-400 BCE), Middle Woodland (400 BCE — CE 500) and Late Woodland (CE 500 - 1650).39 The Early Woodland is defined by the introduction of clay pots which allowed for preservation and easier cooking .40 During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew and were organized at a band level. Peoples continued to follow subsistence patterns focused on foraging and hunting. Woodland populations transitioned from a foraging subsistence strategy towards a preference for agricultural village -based communities around during the Late Woodland. During this period people began cultivating maize in southern Ontario. The Late Woodland period is divided into three distinct stages: Early (CE 1000-1300); Middle (CE 1300-1400); and Late (CE 1400- 1650).41 The Late Woodland is generally characterised by an increased reliance on cultivation 35 Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, "Paleo-Indians," in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris (London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990), 37. 36 EMCWTF, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf. 37 EMCWFT, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). 38 EMCWFT, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). 39 EMCWFT, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). 40 EMCWFT, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). 41 EMCWFT, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). 30 Page 58 of 399 Project # LHCO247 of domesticated crop plants, such as corn, squash, and beans, and a development of palisaded village sites which included more and larger longhouses. By the 1500s, Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario — and more widely across northeastern North America —organized themselves politically into tribal confederacies. Communities south of Lake Ontario at this time included the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, made up of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Cayugas, Senecas, Onondagas, and Tuscarora, and groups including the Anishinaabe and Neutral (Attiwandaron).42 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth -Century Historic Context French explorers and missionaries began arriving in southern Ontario during the first half of the 17th century, bringing with them diseases for which the Indigenous peoples had no immunity. Also contributing to the collapse and eventual dispersal of the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, was the movement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from south of Lake Ontario. Between 1649 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy waged military warfare on the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, pushing them out of their villages and the general area. 43 As the Haudenosaunee Confederacy moved across a large hunting territory in southern Ontario, they began to threaten communities further from Lake Ontario, specifically the Anishinaabe. The Anishinaabe had occasionally engaged in military conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy over territories rich in resources and furs, as well as access to fur trade routes; but in the early 1690s, the Ojibway, Odawa and Patawatomi, allied as the Three Fires, initiated a series of offensive attacks on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, eventually forcing them back to the south of Lake Ontario.44 Most of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy allied with the British during the American Revolution (1765 — 1783) with the promise that their land would be protected. 45 This promise was not kept, and Haudenosaunee Confederacy territory was ceded to the United States through the Treaty of Paris in 1783.46 In compensation, Captain General Fedrick Haldimand granted the Haudenosaunee Confederacy 950,000 acres through the Haldimand Proclamation dated 25 October 1784 (Figure 3 and Figure 4).47 The land grant has been in debate ever since and has been steadily reduced to 46,000 acres today.48 42 Six Nations Elected Council, "Community Profile," Six Nations of the Grand River, last modified 2013, accessed May 7, 2021, http://www.sixnations.ca/CommunityProfile.htm; University of Waterloo, "Land acknowledgment," Faculty Association, accessed May 7, 2021, https://uwaterloo.ca/faculty- association/about/land-acknowledgement; Six Nations Tourism, "History," accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.sixnationstourism.ca/history/. 43 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, "The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation," Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, last modified 2018, http://mncfn.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-MNCFN-FINAL.pdf. 44 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, "History", 3-4. 45 Cody Groat, "Six Nations of the Grand River," The Canadian Encyclopedia, accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/six-nations-of-the-grand-river. 46 Cody Groat, "Six Nations of the Grand River," The Canadian Encyclopedia, accessed May 7, 2021. 47 Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation, "History of Six Nations," accessed May 7, 2021, https://sndevcorp.ca/history-of-six-nations/. 48 Six Nations Elected Council, "Community Profile," Six Nations of the Grand River, last modified 2013. 31 Page 59 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Figure 3: Surveyor Thomas Ridout's map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 182149 49 Library and Archives Canada, "Plan shewing the Lands granted to the Six Nation Indians, situated on each side of the Grand River, or Ouse, commencing on Lake Erie, containing about 674,910 Acres. Thos. Ridout Surveyor General, survey Gen. Office York 2nd February 1821. [cartographic material]," 1821, Item ID Number 4129506. Library and Archives Canada: Ottawa, Ontario. 32 Page 60 of 399 L E G E N Ol Project # LHCO247 4.3 Region of Waterloo The Haldimand Proclamation was divided into six blocks by the Government of Upper Canada and sold to fund an annuity to the Six Nations people .51 Block Two was sold to land speculator Colonel Richard Beasley in 1796 covering an area of 94,012 acres.52 Beasley began to subdivide the land and sell plots to Pennsylvania Mennonites fleeing after the American Revolution, this portion numbering 63,000 acres and called the German Company Tract. 53 The German Company Tract was surveyed by government surveyor Augustus Jones in 1805.54 The survey resulted in a closed Pennsylvania Mennonite community that did not include clergy, Crown, or Loyalist reserves and which was divided into equal 448 -acre lots without lot and concession numbers.ss The German Company Tract was incorporated into Wellington District in 1816 and renamed Waterloo Township.56 The Township grew quickly as it began a centre of German settlement in Upper Canada .51 Boundaries were redrawn following the Baldwin Municipal Act of 1849 and the Hinks Act of 1852 creating the United Counties of Wellington, Waterloo, and Grey in 1849.58 Waterloo County became independent in 1853 with Berlin as its seat .59 The Region of Waterloo was established in 1973.60 4.4 City of Kitchener A community began to form in the German Company Tract at what would become Kitchener, then known as Berlin, beginning with the settlement of a group of Pennsylvania Mennonites in 1807 including early families like the Schneiders and Ebys.61 The Village of Berlin was established in the 1850s with most of its population of 700 working in agriculture.62 A station on the Grand Trunk Railway was established at Berlin in 1856, linking the village to the rest of North America. 63 This coupled with access to inexpensive power from Niagara Falls lead to Berlin's industrial growth and nickname of "Busy Berlin" with a population of nearly 4,000 by 51 Kenneth McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017, accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener-waterloo. 52 Waterloo Region Museum, "History of Waterloo Township," accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/collections-and-research/waterloo-township.aspx#notel . 53 Ezra Elby, A biographical history of Waterloo township and other townships of the county, Volume 1, (Berlin, ON: Ezra Elby, 1895), 1 and 26. 54 John English and Kenneth McLaughlin, Kitchener: An Illustrated History, (Toronto: Robin Bross Studio,1996), 19-20. 55 English and McLaughlin, 19. 56 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 57 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 58 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 59 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 60 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 61 Bill Moyer, Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited An Illustrated History, (Burlington, ON: Windsor Publications Canada Ltd., 1979), 1. 62 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Rych Mills, Kitchener (Berlin) 1880 — 1960, (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002), 7. 63 Mills, 7. 34 Page 62 of 399 Project # LHCO247 1890.64 Berlin received city status in 1912 and operated as a multi-lingual city, mixing German and English.65 World War One brought change to Berlin with the city facing prejudice as Canada fought Germany.66 Berlin voted to change its name to Kitchener in 1916 in response. 67 Despite slowed growth during the war years, Kitchener grew from 20,000 in 1920 to 30,000 in 1930 leading to a housing and industry boom following the Great Depression.68 The city continued to grow through the 1900s, becoming Canada's fastest growing city in 1965.69 Kitchener experienced economic turmoil in the 1990s as the recession closed many long standing industries and lead to a restricting of the city's economy and workforce.70 Into the 2000s, the City has pushed for the reconstruction of Kitchener with increased post -secondary education and reuse of heritage properties.71 4.5 Property History Land records and city directory records from 1931 to 1940 for the Properties were transcribed and can be found in their entirety in Appendix C and D. The following history presents this information in a narrative form. Maps from the 1800s do not show development on the lots with the surrounding area largely composed of fields with some houses (Figure 8 and Figure 9). All three lots (Lot 8, 9, and 10) first appear in the Ontario Land Registry in March 1922 when they were sold by John Jr., George, and Caroline Bramm to Alford Boehmer for $2,100.00.72 Brothers John Jr. and George Bramm operated a brickyard on the Properties and ran a mill on Queen Street South with their father John Bramm Sr., Kitchener's first brickmaker.73 Boehmer then sold the three lots to different owners in the 1930s with no development on the lot at this time (Figure 10 to Figure 12). The street would be called Wilmont Avenue until it was renamed Victoria Street South in 1939.74 4.5.1 130 Victoria Street South The property municipally known as 130 Victoria Street South was used as a municipal yard until 1937 when it was sold by Boehmer to Macintosh Cleaners Ltd.75 Macintosh Cleaners Ltd. was 64 McLaughlin "Kitchener -Waterloo" The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Mills, 7 65 McLaughlin "Kitchener -Waterloo" The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Mills, 7 66 Mills, 7. 67 Moyer, 56. 68 Mills, 8. 69 Moyer, 83. 70 City of Kitchener, Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city, (Kitchener, ON: City of Kitchener, 2012), 97. 71 City of Kitchener, Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city, 108-109 72 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Historical Books, https://www.onland.ca/ui/58/books/82987/viewer/445262592?page=1, Instrument 46200. 73 Waterloo Region Museum, "John Bramm 1817-1893," List of Hall of Fame Inductees, https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/exhibits/past-and-present-inductees.aspx#. 74 Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1939, (Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1939). 75 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instrument 74529. 35 Page 63 of 399 Project # LHCO247 opened at this location in 1939 by the Macintosh family (Figure 5).76 The triangular canopy acted as a drive-thru overhang. It is unclear if this canopy was original to the building — as it is not clearly visible on aerial imagery or the 1945 Fire Insurance Plan — however, a drive-thru canopy would be in keeping with the style and time of construction. Macintosh Cleaners Ltd. continued to be operated by the family until it was sold in 2015 (Figure 6)." It was purchased by Nusrat Govindji and is currently a pharmacy called Victoria Wellness & Pharmacy.'$ ?AuLNTOSH C ANERS, LI!rIITF.D VICTORIA ST. BOUTH M Tc H E N SIX PHONE L-0 Jffwn.�G] �F Figure 5: Advertisement for Macintosh Cleaners Ltd. in the 1940 city directory79 76 Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1939, 446. 77 L. D'Amato, "An owner bids farewell to his business: `All my life has been here'," Waterloo Region Record, March 20, 2015, https://www.toronto.com/opinion-story/5516487-d-amato-an-owner-bids- farewell-to-his-business-all-my-life-has-been-here-/. 78 Terry Pender, "Former dry cleaning building in Kitchener has high-tech future," The Record, March 29, 2016, https://www.therecord.com/business/2016/03/29/former-dry-cleaning-building-in-kitchener-has- high-tech-future.html. 79 Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1940, (Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1940), 290. 36 Page 64 of 399 r.- j For Lease __c«AnERs Project # LHCO247 Figure 6: Macintosh Cleaners in 2016 after closing80 4.5.2 138 Victoria Street South The property municipally known as 138 Victoria Street South was sold by Boehmer to Louis Paleczny for $850.00 in 1931.81 Paleczny then built the house currently found on the property with the 1931 city directory listing "New house" (Figure 7).82 ■ ■ ■ Figure 7: 1931 city directory entry listing new house and new apartments83 John and Frances Swiech and Frances' uncle, Frank Targos, are listed as residents in the 1932 city directory. 84 The Sweich's were Polish immigrants: Frances Elzbieciak arrived in 1922 and 80 Google, "130 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada," Google Maps, June 2016, accessed May 12, 2021. 81 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instrument 66458. 82 Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1931, (Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1931), 374. 83 Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1931,374. 84 Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1932, (Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1932), 356. 37 Page 65 of 399 Project # LHCO247 John Sweich arrived in 1924.85 They met in Kitchener and married on 5 January 1925.86 John Sweich worked as a labourer at the Lang Tannery Company. 87 Paleczny sold the property to the Swiechs for $40,000.00 in 1935.88 The Swiechs lived at the property until they sold it to Caroline Cheng for $68,000.00 in 1987.89 Cheng sold the property to 100 Park Street Development Inc. for $108,000.00 in 1988.90 It has since passed through various corporations and been rented out to tenants. It is currently owned by Nusrat Govindji. 4.5.3 142 Victoria Street South The property municipally known as 142 Victoria Street South was sold by Boehmer to August and Wilhelmina Hoffman (sometimes spelt Hofman of Hoffmann) for $770.00 in 1929.91 The Hoffman's were leather goods dealers who immigrated from Germany and first appeared in the 1929 city directory living at 163 Joseph Street. 92 The Hoffman's hired the Ott Brick and Tile Manufacturing Company, owned by prominent Kitchener contractor Casper Braun, and a B. Neumann to build the apartments. 93 Victoria Apartments were competed in 1931 with "New Apartments" listed in the 1931 city directory (Figure 7).94 Residents begin to appear in the 1932 city directory with the Hoffmans living in one of the twelve units. A complete list of residents until 1940 has been included in Appendix C and is defined by short term rentals. The early 1930s were a time of apartment building in Kitchener with Casper Braun's company simultaneously working on the luxury York Apartments at 214 Queen Street South.95 By 1932, 85 New York, U. S., Arriving Passenger and Crew Lists (including Castle Garden and Ellis Island), 1820- 1957 [database on-line]. Year: 1922; Arrival: New York, New York, USA; Microfilm: T715, 1897-1957; Line: 2; Page Number: 158, Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010; UK and Ireland, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960 [database on-line], Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012. Board of Trade: Commercial and Statistical Department and successors: Outwards Passenger Lists. BT27. Records of the Commercial, Companies, Labour, Railways and Statistics Departments. Records of the Board of Trade and of successor and related bodies. The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England. 86 Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1826-1938 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010 and Genealogical Research Library (Brampton, Ontario, Canada); Registrations of Marriages, 1869-1928; Microfilm: 734, Archives of Ontario: Toronto 87 Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1935, (Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1935), 273. 88 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instrument 70872. 89 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instrument 904069. 90 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instrument 941146. 91 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instrument 66452. 92 Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1929, (Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd., 1929), 111. 93 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instrument 66922 and 66950. 94 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instruments 66922, 66930, 66950, 66955, 66958, 67056, 69319, 67482. Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1931, 374. 95 City of Kitchener, "By-law 2021-084 Designate the property municipally known as 214 Queen Street South," Ontario Heritage Trust, last modified June 11, 2012, accessed May 12, 2021, https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/fr/oha/details/file?id=5012. 38 Page 66 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Kitchener and Waterloo had forty-one apartment buildings including the Victoria Apartments.96 The 1947 Fire Insurance shows a rectangular structure behind the apartments (Figure 10). The property passed to the Hoffman's son, Albert J. Hoffman, in 196597 who then sold it to Joseph and Ruth Szewczyk in 1966.98 It passed through various owners including Lucien Potirn in 197499, Wesley S. and Brynhild R. Johnson in 1975100 Melinda Knipfel in 197510' Sue H. Cheng in 1987'02, and Gordon Royce Koziol in 1989.103 It continued to be operated as the Victoria Apartments and is currently owned by Nusrat Govindji. 96 Vernon Directories Limited, Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1932, 445. 97 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instruments 312987. 98 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instruments 324842. 99 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instruments 537095. 100 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instruments 543870. 10' Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instruments 543871. 102 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instruments 883865. 103 Ontario Land Registry, "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143," Instruments 1020213. 39 Page 67 of 399 •c 1815 �, w ,. s ty . 1861 . 11"I" .11 1 y •' 3's � w s i . .r- f ` x 10 .40 30 ' I :.iAllio • e ``" Mlet' � + 0 0.5 1 2 Kilomete ,fit 0 200 400� 8 s 1881. Legend AL Properties TITLE 1815, 1861, and 1881 historic maps showing the Properties CLIENT Nusrat Govindji PROJECT 'ROJECT NO. LHCO247 Heritage Impact Assessment -- 130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) A 1. Author Unknown. Map of the Township of Waterloo and Woolwich. University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical s Vyj Map Collection. Accessed May 10, 2021. 2. Geo. R. and G. M. Tremaine. Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West. Scale 1:39,600. Toronto: Geo. R. and G. M. Tremaine, 1861. 3. Author Unknown. Map of Waterloo Township. Scale 1:63,360. In: H. Parsell and Co. Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: H. Parsell and Co., 1881. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2021-05-11 oil »r,.. i 1HC.' PREPARED LHC 0 200 400 t DESIGNED JG FIGURE # 7�71 % f kv - ,� - IL _ ' ��`T • 4 ��.: � Y° � ., 'ems Nit OR SS 71 a 4 .ta •�� n`'yi� F .. 4 ,w .a• t to „� + t sUs➢ ^: � . 4-'P- .,3' a .�✓;- sw{ r fi;i iy i _-__:�: �} Tu[ , i'f Vit• 41Fi5TFFkLO01.4'.01 Legend Properties NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) 1. Herman Brosius. Berlin, Province, Ontario, Canada. University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection. Accessed May 10, 2021. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. TITLE 1875 Birds -Eye View showing approximate location of the Properties CLIENT Nusrat Govindji PROJECT PROJECT NO. LHCO247 Heritage Impact Assessment 130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo CONSULTANT yyyy_MM-DD 2021-05-11 PREPARED LHC 1HC DESIGNED JG Page, 69 of 3 FIGURE # 1925 i I ,I I 1947 Legend \ Properties NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) 1. Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. Insurance Plan of the city of Kitchener, Ontario. Scale 1:1,200. Toronto: Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd., 1908 rev. 1925. 2. Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. Insurance Plan of the city of Kitchener, Ontario. Scale 1,200. Toronto: Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd., 1908 rev. 1947 Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. A �I TITLE 1925 and 1947 Fire Insurance Plans showing the Properties CLIENT Nusrat Govindji PROJECT PROJECT NU LHCO247 Heritage Impact Assessment 130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo CONSULTANT yyyy-MM-DD 2021-05-10 1HCPREPARED LHC DESIGNED Page, 70 of 39 JG FIGURE # 0 f more op dpp E,,•� Jim , 11'6 9� J/ ----- Al r T Ta 0 50 100 200 Meters i 0 50 100 200 Meters 2 0 0 50 100 200 Meters � � F 0 50 100 200 Meters Legend TITLE 1927, 1933, 1969, and 1976 topographic maps showing the Properties Properties CLIENT Nusrat Govindji NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. PROJECT PROJECT LHCO247 REFERENCE(S) Heritage I mpact Assessment 1. Geographical Section, General Staff. Topographic Map, Ontario, Stratford Sheet. Scale 1:63,360. Strafford 130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo Sheet No. 97. n.p.: Department of National Defence, 1927. 2. Geographical Section, General Staff. Topographic Map, Ontario, Stratford Sheet. Scale 1:63,360. Sheet CONSULTANT yyyy-MM-DD 2021-05-10 No. 40 P77. n.p.: Department of National Defence, 1927 rev. 1933. 3. Surveys and Mapping Branch, Department of Energy Mines and Resources. Waterloo -Kitchener West, Waterloo County, Ontario. Scale 1:25,000. Edition 1. Sheet 40 P/71h. Ottawa: Map Distribution Office, PREPARED LHC Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1965 rev. 1969. 4. Surveys and Mapping Branch, Department of Energy Mines and Resources. Waterloo -Kitchener, Waterloo DESIGNED JG Regional Municipality, Ontario. Scale 1:25,000. Edition 2. Sheet 40 P/71h. Ottawa: CanadaMap Office, Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1976. 7 1 of 59 Pnrfi— of fhm ri—.—t in via infalla i nl n—n—W of P—i anri ifc linanc anri -—.1—d— lino _-- u � A 2% - � 1W - 11 F; a fir, At T 1954 7t Legend Properties J: ilW j TITLE 1930, 1945, and 1954 aerial photos showing the Properties �. �� • CLIENT Nusrat Govindji r PROJECT PROJECT NO. LHCO247 Heritage Impact Assessment 130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo 10 NOTE(S) � 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) .t .a. 1.University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo. Photo IM30. 1930. Accessed May 26, 2021 at https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html ' 2. University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo. Photo IM30. W 1945. Accessed May 26, 2021 at https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html 9 3. University of Toronto. 1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario. Photo 434.803. Accessed May 10,2021 at rLImo. https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern-ontario/index. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. e � CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2021-05-28 9 PREPARED LHC L ' r DESIGNED JG 0 25 50 100 Mei6wsOf 1HC ® a g 2 _r+ fir- FIGURE # Page 0 197,5 t �1V ij rpt �T @ s / 11� w • 4* �. ss 71 i i �e Legend 2003 \ Properties r ID i F \ TITLE 1975, 1990, and 2003 aerial photos showing the Properties CLIENT Nusrat Govindji !� _ -• PROJECT PROJECT NO. LHCO247 Heritage Impact Assessment 130-142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Muncipality of Waterloo NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. - A ,k � REFERENCE(S) 1. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Department of Planning and Development. Photo No. 752. Scale 1:4,800. Kitchener: Kitchener Public Library, April 1975. 2. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Department of Planning and Development. 1990 Aerial Photography. Photo No 11 N. Scale 1:5,000. Waterloo: Kitchener Public Library, 1990. 3. Waterloo Open Data. Aerial Imagery (2003). Accessed May 13, 2021 at ' - -�' �� hftps: Hdata.waterloo.calsearch?q=2003. Portions of this document include intellectual of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. .. f .. 8>.- property Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. �' lti;ti Iv!k� '` mS.f CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2021-05-28 PREPARED LHC � ,. �•✓ �Q' �� ` , ,q ,F Rah �� �� Q 25 50. 100 ^ HC1 DESIGNED JG a e O FIGURE# g 3 .fir$` Project # LHCO247 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 130 Victoria Street South The property municipally known as 130 Victoria Street is a one -storey rectangular medical building on a concrete foundation with three two-storey sections extending at the front left, middle left, and along the rear of the building (Figure 14). The building is approximately 46 m long from the tip of the canopy to the rear and 11 m wide. Interiors were not accessed in consideration of COVID-19 restrictions; however, photos were taken from the exterior and show interior renovations (Figure 16). The property is accessed from Victoria Street South on its southwest side with parking along the side and rear of the building and at the southeast fagade (Figure 15). The building has a flat roof and is constructed of stretcher bond brick of varying colours with red brick on the northeast elevation and one -storey rear section (Figure 17 and Figure 18), yellow bricks on the northwest and southwest elevations with grey bricks on the one -storey rear section (Figure 22), and reclad burgundy and grey bricks on the southeast fagade. Red dichromatic brick is found on the rear northeast corner (Figure 21) and two patches of white paint have been applied to the southwest elevation (Figure 23). Grey metal siding and glass half -walls have been installed along the roof of the main building. The front left one -storey section has been constructed of yellow, green, and clear glass windows (Figure 14). An Art Deco inspired triangular sign and entrance canopy extends from the southeast fagade supported by triangular metal poles. A metal grate and four brackets are found on the northeast elevation (Figure 19 and Figure 20). The building is accessed through a main glass door on the southeast fagade, a staff glass door on the northeast elevation, and a metal service door on the northwest elevation. Windows are found on all elevations. The southeast fagade has rectangular glass windows along its front trimmed in black metal with green and yellow glass sections. The northeast elevation has eight windows along the first floor and two windows in the rear second floor. Five of the first -floor windows and the two second floor windows have six panes, trimmed in black metal, with a concrete sill. Three of the first -floor windows are two paned with a rectangular section along the top trimmed in black metal and an 11 by 5 block section with a concrete sill. The northwest elevation has two first floor windows on the left side in an 11 by 8 block pattern with a concrete sill. The southwest elevation has nine windows, four in an 11 by 11 block pattern, two in a 12 by 8 block pattern, one in an 11 by 4 block pattern, and two in an 11 by 8 block pattern. The Property has undergone extensive renovations affecting the fagade, wall materials, windows, entrance, and triangular canopy. The Property retains few features common of Art Deco commercial architecture, popular from 1920 to 1940 such as its distinctive yellow, black 46 Page 74 of 399 Project # LHCO247 and green vitrolite.104 However, the triangular canopy, although itself altered with an external cladding, is reflective of the style and remains a distinctive streetscape component.105 Figure 14: View northwest of southeast fagade 104 Ontario Architecture, "Art Deco," accessed May 12, 2021, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/artdeco.htm; Sarah Parks, "From Arches to Turrets: architectural styles in Kitchener," ACO North Waterloo Region, June 6, 2018, https://www.aconwr.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/From-Arches-to-Turrets-Jun-6-18-2.pdf, 74 105 Ontario Architecture, "Art Deco," accessed May 12, 2021. 47 Page 75 of 399 Project # LHCO247 x Y � 4 Figure 15: View southwest of parking lot Figure 16: View of interior entrance from main door 48 Page 76 of 399 5i `.� 1�001/+ Project # LHCO247 Figure 19: View of rusted metal brackets on northeast elevation '+�`•, �r�_�` ate*„ '.u� � �e++� r'—��'�1 \ + ) � Figure 20: View of rusted metal grate on northeast elevation 50 Page 78 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Figure 21: View southeast of northwest and southwest elevations Figure 22: Panoramic view northeast of southwest elevation 51 Page 79 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Figure 23: View northeast of southwest and southeast elevation 52 Page 80 of 399 Project # LHCO247 5.2 138 Victoria Street South The property known municipally as 138 Victoria Street South is a two -and -a -half -storey rectangular red brick house on a rusticated stone foundation with a one -storey rear red brick addition (Figure 24). The building is approximately 14 m long and 7 m wide. Interiors were not accessed due to COVID-19 restrictions. The property is accessed from Victoria Street South on its northwest side with parking along the side and rear of the building. A grass covered yard extends from the building fagade to the sidewalk. The building is constructed of stretcher bond red brick. It is topped with a gabled roof of black asphalt with moulded wooden eaves and white painted verges and red painted eavestroughs. A gabled pediment style dormer is found on the northeast elevation and a single chimney extends from the centre rear. The building's main entrance is through a moulded wooden door with moulded wooden trim and a concrete lintel at the southeast fagade. A mail slot marked "Letters" is to the right of the door. Two doorways are found on the northeast elevation: one at ground level and one accessed by concrete steps at the one -storey rear addition (Figure 25). Both doors are moulded wooden doors with moulded wooden canopies (one triangular and one flat) with decorative brackets. A small doored opening, possibly for milk delivery, is to the right of the door. A wooden door with peeling white paint is found on the northwest elevation leads from the second floor to the roof of the one -storey rear addition. Windows are found on each elevation. The windows on the first two floors are all constructed of wood with concrete lintels and sills and upper storey windows with wooden trims. The southeast fagade has five windows including one rectangular and one square 2/2 pane windows with storm shutters on the ground floor, matching 2/2 pane windows on the second floor, and a three -pane window set into the roof. The northeast elevation has three windows including a rectangular 2/2 pane window with storm shutters on the ground floor, a one pane pivoted window on the second floor, and a three -pane window set into the dormer. Three basement windows with concrete lintels are found along the foundation (Figure 29). The northwest elevation has two windows: one 2/2 vinyl window with a concrete sill on the one - storey rear addition, and one vinyl 4/4 window with a concrete lintel and sill (Figure 26). The southwest elevation has two windows: one rectangular and one square 2/2 pane windows with storm shutters constructed of wood with concrete lintels and sills on the ground floor (Figure 27 and Figure 28). Three basement windows with concrete lintels are below these. A porch on the southeast fagade has a gabled roof with black asphalt shingles and is supported by brick colours with concrete lintels. The porch is accessed by concrete steps and is built of red brick with wooden floors and ceiling, and a concrete lintel across its length (Figure 30). Two concrete brackets and an opening with concrete lintel and sill is found on the centre front of the porch (Figure 31). 53 Page 81 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Figure 24: View southwest of fagade Figure 25: Panoramic view of northeast elevation 54 Page 82 of 399 u i all ., l'' Project # LHCO247 Figure 28: View northwest of southwest elevation Figure 29: View of northeast basement window 56 t Page 84 of 399 i � e 1 R i ITT f M i �� Project # LHCO247 5.3 142 Victoria Street South The property municipally known as 142 Victoria Street South is a three-storey rectangular yellow brick apartment building on a rusticated stone foundation (Figure 32 and Figure 33). The building is approximately 20 m long and 9 m wide. Interiors were not accessed due to COVID- 19 restrictions. The property is accessed from Victoria Street South on its northwest side with parking along the side and rear of the building The building is constructed of stretcher bond yellow brick with the rear first floor painted white. It is topped by a low gabled roof with thin green eaves. A symmetrical stepped parapet roofline design with projecting lintels, and brick quoins at either side of the fagade with sandstone inlays at the centre of their flared capital columns at the corners and centre define the building's fagade roofline. The building is accessed from the southeast fagade by concrete steps with metal railings through a metal door in a carved stone frame with a brick and concrete lintel topped surround in a stepped parapet design matching the roofline (Figure 34). Lantern style sidelights are on either side of the door and "Victoria Apts" is carved above the entrance. A date stone reading "1931" is placed above the main entrance. A metal access door accessed from a concrete step is found at the rear of the building and is topped with a green fabric canopy. A former door painted green is found on the southeast corner but no longer has stairs. All windows on the building are rectangular 2/2 pane with concrete sills. The windows on the southeast fagade also have concrete lintels. Windows are either alone or in groups of two or three depending on their location on the building. One narrow window is found on the fagade and two on the rear. The southeast fagade has seven windows, the northeast elevation has thirty-one windows (Figure 35), the northwest elevation has two windows (Figure 36), and the southwest elevation has thirty windows (Figure 37). The Property is a vernacular example of Art Deco style popular from 1920 to 1940.106 Elements including its symmetry, stepped roofline, geometric shape, and brick construction reflect this style. 107 Victoria Apartments is one of the oldest surviving apartment buildings in Kitchener with the oldest, York Apartments at 214 Queen Street South, built in 1928 and opened in 1931.108 Due to the ongoing Covid pandemic, only limited areas of the interior of the residential apartment building were accessed on 11 November, 2021. This includes common areas such as the front and rear stair cases, first floor hallway and laundry room, and one of the first -floor units understood to be representative of the level of intervention throughout the building. In general, although the interior of the building does not appear to have been subject to extensive alteration over time, upgrades to meet security, fire and safety requirements were noted throughout. No notable, representative, or distinctive features of note were documented which might contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property or which might be identified as heritage attributes. Exterior casings and the front and rear balustrades appear 106 Ontario Architecture, "Art Deco," accessed May 12, 2021; Sarah Parks, "From Arches to Turrets: architectural styles in Kitchener," ACO North Waterloo Region, June 6, 2018, 74. 107 Ontario Architecture, "Art Deco," accessed May 12, 2021. 108 City of Kitchener, "By-law 2021-084 214 Queen Street South," 2012. 58 Page 86 of 399 Project # LHCO247 contemporary to the construction of the building, as do some of the radiator units. See Figure 1 '1s AL Figure 32: View southwest of southeast fagade Figure 33: View northwest of southwest corner 59 Page 87 of 399 A0 . ,mss may' �r _ ,Si Jq �- Figure 34: View of main entrance Figure 35: View southwest of northeast elevation 60 Project # LHCO247 Page 88 of 399 Figure 38: Interior of first floor unit, general conditions Figure 39: Interior, front stairs 62 Project # LHCO247 Page 90 of 399 Figure 40: Laundry room Figure 41: First floor hallway 63 Project # LHCO247 Page 91 of 399 Figure 42: Rear stairs Figure 43: Window in rear stair well 64 Project # LHCO247 Page 92 of 399 Project # LHCO247 5.4 Surrounding Context The Properties are located within the boundaries of Downtown Kitchener, the Properties are approximately 800 metres (m) from the CN Rail tracks and 400 metres from Victoria Park. The topography of the surrounding area is relatively flat with a slight slope towards Victoria Park. Vegetation in the area is sparse with few trees lining Victoria Street South and small landscaped grass yards fronting nearby residential and commercial properties. Observed land use in the surrounding area is a mixture of residential, industrial, and commercial properties. Victoria Street South is an area of development, with a combination of building heights, ranging from one to twenty storeys. Victoria Street South is a two-way street with four - lanes of traffic, sidewalks, and streetlights on the south side of the street (Figure 44 and Figure 45). Brahm Street is a two-way street with no sidewalks. Multi-storey apartment development is currently occurring on the northwest side of Brahm Street adjacent to the Properties (Figure 46). The development immediately adjacent to the Properties is being constructed around a heritage building at 120 Victoria Street South (Figure 47). Surface parking lots extend northwest of the Properties (Figure 47). Recognized as a Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resource, the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (L -COM -1) extends along the CN Rail line and is bounded by Glasgow, Dominion, Breithaupt, Francis, Victoria, and Belmont Streets.909 110 The Properties are located within the Warehouse District including the north side of Victoria Street South. The Warehouse District is contextually important to the development history of Kitchener as an industrial manufacturing centre during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Supporting facilities including factories, warehouses for department stores, commercial enterprises, and residences for workers were established. Within the Warehouse District, factory complexes, including the Kaufman Rubber Company building designed in 1908 by Albert Kahn (1869-1942), still stand. Residential neighbourhoods, constructed of mostly brick, in the immediate vicinity housed the workers of this industrial and commercial area. Within the Warehouse District, five properties are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act while 16 have been listed on the Municipal Heritage Register."' The Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District extends south one block approximately 40 m from the Properties along with Victoria Park and residential land use to the north, west, and south (Figure 48). 109 Region of Waterloo. "Regional Implementation Guideline Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources". 2018, 4. Accessed 17 September 2021. 110 City of Kitchener. "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Data Sheets". 2014 December, 24. Accessed 17 September 2021. 111 City of Kitchener. "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Data Sheets". Accessed 17 September 2021. 65 Page 93 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Figure 44: View southwest along Victoria Street South Figure 45: View northeast along Victoria Street South 66 Page 94 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Figure 46: View of adjacent development Figure 47: View north of parking lots behind Properties 67 Page 95 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Figure 48: View northwest of residential land use 5.5 Adjacent Heritage Properties The City defines adjacent as: ...lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway, municipal road or other right-of-way. Using this definition, the Properties are adjacent to a listed property at 131 Victoria Street South (Figure 49).12 This property was listed for its design, physical, historical, and associative values including: Heritage Value The design and physical values relate to the vernacular building with influences from the Ukrainian Baroque architectural style. The building is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: hipped gable roof; red brick construction; date stone that reads "1926"; large semi -circular windows with brick voussoirs; round window with stained glass; semi -circular door with concrete surround; and, pear-shaped dome. 12 City of Kitchener, "Index of Non -Designated Properties of Heritage Value or Interest," 2017. 68 Page 96 of 399 Project # LHCO247 The historic and associative values relate to the building's association with the Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Transfiguration. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 131 Victoria Street South resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction and Vernacular/Ukrainian Baroque architectural style of the building, including: • roof and roofline; • doors and door openings, including: - semi -circular door with concrete surround; • windows and window openings, including: - large semi -circular windows with brick voussoirs; - round window with stained glass; • hipped gable roof; • red brick construction; • date stone that reads "1926"; and, • pear-shaped dome steeple.13 Figure 49: Listed property at 131 Victoria Street South looking southeast across from Properties 13 Wade, "DTS- 00510 Listing of Non -Designated Property," December 16, 2009. 69 Page 97 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Using the above definition, the Properties are also adjacent to the property located at 120 Victoria Street South, which will be designated as part of the development approvals for the site (Figure 50). According to the property's HIA: Heritage Value 120 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design, physical, historical and associative values. The design and physical values relate to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: rectangular plan; yellow brick construction; four bays on the Victoria Street elevation separated by shallow buttressing; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; and stone sills. Until 2009, the front and side elevation of the building featured sign banding that read "The Huck Glove Co. Ltd." The historic and associative value relate to the original owner, the Hagen Shirt and Collar Co.; a previous owner, the Lang Shirt Co.; and, the present owner, The Huck Glove Co. Ltd. The building was built by Henry A. Hagen who was the founder of the Hagen Shirt and Collar Co. The company was incorporated in 1906 and manufactured the Hagen brand of shirts, collars, and cuffs. The 1924- 25 Fire Insurance Map indicates that the building was owned by the Lang Shirt Co. Limited and the building was used as follows: basement — washing and storage; first floor — office and laundry; second floor — shipping and warehousing; and, third floor — cutting and operating. The Huck Glove Company traces its origins to 1880, when Menno Erb went into partnership with C.F. Brown. They operated a tannery and manufactured mattresses. In 1889, they built a factory on King Street to make buckskin, calf and kid gloves and fur mitts. In 1906, after Mr. Erb's death, a forman [sic], Joseph Huck bought the glove business and established the Huck Glove Co. Ltd. The company moved to the building at 120 Victoria Street South around 1937. Today the company is known as Huck Glove Groopco Ltd. And two third generation family members are involved with the business: Robert Huck, President and Bob Huck, Controller. The company continues to operate out of the building at 120 Victoria Street South. Description of Recommended Heritage Attributes — Exterior The heritage value of 120 Victoria Street South resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: 1. Roofline; 2. Rectangular Plan; 3. Yellow Brick Construction; 70 Page 98 of 399 Project # LHCO247 4. Bays separated by shallow buttressing; 5. Segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; and, 6. Stone sills. 114 Figure 50: View northeast of the northwest and southwest elevations of 120 Victoria Street 14 mcCallumSather, "Heritage Impact Assessment: 17069 1114-120 Victoria Street S," last updated October 2017, accessed 20 October 2021 from https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1555748&page=24&cr=1. 71 Page 99 of 399 Project # LHCO247 6.0 EVALUATION 6.1 130 Victoria Street South 6.1.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation The property at 130 Victoria Street South was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Section 4.0 and 5.0 of this HIA. Table 6: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 130 Victoria Street South Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative, No The Property is not a unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, and early example of a commercial expression, material, or establishment with Art Deco influences. construction method, The Property has undergone extensive renovations affecting the fagade, wall materials, windows, and triangular canopy. ii. displays a high degree of No The Property does not display a high degree craftsmanship or artistic merit, or of craftmanship or artistic merit. Despite showing influences of the Art Deco style, the building exhibits vernacular and simple building methods common at the time of construction. iii. demonstrates a high degree of No The Property does not demonstrate a high technical or scientific degree of technical or scientific achievement. achievement. It was constructed using common building methods at the time of construction. 2. The property has historical or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a No The Property does not have direct theme, event, belief, person, associations with a theme, event, belief, activity, organization, or person, activity, organization, or institution institution that is significant to a that is significant to a community. community, Macintosh Cleaners Ltd. operated a drive through dry cleaners out of the building from 1939 to 2015 and the building maintains a triangular anopy reflective of this former 72 Page 100 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Criteria Criteria Met Justification use. However, Macintosh Cleaners does not satisfy this criterion. ii. yields, or has the potential to No The Property does not yield, or have the yield, information that potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding contributes to an understanding of a of a community or culture, or community or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the No The Property does not demonstrate or work or ideas of an architect, reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is theorist who is significant to a significant to a community. The building community. was built using common materials and methods at the time of construction. It is unknown who constructed the building. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, No The Property is not important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the maintaining, or supporting the character of character of an area, an area. The area is in a point of transition with a mixture of land uses with high-rise development to the north and residential land use to the south and west. The Property's location on Victoria Street South is defined by high-rise development and surface parking lots. ii. is physical, functionally, visually, No The Property is not physically, functionally, or historically linked to its visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or surroundings. The area is in a point of transition with a mixture of land uses with high-rise development to the north and residential land use to the south and west. The Property's location on Victoria Street South is defined by high-rise development and surface parking lots. iii. is a landmark. No The Property is not a landmark. The MHSTCI defines landmark 73 Page 101 of 399 Project # LHCO247 ...as a recognizable natural or human -made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous... 115 The building does not meet this criterion. 6.1.2 Summary In LHC's professional opinion, the property municipally known as 130 Victoria Street South does not meet O. Reg. 9/06 criteria. 6.2 138 Victoria Street South 6.2.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation The property at 138 Victoria Street South was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Section 4.0 and 5.0 of this HIA. Table 7: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 138 Victoria Street South Criteria 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, Criteria Met Justification i. is a rare, unique, representative, No The Property is not a rare, unique, or early example of a style, type, representative, or early example of a style, expression, material, or type, expression, material, or construction construction method, method. The two -and -a -half -storey house is a common residential structure. ii. displays a high degree of No The Property does not display a high degree craftsmanship or artistic merit, or of craftmanship or artistic merit. The building exhibits vernacular and simple building methods common at the time of construction. 15 MHSTCI, Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process, 2014, http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/MTCS_Heritage_IE_Process.pdf, 17. 74 Page 102 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Criteria Criteria Met Justification iii. demonstrates a high degree of No The Property does not demonstrate a high technical or scientific degree of technical or scientific achievement. achievement. The building exhibits vernacular and simple building methods common at the time of construction. 2. The property has historical or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a No The Property does not have direct theme, event, belief, person, associations with a theme, event, belief, activity, organization, or person, activity, organization, or institution institution that is significant to a that is significant to a community. community, ii. yields, or has the potential to No The Property does not yield, or have the yield, information that potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding contributes to an understanding of a of a community or culture, or community or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the No The Property does not demonstrate or work or ideas of an architect, reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is theorist who is significant to a significant to a community. The house was community. built using common materials and methods at the time of construction. It is unknown who built the house. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, No The Property is not important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the maintaining, or supporting the character of character of an area, an area. The area is in a point of transition with a mixture of land uses with high-rise development to the north and residential land use to the south and west. The Property's location on Victoria Street South is defined by high-rise development and surface parking lots. 75 Page 103 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Criteria Criteria Met Justification ii. is physical, functionally, visually, No The Property is not physically, functionally, or historically linked to its visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or surroundings. The area is in a point of transition with a mixture of land uses with high-rise development to the north and residential land use to the south and west. The Property's location on Victoria Street South is defined by high-rise development and surface parking lots. iii. is a landmark. No The Property is not a landmark. The MHSTCI defines landmark ...as a recognizable natural or human -made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous... 116 The house does not meet this criterion. 6.2.2 Summary In LHC's professional opinion, the property municipally known as 138 Victoria Street South does not meet the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06. 6.3 142 Victoria Street South 6.3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation The property at 142 Victoria Street South was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Section 4.0 and 5.0 of this HIA. Table 8: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 142 Victoria Street South 116 MHSTCI, Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process, 17. 76 Page 104 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Criteria Criteria Met Justification i. is a rare, unique, representative, Yes The Property is a unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, and early example of an apartment building expression, material, or with Art Deco influence. construction method, Victoria Apartments was built in 1931 and has continued to operate as an apartment building for 90 years. Victoria Apartments is one of the oldest surviving apartment buildings in Kitchener, with the oldest, York Apartments at 214 Queen Street South, built in 1928 and opened in 1931. The Property is a vernacular example of Art Deco style popular from 1920 — 1940. Elements including its symmetry, stepped roofline with a parapet wall, brick quoins at either side of the fagade with sandstone inlays at the centre of their flared capital columns, geometric shape, and brick construction reflect this style. However, the Art Deco influences are limited to the building's fagade and are not present on its other elevations. ii. displays a high degree of No The Property does not display a high degree craftsmanship or artistic merit, or of craftmanship or artistic merit. Despite showing influences of the Art Deco style, the building exhibits vernacular and simple building methods common at the time of construction. iii. demonstrates a high degree of No The Property does not demonstrate a high technical or scientific degree of technical or scientific achievement. achievement. It was constructed using common building methods at the time of construction. 2. The property has historical or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a No The Property does not have direct theme, event, belief, person, associations with a theme, event, belief, activity, organization, or person, activity, organization, or institution that is si nificant to a community. Victoria 77 Page 105 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Criteria Criteria Met Justification institution that is significant to a Apartment's tenancy is defined by short term community, rentals. ii. yields, or has the potential to No The Property does not yield, or have the yield, information that potential to yield, information that contributes contributes to an understanding to an understanding of a community or of a community or culture, or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the No The Property does not demonstrate or work or ideas of an architect, reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is theorist who is significant to a significant to a community. The vernacular community. apartments were built using common materials and methods at the time of construction. It is unknown who built the apartments. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, No The Property is not important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the maintaining, or supporting the character of character of an area, an area. The area is in a point of transition with a mixture of land uses with high-rise development to the north and residential land use to the south and west. The Property's location on Victoria Street South is defined by high-rise development and surface parking lots. ii. is physical, functionally, visually, No The Property is not physically, functionally, or historically linked to its visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or surroundings. The area is in a point of transition with a mixture of land uses with high-rise development to the north and residential land use to the south and west. The Property's location on Victoria Street South is defined by high-rise development and surface parking lots. 78 Page 106 of 399 Project # LHCO247 JustificationCriteria Criteria Met iii. is a landmark. No The Property is not a landmark. The MHSTCI defines landmark ...as a recognizable natural or human -made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous... 117 Victoria Apartments does not meet this criterion. 6.3.2 Summary In LHC's professional opinion, the property municipally known as 142 Victoria Street South meets criteria 1.i. of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical value. 6.3.3 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • 142 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo • Plan 143 Lot 8 Part Lot 11 The property municipality known as 142 Victoria Street South has design and physical value because it is a unique, representative, and early example of an apartment building with Art Deco influence. Victoria Apartments was built in 1931 and has continued to operate as an apartment building for 90 years. Victoria Apartments is one of the oldest surviving apartment buildings in Kitchener. The Property is a vernacular example of Art Deco style popular from 1920 — 1940. Elements including its symmetry, stepped roofline with a parapet wall, brick corner pilasters at either side of the fagade with flared tops and sandstone inlays at their centres, geometric shape, and brick construction reflect this style. However, the Art Deco influences are limited to the building's fagade and are not present on its other elevations. 6.3.4 Heritage Attributes The Property's heritage value resides in attributes of the Victoria Apartments including its: • Stepped roofline with a parapet wall on the fagade; • Engaged brick pilasters at either side of the fagade that flare out at the top with sandstone inlays at their centres; • Entrance fagade door case with stepped brick surround; "' MHSTCI, Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process, 17. 79 Page 107 of 399 • Date stone reading "1931"; • Symmetrical fagade windows; and, • Brick construction. ao Project # LHCO247 Page 108 of 399 Project # LHCO247 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed new building comprises a twenty -five -storey residential building with two -storeys of underground parking, retail on the ground floor, and live/work units and shared offices on the second floor (Figure 51). The proposed building will front onto Victoria Street South and parking will be accessed off Victoria Street South. It is proposed to be approximately 85 m above grade with an estimated ground floor area of 247,230 square feet. The building's podium is six -storeys and 20.6 m tall with a fagade of five bays with a two-storey parking entrance running across the left side of the building. The ground floor will include the entrance foyer and retail use and will be 5 m tall. Cladding will be an orange brick running up between the three right bays with grey material along the base. Each ground floor bay will have 3 to 4 full-length windows divided into panes on all elevations. The left two bays will be inspired by 142 Victoria Street South in light yellow brick with a central entrance door and the parking entrance on the far -left bay (Figure 55). The second to sixth floors will be clad in orange brick running between each bay and continue around the building's podium (Figure 53 and Figure 54). Full-length windows divided into multiple panes continue these bays for the length of the podium and will be topped with a wide corbelled cornice with squared cornices. The two left bays will continue for two -storeys in light yellow brick with a stepped parapet roofline and columns topped by a wide, squared, corbelled cornices. Full length windows continue from the two left bays to the end of the podium. Floor seven has an outdoor amenity space on the southwest elevation that integrates the design of the existing Art Deco canopy found at 130 Victoria Street South (Figure 52 and Figure 54). Floors seven to 21 are residential and stepped back from the podium that will be constructed of glass and metal. They will include full-length windows at each elevation and a balcony at each unit running across the windows. Floors 22 to 25 are further stepped back and will be built of glass and metal. They will include full-length windows at each elevation and a balcony at each unit running across windows. The building will be topped by a stepped back glass and metal mechanical penthouse clad in full-length windows. 81 Page 109 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Perspective view Page 110 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Page 111 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Page 112 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Page 113 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Page 114 of 399 Project # LHCO247 8.0 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES The MHSTCI's Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans outlines seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or site alteration. The impacts include: 1. Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features; 2. Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; 3. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden; 4. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; 5. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and natural features; 6. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and 7. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. As 130 and 138 Victoria Street South were not found to meet O. Reg. 9/06, they will not be assessed for potential impacts. The property located at 142 Victoria Street South was found to meet O. Reg. 9/06 and a list of heritage attributes was prepared for this property. The following table will consider potential negative impacts identified by the MHSTCI in relation to the identified heritage attributes. 8.1 Potential Impacts to 142 Victoria Street South Table 9: Impact assessment of the heritage attributes of 142 Victoria Street South Heritage Attributes Potential Impact.. Type of Discussion Stepped roofline Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes with a parapet wall alteration, and the removal of the building which will on the fagade change in land lead to the loss of this attribute. use. However, the proposed development draws design inspiration for the proposed bay where 142 Victoria Street South currently exists. A stepped roofline with a parapet wall is proposed for this bay and will be constructed from the original building's salvaged materials. 87 Page 115 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Heritage Attributes Potential Type of Discussion Impact Impact Engaged brick Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes pilasters at either alteration, and the removal of the building which will side of the fagade change in land lead to the loss of this attribute. that flare out at the use. However, the proposed development top with sandstone draws design inspiration for the inlays at their proposed bay where 142 Victoria centres; Street South currently exists. Columns on either side of the fagade with stone tops are proposed and will be constructed from the original building's salvaged materials. Entrance fagade Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes door case with alteration, and the removal of the building which will stepped brick change in land lead to the loss of this attribute. surround use. Date stone reading Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes 1931" alteration, and the removal of the building which will change in land lead to the loss of this attribute. use. Symmetrical fagade Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes windows alteration, and the removal of the building which will change in land lead to the loss of this attribute. use. However, the proposed development draws design inspiration for the proposed bay where 142 Victoria Street South currently exists. Symmetrical windows are proposed for both floors of this bay. Brick construction Yes Destruction, The proposed development proposes alteration, and the removal of the building which will change in land lead to the loss of this attribute. use. However, the proposed development draws design inspiration for the proposed bay where 142 Victoria Street South currently exists. The bay is to be constructed of buff brick salvaged from the original structure. as Page 116 of 399 Project # LHCO247 8.2 Summary of Potential Impacts Potential impacts related to the proposed development were explored in Table 9. Potential adverse impacts were identified for all heritage attributes of 142 Victoria Street South. If the building is removed, all heritage attributes will be lost. Alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid these potential impacts are outlined in the following sections. 89 Page 117 of 399 Project # LHCO247 9.0 CONSIDERED MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 9.1 Considered Options The following range of possible development alternatives was explored. All options have been considered in relation to the applicable planning framework outlined in Section 3.0. As noted in Section 6.0, LHC found 142 Victoria Street South to meet O. Reg. 9/06 and have heritage attributes but did not find 130 and 138 Victoria Street South to meet the criteria outlined in O. Reg. 9/06. The options have considered existing conditions. The preferred option is identified. 9.1.1 Option 1: On-site Retention in Current Use This option would leave the Properties as is and the existing buildings would remain in situ. As the Properties are currently being used for commercial and residential purposes, another commercial or residential enterprise would retain the current use of the buildings. The `do nothing' option would not result in any direct impacts on the heritage attributes of the Properties or adjacent heritage properties as there would be no changes to the Properties. However, in the context of proposed redevelopment of this site, retention in situ is not a viable option. 9.1.2 Option 2: On-site Retention in Alternate Use This option would leave the existing buildings in situ; however, the buildings would be used in a different way. Based on the observed existing conditions, the condition of the buildings would support a variety of uses. This option would not result in any direct impacts on the heritage attributes of the Properties or adjacent heritage properties as there would be no changes to the Properties. An alternate use could result in direct impacts to the Properties as renovations are undertaken to allow for the reuse. The property located at 130 Victoria Street South has already undergone renovations related to a change in use. The heritage attributes of 142 Victoria Street South could be impacted depending on the reuse, but this is unlikely as its attributes are limited to the fagade. In the context of proposed redevelopment of this site, retention in situ is not a viable option. 9.1.3 Option 3: Relocation Within the Parcel This option would see the relocation of the existing buildings within the parcel. This option would result in an alteration of the building's context but would otherwise mitigate any direct impacts on the heritage attributes of the Properties. However, in the context of the proposed development which will comprise the entirety of the parcel, relocation is not a viable option. 9.1.4 Option 4: Retention of 142 Victoria Street South and Integration into Proposed Development This option would see the removal of the structures at 130 and 138 Victoria Street South and the integration of the building at 142 Victoria Street South into the proposed new 25 -storey tower. Although preferred from a strictly heritage perspective, this alternative is not feasible within the 90 Page 118 of 399 Project # LHCO247 context of the overall project due to site constraints which include requirements for the entrance to the parking garage to be constructed at the location of 142 Victoria Street South. 9.1.5 Option 5: Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development This option would see the deconstruction of the structures on the Properties with careful salvage or panelization of heritage attributes to allow for full demolition and removal of non-contributing elements. Salvaged materials would be integrated into the proposed development. Based on LHC's O. Reg. 9/06 evaluation, heritage attributes were identified for 142 Victoria Street South. This is limited to the facade, which have been partially integrated into the design of the distinctive corner element of the podium through the reuse of buff bricks from 142 Victoria Street and the incorporation of heritage attributes and distinctive features from the properties as architectural elements across the building's fagade and internal elements of communal spaces. This includes the use of the drive-thru canopy in an exterior amenity space above the podium. It is recommended that, as design progresses and is refined, additional elements from the Properties, such as the Victoria Apartments front entrance and the date stone, be incorporated to the fullest extent possible. This option would remove the Properties from their context but would partially conserve heritage attributes while allowing for redevelopment. The adjacent development at 120 Victoria Street South has designed the development around the existing heritage building at the corner of the lot. This option would remove the Properties from their context but would partially conserve heritage attributes while allowing for redevelopment. 9.1.6 Option 6: Demolish Existing Structure and Redevelop This option would seek to demolish the existing buildings while being designed to avoid impacts on the adjacent heritage properties. Based on the foregoing research and analysis, 142 Victoria Street South meets O. Reg. 9/06 criteria. Its removal would result in an adverse impact on the cultural heritage value or interest or heritage attributes of the Properties. Removal of the structure is not expected to result in direct adverse impacts on adjacent heritage properties. 9.2 Preferred Option Given that Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not viable within the context of redevelopment, Option 5: Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development is the preferred option because it partially conserves the Properties' heritage attributes and avoids the potential for negative impacts on the Property and adjacent heritage properties. Some heritage attributes will require selective deconstruction while others, like the stepped parapet, may be integrated into the development more effectively through panelization. This option is consistent with current redevelopment along Victoria Street South and would allow for reuse of salvaged materials integrated into a design of the podium of the new structure 91 Page 119 of 399 Project # LHCO247 that draws architectural inspiration from Victoria Apartments for its distinctive corner element. Ir addition to the distinctive corner element, the podium incorporates a more industrial design that is consistent with the surrounding area as well as key features such as the grey stone inlays at the tops of pilasters. This option also sees the extensive reuse of salvaged buff bricks from both 130 and 142 Victoria Street South and the incorporation of heritage attributes from the properties as design features in communal spaces. This includes use of the drive-thru canopy in an exterior amenity space above the podium. It is recommended that as design progresses and is refined, additional elements from the Properties, such as the Victoria Apartments front entrance and the date stone, be incorporated to the fullest extent possible. In the case of the date stone, it is important to pair its incorporation with interpretive signage or plaquing to avoid misinterpretation of the new building. 92 Page 120 of 399 Project # LHCO247 10.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS LHC was retained 11 February 2021 by Nusrat Govindji to undertake an HIA for 130, 138, and 142 Victoria Street South in the City of Kitchener. The Property Owner is proposing to build a 25 -storey residential building with two -storeys of underground parking, retail on the ground floor, and live/work units and shared offices on the second floor. This HIA is being prepared to evaluate the Properties and to outline heritage planning constraints affected by the proposed development. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the MHSTCI's Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. In LHC's professional opinion: • the property municipally known as 130 Victoria Street South does not meet the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06; • the property municipally known as 138 Victoria Street South does not meet the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06; and, • the property municipally known as 142 Victoria Street South does not meet the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06. Potential adverse impacts were identified for all heritage attributes of 142 Victoria Street South if the building is removed for the proposed development. Alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid these potential impacts were explored. Given that Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not viable in the context of the project, Option 5: Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development is the preferred option as it partially conserves the heritage attributes of the Properties through careful salvage or panelization of brick and stone materials and heritage attributes for reuse in the podium. The Victoria Apartments building provides architectural inspiration for the design of the new development in the form of the distinctive buff brick corner element that serves as the entrance to the underground parking and carries through characteristic features of the Victoria Apartments building. Incorporation of heritage attributes, such as the drive-thru canopy, are also proposed for communal spaces. It is recommended that, as design progresses and is refined, additional elements from the Properties, such as the Victoria Apartments front entrance and the date stone, be incorporated to the fullest extent possible. Should the date stone be incorporated into the development, it is recommended that it be accompanied by interpretive plaquing or signage to avoid misinterpretation of the new structure. 93 Page 121 of 399 Project # LHCO247 SIGNATURES Please contact the undersigned should you require any clarification or if additional information is identified that might have an influence on the findings of this report. (Dtn- Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP Principal, Manager Heritage Consulting Services LHC 94 Page 122 of 399 Project # LHCO247 11.0 REFERENCES 11.1 Policy and Legislation Resources City of Kitchener. "By-law 2021-084 Designate the property municipally known as 214 Queen Street South." Ontario Heritage Trust. Last modified June 11, 2012. Accessed May 12, 2021. https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/fr/oha/details/file?id=5012. City of Kitchener Council. "City of Kitchener Council Minutes February 1, 2010." Laserfiche Web Link. https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/5u4na5nyecp0ospgkl4gljlm/14/Council%20- %202010-02-01.pdf. City of Kitchener. "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051." Last modified April 29, 2019. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_CROZBY_Cons olidated_Zoning_Bylaw_Council_Approved.pdf. City of Kitchener. "Index of Non -Designated Properties of Heritage Value or Interest." Last modified 2017. City of Kitchener. "City of Kitchener Official Plan." Last modified November 19, 2014. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_City_of_Kitchen er_Official_Plan_2014.pdf. City of Kitchener. "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1." Last modified March 29, 2004. https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section% 201 %20-%20General%20Scope.pdf. City of Kitchener. "Schedule 73." Zoning By-law 85-1. Last modified August 27, 2018. https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20A%20 -%20Zoning%20Grid%20Schedules//SCHEDULE_73.pdf. City of Kitchener, "Section 53," Zoning By-law 85-1, Last modified October 7, 2013, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section% 2053%20-%20Low%201ntensity%20Mixed%20Use%20Corridor%20Zone%20(MU-1).pdf City of Kitchener. "Zoning bylaw." Development and construction. Last modified 2021. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning- bylaw.aspx. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries. "Heritage Conservation Principles for Landuse Planning." Last modified 2007. Accessed March 11, 2021, http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/I nfoSheet_Principles_LandUse_Plan ning.pdf Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries. "Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities." The Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006. Accessed February 3, 2021. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Too1_Kit_HPE_Eng.pdf. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries. "PPS Info Sheet: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process." The Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006. 95 Page 123 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Accessed January 11, 2021. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/ Heritage_Too I_Kit_H e ritag e_PPS_i n foS h eet. pdf Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries. "Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties." Last modified April 28, 2010. Accessed February 3, 2021.http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Standards_Conservation.pdf. Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport. Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. Last modified 2014. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/MTCS_Heritage_I E_Process.pdf. Parks Canada. "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition." Canada's Historic Places. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010. Accessed March 11, 2021, https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g- eng-web2.pdf. Province of Ontario. "Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25." April 19, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01 m25. Province of Ontario. "Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18." Last modified July 1, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/9Ool8 Province of Ontario. "0. Reg. 10/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance - Under Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18." Last modified January 25, 2006. Accessed February 3, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060010. Province of Ontario. "Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13." April 19, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05pl 3. Province of Ontario. "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe." Last modified August 2020. Accessed February 5, 2021. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place- to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf. Province of Ontario. "Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13." Last modified December 8, 2020. Accessed February 3, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90pl3. Province of Ontario. "Provincial Policy Statement 2020 — Under the Planning Act." Last modified May 1, 2020. Accessed February 3, 2021. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy- statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan." Last modified June 18, 2015. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-government/land- use-planning.aspx. Region of Waterloo. "Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan." Last modified October 2002. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the-region/resources/Documents/ artsmasterplan.pdf. ICOMOS. "International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). Accessed March 11, 2021. https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice—e.pdf. 96 Page 124 of 399 Project # LHCO247 ICOMOS Canada. Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment. Last modified August 1983. Accessed March 11, 2021, https://www.icomos.org/charters/appleton.pdf. Wade, Michelle. "DTS- 00510 Listing of Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value of Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register." Heritage Kitchener Committee. Last modified December 16, 2009. Laserfiche Web Link. https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/ PDF/5u4na5nyecp0ospgkl4glilm/15/DTS-10-005%20-%20Listing%20of%20Non- Designated%20Property%20of%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Value%20.pdf. 11.2 Mapping Resources Author Unknown. Map of Waterloo Township. Scale 1:63,360. In: H. Parsell and Co. Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: H. Parsell and Co., 1881. Author Unknown. Map of the Township of Waterloo and Woolwich. University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection. Accessed May 10, 2021. Geographical Section, General Staff. Topographic Map, Ontario, Stratford Sheet. Scale 1:63,360. Stratford Sheet No. 97. n.p.: Department of National Defence, 1927. Geographical Section, General Staff. Topographic Map, Ontario, Stratford Sheet. Scale 1:63,360. Sheet No. 40 P/7. n.p.: Department of National Defence, 1927 rev. 1933. Geo. R. and G. M. Tremaine. Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West. Scale 1:39,600.Toronto: Geo. R. and G. M. Tremaine, 1861. Herman Brosius. Berlin, Province, Ontario, Canada. University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection. Accessed May 10, 2021. Library and Archives Canada. "Plan shewing the Lands granted to the Six Nation Indians, situated on each side of the Grand River, or Ouse, commencing on Lake Erie, containing about 674,910 Acres. Thos. Ridout Surveyor General, survey Gen. Office York 2nd February 1821. [cartographic material]" 1821. Item ID Number 4129506. Library and Archives Canada: Ottawa. University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo. Photo I M 30. 1930. Accessed May 26, 2021 at https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo. Photo I M 30. 1945. Accessed May 26, 2021 at https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html University of Toronto. 1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario. Photo 434.803. Accessed May 10,2021 athttps://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern- ontario/index. Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. Insurance Plan of the city of Kitchener, Ontario. Scale 1:1,200. Toronto: Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd., 1908 rev. 1925. 97 Page 125 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. Insurance Plan of the city of Kitchener, Ontario. Scale 1,200. Toronto: Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd., 1908 rev. 1947. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Surveys and Mapping Branch, Department of Energy Mines and Resources. Waterloo -Kitchener West, Waterloo County, Ontario. Scale 1:25,000. Edition 1. Sheet 40 P/7h. Ottawa: Map Distribution Office, Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1965 rev. 1969. Surveys and Mapping Branch, Department of Energy Mines and Resources. Waterloo - Kitchener, Waterloo Regional Municipality, Ontario. Scale 1:25,000. Edition 2. Sheet 40 P/7h. Ottawa: CanadaMap Office, Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1976. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Department of Planning and Development. Photo No. 752. Scale 1:4,800. Kitchener: Kitchener Public Library, April 1975. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Department of Planning and Development. 1990 Aerial Photography. Photo No 11 N. Scale 1:5,000. Waterloo: Kitchener Public Library, 1990. Waterloo Open Data. Aerial Imagery (2003). Accessed May 13, 2021. https://data.waterloo.ca/search?q=2003. 11.3 Archival Resources New York, U.S., Arriving Passenger and Crew Lists (including Castle Garden and Ellis Island), 1820-1957 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.: Provo, UT, USA, 2010. Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1826-1938 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.: Provo, UT, USA, 2010. Ancestry.com and Genealogical Research Library (Brampton, Ontario, Canada). Ontario Land Registry. "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143." Historical Books. https://www.onland.ca/ui/58/books/82987/viewer/445262592?page=1. Registrations of Marriages, 1869-1928; Microfilm: 734. Archives of Ontario: Toronto. UK and Ireland, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960 [database on-line]. Board of Trade: Commercial and Statistical Department and successors: Outwards Passenger Lists. BT27. Records of the Commercial, Companies, Labour, Railways and Statistics Departments. Records of the Board of Trade and of successor and related bodies. The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.: Provo, UT, USA. 2012. Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1929. Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1929. 98 Page 126 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1931. Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1931. Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1932. Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1932. Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1935. Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1935. Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1939. Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1939. Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory 1940. Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1940. 11.4 Additional Resources CORE Architects Inc. "130-142 Victoria St. S." Last modified May 21, 2021. City of Kitchener. Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city. Kitchener, ON: City of Kitchener, 2012. Clermont, Norman. "The Archaic Occupation of the Ottawa Valley." In La prehistoire de I'Outaouais/Ottawa Valley Prehistory. Editor Pilon. Outaouais Historical Society, 1999. Crispino, M. and M. D'Apuzzo. "Measurement and Prediction of Traffic -induced Vibrations in a Heritage Building." Journal of Sound and Vibration 246, no. 2 (2001): 319-335. D'Amato, L. "An owner bids farewell to his business: `All my life has been here'." Waterloo Region Record. March 20, 2015. https://www.toronto.com/opinion-story/5516487-d- amato-an-owner-bids-farewell-to-his-business-all-my-life-has-been-here-/. Elby, Ezra. A biographical history of Waterloo township and other townships of the county. Volume 1. Berlin, ON: Ezra Elby, 1895. Ellis, Chris, Ian Kenyon, and Michael Spence. "The Archaic," In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 65-124. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990. Ellis, Chris, and D. Brian Deller. "Paleo-Indians." In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 37-63. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990. Ellis, Patricia. "Effects of Traffic Vibration on Historic Buildings." The Science of the Total Environment 59 (1987): 37-45. English, John and Kenneth McLaughlin. Kitchener: An Illustrated History. Toronto: Robin Bross Studio, 1996. Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force. "Chapter 3: The First Nations." In Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. 99 Page 127 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Toronto: Toronto Regional Conservation Authority, 2002, http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf Fram, Mark. Well -Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation's Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation, 3' Edition. Erin ON: Boston Mills Press, 2003. Accessed March 18, 2021, https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/publications/well- preserved Fox, William. "The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition." In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 171-188. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990. Google. "130 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada." Google Maps. Last modified June 2016. Accessed May 12, 2021. Groat, Cody. "Six Nations of the Grand River." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Last modified February 18, 20202. Accessed May 7, 2021. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/six-nations-of-the-grand-river. Kalman, Harold. A History of Canadian Architecture. Volume 2. Toronto: Oxford University Press. 1994. McCallumSather. "Heritage Impact Assessment: 17069 1114-120 Victoria Street S." Last updated October 2017. Accessed 20 October 2021 from https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1555748&page=24&cr=1. McLaughlin, Kenneth. "Kitchener -Waterloo." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Last modified February 24, 2017. Accessed May 7, 2021. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener-waterloo. Mills, Rych. Kitchener (Berlin) 1880 — 1960. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. "The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation." Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. Last modified 2018. http://m ncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-M NCFN-FI NAL.pdf. Moyer, Bill. Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited An Illustrated History. Burlington, ON: Windsor Publications Canada Ltd., 1979. Ontario Architecture. "Art Deco." Accessed May 12, 2021, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/artdeco.htm. Parks, Sarah. "From Arches to Turrets: Architectural Styles in Kitchener." ACO North Waterloo Region. Presented June 6, 2018. https://www.aconwr.ca/blog/wp- content/uploads/2018/06/From-Arches-to-Turrets-J un-6-18-2.pdf Pender, Terry. "Former dry cleaning building in Kitchener has high-tech future." The Record. March 29, 2016. https://www.therecord.com/business/2016/03/29/former-dry-cleaning- building-in-kitchener-has-high-tech-future.htm1. 100 Page 128 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Rainer, J.H. "Effect of Vibrations on Historic Buildings." The Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin. XIV, no. 1 (1982): 2-10. Randl, Chad. "Temporary Protection Number 3: Protecting a Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjacent Construction." Preservation Tech Notes. US Department of the Interior National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Last modified July 2001. Accessed March 11, 2021, https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/tech-notes/Tech-Notes- Six Nations. "The Haldimand Treaty of 1784." Lands and Resources. Last modified 2008, Accessed May 7, 2021. http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaIdProc.htm. Six Nations Elected Council. "Community Profile." Six Nations of the Grand River. Last modified 2013. Accessed May 7, 2021. http://www.sixnations.ca/CommunityProfile.htm. Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation. "History of Six Nations." Accessed May 7, 2021. https://sndevcorp.ca/history-of-six-nations/. Six Nations Tourism. "History." Accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.sixnationstourism.ca/history/ Spence, Michael, Robert Pihl, and Carl Murphy. "Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods." In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 125-169. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990. Protection03.pdf Toronto Region Conservation Authority. "Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA." News. Last modified 2018. https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta/. University of Waterloo. "Land acknowledgment." Faculty Association. Accessed May 7, 2021. https:Huwaterloo.ca/faculty-association/about/land-acknowledgement. Waterloo Region Museum. "History of Waterloo Township." Accessed May 7, 2021. https://www.waterlooregionm useum.ca/en/collections-and-research/waterloo- township.aspx#note1. Waterloo Region Museum. "John Bramm 1817-1893." List of Hall of Fame Inductees. https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/exhibits/past-and-present-inductees.aspx#. Wiss, J.F. "Construction Vibrations; State -of -the -Art." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division 107 (1981): 167-181. 101 Page 129 of 399 Project # LHCO247 APPENDIX A: PROJECT PERSONNEL Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP — Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with two decades of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is currently President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Since 2003 Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support, and expertise as a member of numerous multi -disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 100 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Colin Yu, MA — Cultural Heritage Specialist and Archaeologist Colin Yu is a Cultural Heritage Specialist and Archaeologist with LHC. He holds a BSc with a specialist in Anthropology from the University of Toronto and a M.A. in Heritage and Archaeology from the University of Leicester. He has a special interest in identifying socioeconomic factors of 19th century Euro -Canadian settlers through quantitative and qualitative ceramic analysis. Colin has worked in the heritage industry for over eight years, starting out as an archaeological field technician in 2013. He currently holds an active research license (R1104) with the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (MHSTCI). He is an intern member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). At LHC Colin has worked on numerous projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario's cultural heritage. He has completed over thirty cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals and include Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, and Archaeological Assessments. Colin has worked on a wide range of cultural heritage resources including; cultural landscapes, institutions, commercial and residential sites as well as infrastructure such as bridges, dams, and highways. He specializes in built heritage, historic research, and identifying cultural heritage value and/or interest though O. Reg. 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act. Lisa Coles, B.A. — Junior Heritage Planner Lisa Coles is a Junior Heritage Planner with LHC. She holds a B.A. (Hons) in History and French from the University of Windsor and a Graduate Certificate in Museum Management & Curatorship from Fleming College. Lisa is currently a Master of Arts in Planning candidate at the University of Waterloo and has over five years of heritage sector experience through various positions in 102 Page 130 of 399 Project # LHCO247 museums and public sector heritage planning. She is excited to have the opportunity to work in all aspects of the heritage field and to build on her previous experience as part of the LHC team. Hayley Devitt Nabuurs, MPI — Heritage Planner *no longer with LHC Hayley Devitt Nabuurs holds a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from Trent University and a Master's of Urban and Regional Planning from Queen's University. Hayley's master's report research concerned the reconciliation of heritage and accessibility in community centres. Hayley has over a decade of experience in the heritage field through her work in both the public and private planning sector and the museum sector. She has previously worked as a Heritage Planning Research Assistant with the City of Guelph. Hayley is currently a committee member with the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and the Ontario Business Improvement Area Association. She is a Candidate Member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, a Candidate Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, and an Intern Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals. Hayley has worked on over fifty cultural heritage reports at LHC for a wide range of clients across Ontario. These include official plan policy creation for a regional municipality, cultural heritage evaluation reports for property owners, planning strategy reports for hearing preparation, heritage impact assessments for new developments, and peer reviews for municipalities. These reports required the analysis of a wide range of policies along with heritage best practice guidelines, resulting in creative and effective solutions for clients. Jordan Greene, BA — Mapping Technician Jordan Greene is a mapping technician with LHC. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Geography with a Certificate in Geographic Information Science and a Certificate in Urban Planning Studies from Queen's University. The experience gained through the completion of the Certificate in Geographic Information Science allowed Jordan to volunteer as a research assistant contributing to the study of the extent of the suburban population in America with Dr. David Gordon. Prior to her work at LHC, Jordan spent the final two years of her undergraduate degree working in managerial positions at the student -run Printing and Copy Centre as an Assistant and Head Manager. Jordan has had an interest in heritage throughout her life and is excited to build on her existing professional and GIS experience as a part of the LHC team. 103 Page 131 of 399 Project # LHCO247 APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY Definitions are based on the Ontario Heritage Act, (OHA), the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP), and the City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP). Adjacent Lands means those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan. (PPS). Adjacent means lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway, municipal road or other right-of-way. (OP). Alter means to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair, or disturb and "alteration" has a corresponding meaning ("transformer", "transformation") (OHA). Archaeological assessment means the combined background research and field study of a property evaluated as moderate to high on Archaeological Potential Maps approved by the Province that identify the presence of and interpretation of the archaeological resources on the property, and make recommendations for the mitigation of the impacts on the resources. Archaeological assessments must be undertaken by a Provincially—licensed archaeologist, in accordance with reporting guidelines established by the Provincial Government, and must address the entire area of the development application. (ROP). Archaeological potential means the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Criteria for determining archaeological potential are established by the Province, but municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives may also be used. Archaeological potential is confirmed through archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (ROP). Archaeological resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (ROP). Archaeological Resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (OP). Built heritage resources means one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to the community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local, regional, provincial or federal jurisdictions. (ROP). Built Heritage Resource means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by included on local, Regional, Provincial and/or Federal registers. (OP). 104 Page 132 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Community Character refers to identifiable pockets of the urban fabric with distinctive physical attributes. These attributes include but are not limited to development patterns, scale of the built environment, architectural vernacular of existing buildings and structures, cultural heritage resources and community infrastructure. Community character is a reflection of community image, identity and sense of place and may also reflect cultural and social values. Cultivating community character is intended to foster community pride. (OP). Conserve/conserved means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. (ROP). Conserve/Conserved/Conservation means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a heritage conservation plan, archeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. (OP). Compatibility/Compatible means land uses and building forms that are mutually tolerant and capable of existing together in harmony within an area without causing unacceptable adverse effects, adverse environmental impacts or adverse impacts. Compatibility or compatible should not be narrowly interpreted to mean "the same as" or even as "being similar to". (OP). Contiguous means lands that are situated in sufficiently close proximity such that development or site alteration could reasonably be expected to produce one or more of the following impacts: alterations to existing hydrological or hydrogeological regimes; clearing of existing vegetation; erosion and sedimentation; or producing a substantial disruption of existing natural linkages or the habitat of a significant species. (ROP). Culture/Cultural is the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society or social group. It includes not only arts and letters, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs. (OP). Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment means a study to determine if cultural heritage resources will be negatively impacted by a proposed development or site alteration. It can also demonstrate how the cultural heritage resource will be conserved in the context of redevelopment or site alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development approaches may also be recommended. (ROP). Cultural heritage landscape means a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. (ROP). 105 Page 133 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Cultural Heritage Landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities. (OP). Cultural heritage resources are the physical remains and the intangible cultural traditions of past human activities. These include, but are not limited to: • buildings (residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and agricultural); • cultural heritage landscapes (designed, organic/evolved); • structures (water tower; bridge, fence and dam); • monuments (cenotaph, statue and cairn); • archaeological resources; • cemeteries; • scenic roads; • vistas/viewsheds; • culturally significant natural features (tree and landform); • movable objects (archival records and artifacts); and • cultural traditions (language, stories, music, dance, food, celebrations, art and crafts). (ROP). Cultural Heritage Resources means includes buildings, structures and properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, properties on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. (OP). Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act. (ROP). Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, the construction of buildings and structures or an addition or alteration to a building or structure that substantially increases the size or usability of the site, requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include: a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; and, b) works subject to the Drainage Act. (OP). Heritage Attributes means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built, 106 Page 134 of 399 Project # LHCO247 constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property). (PPS). Heritage Corridors means streets or multi -use pathways which because of their unique structural, topographic and visual characteristics, as well as abutting vegetation, built environment and cultural landscape, historical significance or location within a Heritage Conservation District are recognized as a cultural heritage resource and are intended to be conserved. (OP). Heritage Attributes means the principle features or elements that contribute to a cultural heritage resource's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (including significant views or vistas to or from a cultural heritage resource. (OP). Heritage Conservation District means a geographic area primarily made up of a group of buildings, streets and open spaces which collectively contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the area. (OP). Heritage Conservation District Plan means a document that provides policies and guidelines to assist in the protection and enhancement of the cultural heritage values of the district. The document includes a statement of objectives, a statement of the district's cultural heritage value or interest, a description of the district's heritage attributes, policies, guidelines and procedures for achieving stated objectives and managing future change, and a description of external alterations or classes of external alterations that are of minor nature that an owner can carry out without obtaining a permit. (OP). Heritage Conservation Plan means a document that details how a cultural heritage resource can be conserved. The conservation plan may be supplemental to a heritage impact assessment, but is typically a separate document. The recommendations of the plan should include descriptions of repairs, stabilization and preservation activities as well as long term conservation, monitoring and maintenance measures. (OP). Heritage Impact Assessment means a document comprising text and graphic material including plans, drawings, photographs that contains the results of historical research, field work, survey, analysis, and description(s) of cultural heritage resources together with a description of the process and procedures in deriving potential effects and mitigation measures as required by official plan policies and any other applicable or pertinent guidelines. A heritage impact assessment may include an archaeological assessment where appropriate. (OP). Identify/Identified (in regard to cultural heritage landscapes) means designate for the purposes of the Regional Official Plan. (OP). Municipal Heritage Register means a register maintained by the City of Kitchener, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, which includes protected heritage properties and properties listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. (OP). Property means real property and includes all buildings and structures thereon. (OHA). Protected Heritage Property means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;. 107 Page 135 of 399 Project # LHCO247 property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (OP). Qualified Person for the purposes of cultural heritage resources, means an individual including a professional engineer, architect, archaeologist, etc., having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. (OP). Significant means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. (PPS). 108 Page 136 of 399 Project # LHCO247 APPENDIX C: CITY DIRECTORY RECORDS FOR THE PROPERTIES Table 10: City Directory Records for the Properties Address.. 1931 City Directory Between 122 and 146 Wilmont Avenue New house New Apartments 1932 City Directory 138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech Frank Targos 142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts. 1. Mary Harvey 1.A. DA Buchanan 2. BB Buchholtz 2.A. August Hoffman 3. Bert Thornton 4. AM Acton 5. Vacant 6. HG Ocstreich 7. Robert Eisenbach 8. Frank Gofton 9. EH Miller 10. IA Oswald 1933 City Directory N/A Municipal yard 138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech 142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts. 1. Elvin Underwood 1.A. Hector Lacroix 2. LE Wynowsky 2.A. August Hoffman 3. Vacant 4. Burton Llyod 5. LA Winter 6. RN Eisenbach 7. Richard Schoone 109 Page 137 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Address •• 8. Vacant 9. PE Wilson 10. S Cawker 1934 City Directory N/A Municipal yard 138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech 142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts. 1. Vacant 1.A. August Hoffman 2. RN Eisenbach 2.A. Richard Schoone 3. JM Levene 4. Adolph Sell 5. LA Winter 6. AW Miller 7. Vacant 8. Vacant 9. Emily P Smith 10. Vacant 1935 City Directory N/A Municipal yard 138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech 142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts. 1. Frances Cumming 1.A. August Hoffman 2. Adam Kummer 2.A. Marjorie Gordanier 3. Muriel MacMillan 4. Adolph G Sell 5. George H Box 6. WE Schilling 7. HH Naidus 8. Vacant 9. Ethel M Saife 10. George Waysluk 110 Page 138 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Address •• 1936 City Directory Municipal yard 138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech Mrs. F McGruther 142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts. 1. FJ Leinweber 1.A. August Hoffman 2. Adam Kummer 2.A. RV Lawrence 3. Vacant 4. Adolph G Sell 5. George H Box 6. Joseph Brown 7. Harold C Plantz 8. Leon J Corbeau 9. Ethel M Saife 10. George Waysluk 1938 City Directory N/A Municipal yard 138 Wilmont Avenue John Swiech 142 Wilmont Avenue Victoria Apts. 1. John A White 1.A. August Hoffman 2. Adam Kummer, junk 2.A. GE Dowdle 3. Thomas Conaway 4. Jack Zuber 5. George H Box 6. Joseph Brown 7. Walter Strouse 8. HW Main 9. Leonard Hopkins 10. George Waysluk 1939 City Directory 130 Victoria Street South Maclntosh Cleaners Ltd. 111 Page 139 of 399 Project # LHCO247 Address •• Burtol Cleaners 138 Victoria Street South John Swiech 142 Victoria Street South Victoria Apts. 1. John A White 1.A. August Hoffman 2. Adam Kummer, junk 2.A. Pearl Russell 3. AC Dowsett 4. Jack H Zuber 5. Peter Baechler 6. Alex Kasman 7. Vacant 8. HW Main 9. Leonard Hopkins 10. George Waysluk •-i City Directory 130 Victoria Street South Macintosh Cleaners Ltd. Burtol Cleaners 138 Victoria Street South John Swiech 142 Victoria Street South Victoria Apts. 1. Edna Esbaugh 1.A. WH Wrighton 2. George H Deorksen 2.A. Peter Russell 3. AC Dowsett 4. Jack H Zuber 5. Edith Hahn 6. Alex Kasman 7. GL Baker 8. Jason D Bishop 9. Sydney Ives 10. George Waysluk 112 Page 140 of 399 Project # LHCO247 APPENDIX D: LAND REGISTRY RECORDS FOR THE PROPERTIES 130 Victoria Street South Lot 10 Table 11: 130 Victoria Street South Lot 10 Ownership No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Reg istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 46200 Grant 13 March 29 March 1922 John Bramm Jr. Ex. Alford Boehmer 2100.00 1922 John Bramm, George Bramm Sr., Caroline Bramm 74529 Grant 16 Nov 9 Dec 1937 Alford Boehmer Maclntosh 100 1937 Cleaners Ltd. 75096 Mech Lien 26 May 28 May 1938 D Ltd. Maclntosh 8560.00 1938 Cleaners Ltd. 75115 6 June 7 June 1938 John N. H Maclntosh 2850.24 1938 Cleaners Ltd. 75363 Mortgage 1 July 9 Aug 1938 Maclntosh Cleaners D Ltd. 19,900.00 1938 Ltd. 75371 D of Lien 12 Aug 12 Aug 1938 D Ltd. Maclntosh Discharge 75076 1938 Cleaners Ltd. 78643 Discharge 7 Jan 17 Oct 1940 Canadian Ltd. See no 75115 1940 82978 D of M 30 Jan 9 Mar 1943 D Ltd. Maclntosh See no 95363 1943 Cleaners Ltd. 100614 Mortgage 22 Sep 28 Sep 1949 Maclntosh Cleaners The Waterloo Trust 10,000.00 Lot et al. 1949 Ltd., Kenneth L., and Savings Corp. Kenneth E., Harold, Gerald A., C. Bertram Maclntosh guarantor 113 Page 141 of 399 Project # LHCO247 No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Reg istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 113824 Mortgage 30 Jan 25 Feb 1953 Macintosh Cleaners The Waterloo Trust 15,000.00 Lots etc. 1953 Ltd., Kenneth L., and Savings Corp. Kenneth E., Harold, Gerald A., C. Bertram Macintosh guarantor 113829 D of M 2 Feb 25 Feb 1953 The Waterloo Trust Macintosh See 100614 1953 and Savings Corp. Cleaners Ltd. 122300 Mortgage 25 Mar 26 Mar 1957 Macintosh Cleaners The Waterloo Trust 11,000.00 Lot etc. 1957 Ltd., Kenneth L., and Savings Corp. Kenneth E., Harold, Gerald A., C. Bertram Macintosh guarantor 152388 D of M 26 Mar 29 Mar 1957 The Waterloo Trust Macintosh See 113824 1957 and Savings Corp. Cleaners Ltd. 155025 Grant 4 June 19 Nov 1959 Macintosh Cleaners Macintosh 100 Lot etc. 1959 Ltd. Cleaners Ltd. XXXX13 D of M 2 Feb 5 Feb 1961 The Waterloo Trust Macintosh See 152300 1921 and Savings orp. Cleaners Ltd. 317276 Mortgage 26 Jan 10 Mar 1961 Macintosh Cleaners Industrial 89,000.00 Lot etc. covenant 1961 Ltd., Kenneth L., Development Bank Kenneth E., Harold, Gerald A., C. Bertram Macintosh guarantor 346775 D of M 8 May 16 May 1967 Industrial Macintosh Dry See 117276 1967 Development Bank Cleaners Ltd. 114 Page 142 of 399 Project # LHCO247 No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Reg istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 787864 Mortgage 30 July 1984 Maclntosh Dry G. Raymond 96,000.00 Lot 10 and pt. lot 11 Cleaners Ltd. Maclntosh, C. Bertram Maclntosh, Gerald A. Maclntosh, and Estate of Harold W. Maclntosh 870266 Agreement 2 October 1986 Maclntosh Dry G. Raymond Amends mortgage # Cleaners Ltd. Maclntosh, C. 787864 Bertram Maclntosh, Gerald A. Maclntosh, and Estate of Harold W. Maclntosh 1028920 Charge 21 Feb 1990 Maclntosh Dry The Royal Bank of Lot 10 and pt. lot 11 Cleaners Ltd. Canada 1039111 Agreement 17 May 1990 Maclntosh Dry The Royal Bank of Amends charge amends Cleaners Ltd. Canada #1028920 charge 115 Page 143 of 399 Project # LHCO247 138 Victoria Street South Lot 9 Table 12: 138 Victoria Street South Lot 9 Ownership No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Reg istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 46200 Grant 13 Mar 29 Mar 1922 John Bramm Jr. Ex. Alford Boehmer 2100.00 1922 John Bramm, George Bramm Sr., Caroline Bramm 66458 Grant 21 Apr 21 Apr 1931 Alford Boehmer Louis Paleczny 850.00 1931 70872 1 Mar 2 Mar 1935 Louis Paleczny John with Frances 40,000.00 1935 Swiech joint tenants 70893 Mortgage 1 Mar 2 Mar 1935 John and Frances Louis Paleczny 1700.00 1935 Swiech 77498 D of M 28 Feb 28 Feb 1940 Louis Paleczny John and Frances See no. 70893 1940 Swiech 90842 Mortgage 12 June 14 June 1946 John and Frances Edward Schafer 4000.00 Lot et al. 1946 Swiech 106924 D of M 5 June 7 June 1951 Edward Schafer John and Frances See 90842 1951 Swiech 114891 Mortgage 5 May 7 May 1953 XX The Waterless 5000.00 Lot et al. 1953 Trust Sailing Co. 135710 Mortgage 15 Jan 20 Jan 1956 John and Frances The Faterlos Lot et al. 1956 Swiech Trust Co. 135711 D of M 18 Jan 20 Jan 1956 The Faterlos Trust John and Frances See 114891 1956 Co. Swiech 275896 D of M 6 Feb 9 Feb 1961 The Waterless Trust John and Frances See 135710 1961 Sailing Co. Swiech 116 Page 144 of 399 Project # LHCO247 No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Reg istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 465500 Ontario 21 Mar 23 Mar 1922 Minister of Revenue Jordan Swiech Lot and pt. lot 11 on consent 1922 70872 904069 Grant 2 July 1987 Frances Swiech by Caroline Cheng, 68,000.00 Lot 9 and pt. lot 11, her attorney Louis in trust Plan 143, recital Swiech 904070 Mortgage 2 July 1987 Caroline Cheng, in Scotia Mortgage 51,000.00 Lot 9 and pt. lot 11 trust Corp. 941146 Grant 29 April 1988 Caroline Cheng, in 100 Park Street 108,000.00 Lot 9 and pt. lot 11 trust Development Inc. 997023 Charge 26 June 1989 100 Park Street Guardian Trust 500,000.00 2nd lot etc. see lot 3 Development Inc. Co. see #1130570 997024 Assgnt Rents 26 June 1989 100 Park Street Guardian Trust 2nd lot etc. see lot 3 Development Inc. Co. 1130569 Deposit 31 July 1992 2nd lot etc. see lot 3 1130570 Transfer 31 July 1992 Guardian Trust Co. Audley End I Inc. 2nd lot etc. see lot 3 (power of sale) 1130571 Charge 31 July 1992 Audley End I Inc. Laurentian Bank 2nd lot etc. see lot 3 of Canada see # 1254244 1254243 Deposit 16 May 1995 (1) Lots 4,5 & 6 & Pt. Lots 3 & 11, Plan 143 & Pt. Lot 1, Plan 143, being Pts. 1 & 2 on 58- R-1020. (2) Lot 9 & Pt. Lot 11, Plan 423. Re: Charge # 1130571. 1254243 Transfer 16 May 1995 Laurentian Bank of 1123778 Ontario 490,000.00 (1) & (2) Land as in (under Canada Limited Inst. # 1254243. Power of sale, Re: 117 Page 145 of 399 Project # LHCO247 No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Reg istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks power of Charge # 1130571. sale) Recitals. 1254245 Charge 16 May 1995 1123778 Ontario Laurentian Bank 416, 250.00 (1) & (2) Land as in Limited of Canada Inst. # 1254243. 1254246 Assignment 16 May 1995 1123778 Ontario Laurentian Bank (1) & (2) Land as in of rents Limited of Canada Inst. # 1254243. Power of sale, Re: Charge # 1254245. 1271928 Charge 18 October 1123778 Ontario Giuseppe 55,000.00 2ndly: lot etc. see lot 4 1995 Limited Sierchio 1289283 Charge 17 April 1996 1123778 Ontario Giuseppe 20,000.00 2ndly: lot 9 & pt. lot 11 Limited Sierchio Plan 143 re: 1130570. 118 Page 146 of 399 Project # LHCO247 142 Victoria Street South Lot 8 Table 13: 142 Victoria Street South Lot 8 Ownership No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Reg istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 46200 Grant 13 Mar 29 Mar 1922 John Bramm Jr. Ex. Alford Boehmer 2100.00 1922 John Bramm, George Bramm Sr., Caroline Bramm 66452 Grant 11 April 20 April 192X Alford Boehmer Wilhelmina and 770.00 192X August Hoffman 66922 Mech Lein 15 July 15 July 1931 The Ott Brick and Wilhelmina and 1122.74 1931 Tile Manufacturing August Hoffman Company 66930 Mortgage 18 July 21 July 1931 August and North American 10,500.00 Not reed in full 1931 Wilhelmina Hoffman Life Assurance 66950 Mech Lein 25 July 25 July 1931 B. Newmarket Wilhelmina 6600 Lot 1931 Hoffman 66955 D. of Lien 28 July 29 July 1931 The Ott Brick and August Hoffman See A7 in 66905 1931 Tile Manufacturing Company 66958 D. of Lien 29 July 29 July 1931 Bruno Newmarket Rudolph Schezly See A74 No. 66954 1931 67056 Deed Lien 28 Aug 28 Aug 1931 Rudolph and Erin August and #2810 Lot et. Al. 1931 Schezly Wilhelmina Hoffman 69319 Mortgage 22 Oct 23 Oct 1931 August and Alvin K. Creuman 2500.00 Subject to mortgage 1931 Wilhelmina Hoffman — not reed in full 67482 D. of Lien 20 Nov 20 Nov 1931 Rudolph and Erin August and See A7 in 66905 1931 Schezly Wilhelmina Hoffman 119 Page 147 of 399 Project # LHCO247 No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Reg istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 69610 Mech Lein 5 Jan 6 Jan 1932 David Barstocn August and 180.25 Lot et al. 1932 Wilhelmina Hoffman 73000 D of M 10 Nov 10 Nov 1936 Alvin K. Creuman August and SEE a74 — No 67377 1936 Wilhelmina Hoffman 73001 Mortgage 10 Nov 10 Nov 1936 Wilhelmina and Sun Life 9500.00 Lot et al. Not no. XX 1936 August Hoffman Assurance Co. of a Canada 73002 Mortgage 10 Nov 10 Nov 1936 Wilhelmina and Alvin K Creuman 2091.63 1936 August Hoffman 73011 D of M 10 Nov 13 Nov 1936 North American Life August and See A74 No 66930 1936 Assurance Wilhelmina Hoffman 91608 Mortgage 16 Aug 24 Sep 1946 August and Amalia Lffert 4000.00 Lot et al. 1946 Wilhelmina Hoffman 92334 D of M 28 Nov 18 Dec 1946 Alvin K Creuman August Hoffman See 73002 1946 trustee 97330 Mortgage 16 Sep 18 Sep 1948 August Hoffman Sun Life 7000.00 Lot et al 1948 Assurance Co. of a Canada 97583 Postpone 20 Sep 16 Oct 1948 Amalia Lffert Sun Life 100 Postpone mortgage 1948 Assurance Co. of a Canada 97659 D of M 21 Oct 29 Oct 1948 Sun Life Assurance Wilhelmina and See 73001 1948 Co. of a Canada August Hoffman 196124 Treasure 9 Dec 14 Dec 1959 Treasurer of Ontario Amalia K. Lot etc 91608 consent 1959 Hoffmann 120 Page 148 of 399 Project # LHCO247 No. Inst. ITS Date Date of , istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 198528 D of M 30 Jun 11 Feb 1960 David Wibon and August Hoffman See 91608 1960 Albert J. Hoffman Exp of Amalia K Hoffman 202292 D of M 31 Jun 22 July 1960 Sun Life Assurance August Hoffman See 97330 1960 Co. of a Canada (Hofman) 294925 Treasurer 2 Mar 4 Mar 1965 Treasurer of Ontario August Hofmann Lot etc re 66452 consent 1965 Hofman 312987 Grant 22 Nov 29 Nov 1965 Margaret Wilson mw. Albert J. 100 Lot etc Treasurer 1965 and Albert J. Hoffmann to uses consent Hoffman Ex. Of Recitals August Hofmann (August Hofman) and Margaret Wilson mw. 312988 Mortgage 22 Nov 29 Nov 1965 Albert J. Hofmann Elizabeth M. 19000.00 Lot etc/ Recitals 1965 Dre er mw 324842 Grant treas 19 Apr 1 June 1966 Albert J. Hofmann Joseph and Ruth Lot etc Subject to 1966 M. Szewczyk joint Mortgage tenants 326618 Consent 10 June 28 June 1966 Treasurer of Ontario Wilhelmina Lot etc re 66452 1966 Hofman (Hoffman) 522073 Grant 3 June 6 June 1974 Joseph and Ruth Lucien Potirn to 2.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 1974 Szewczyk uses subject to mortgage 522074 Mortgage 5 June 6 June 1974 Lucian Potirn Joseph and Ruth 16,008 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 1974 Szewczyk joint wit limit and appoint rt of survivorship 536891 D of M 1 Feb 10 Feb 1975 Elizabeth M. Dreger Albert J. Re: 312988 1975 Hoffmann 121 Page 149 of 399 Project # LHCO247 No. Inst. ITS Date Date of , istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 537095 D of M 14 Feb 14 Feb 1975 Joseph and Ruth Lucien Potoria Mortgage 522074 1975 Szewczyk 537096 Mortgage 14 Feb 14 Feb 1975 Lucien Potirn Victoria and Greg 15,000.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 1975 Trust Co. limit and appoint 543870 Grant 6 May 6 June 1975 Lucien Potirn Wesley S and 2.00 Lot and pt. lot 11 1975 Brynhild R. (41.1' Wilmont St Johnson (Jt. Ten.) Wlly lein of Victoria St x 155'). Limit and appointment subject to last mortgage 543871 Mortgage 27 May 6 June 1975 Wesley S and Melinda Knipfel 22,000.00 Lot and as in 543870 1975 Brynhild R. Johnson 557897 Mortgage 27 Nov 1 Dec 1975 Wesley S and Melinda Knipfel 7,000 Lot 8 and pt. lot 1975 Br nhild R. Johnson 661673 CFOF 19 July 23 July 1979 Wesley S and Melinda Knipfel - Debarro and 1979 Brynhild R. Johnson Plaintiff Foredossa 557897 — Defendants 780542 QC 10 May 1984 Wesley S and Melinda Knipfel Pt lot 8 and 11 Brynhild R. (formally Brynhild R. Johnson) 780543 Mortgage 10 May 1984 Melinda Knipfel Canada 72,000.00 Pt lot 8 and 11 Permanent Trust Company 799224 Notice of 17 Dec 1984 Melinda Knipfel Corirametic Lot 9 and pt. lot 11 lease Canada Inc. Plan 143 Re # 661673 883865 Grant 30 Jan 1987 Melinda Knipfel Sue H. Cheng 140,000.00 PT LOT 8 AND PT LOT 11 Re # 661673 122 Page 150 of 399 Project # LHCO247 No. Inst. ITS Date Date of Reg istry Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 904067 Mortgage 2 Sep 1987 Sue H. Cheng The Toronto 92,950.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 re Dominion Bank # 883865 904068 A of 2 July 1987 Sue H. Cheng The Toronto Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 re Mortgage Dominion Bank #883865 1006679 Charge 31 August 1989 Sue H. Cheng The Toronto 100,000.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 re Dominion Bank #883865 1020213 Transfer 7 December Sue H. Cheng Gordon Royce 340,000.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 re 1989 Koziol #883865 and 780542 1020214 Charge 7 December Gordon Royce Koziol The Toronto 190,000.00 Land as in 1020213 1989 Dominion Bank 102025 Charge 7 December Gordon Royce Koziol The Toronto 155,000.00 Land as in 1020213 1989 Dominion Bank 1040791 Transfer 31 May 1990 Gordon Royce Koziol Kitchener 351,000.00 Lot 8 and pt. lot 11 re Metropolitan # 1020213 Development Inc. 123 Page 151 of 399 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 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' Staff Report 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 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 4, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-231 SUBJECT: H PA -2022 -IV -010 H PA -2022 -IV -011 16-20 Queen Street North Partial Demolition and Retention of Fagade New Construction of a 34 -storey residential tower RECOMMENDATION: 1. That pursuant to Sections 30(2) and 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-IV-010 be approved to permit the partial demolition excluding the front fagade and portions of the returns of the subject property municipally addressed as 16-20 Queen Street North, subject to the following conditions: i. That the final Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a Heritage Permit; and ii. That a final Temporary Protection Plan, including a Demolition Plan and Stabilization Plan, a final Documentation and Salvage Plan, and a final Risk Management Plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review and the City's Heritage Planner prior to the issuance of a Heritage Permit; and iii. That a final Vibration Monitoring Plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review and the City's Heritage Planner prior to the issuance of a Heritage Permit; and iv. That the owner obtain heritage approval under the Ontario Heritage Act and a Building Permit under the Building Code for the 34 -storey residential tower, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. 2. That pursuant to Sections 30(2) and 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-IV-011 be approved to permit the new construction of a 34 - storey residential tower on the subject property municipally addressed as 16-20 Queen Street North, subject to the following conditions: *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 352 of 399 i. That the final Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a Heritage Permit; and ii. That a final Temporary Protection Plan, including a Demolition Plan and Stabilization Plan, a final Documentation and Salvage Plan, and a final Risk Management Plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review and the City's Heritage Planner prior to the issuance of a Heritage Permit; and iii. That a final Vibration Monitoring Plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review and the City's Heritage Planner prior to the issuance of a Heritage Permit; and iv. That the owner obtain heritage approval under the Ontario Heritage Act and a Building Permit under the Building Code for the 34 -storey residential tower, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present the proposed partial demolition of the subject property municipally addressed as 16-20 Queen Street North, retaining the fagade and returns of the building, and integrating it into the new construction of a 34 -storey residential tower. • The key finding of this report is that even though the application proposes the partial demolition of the building, the majority of the heritage attributes will be conserved since they are on the front fagade of the building, which is proposed to be retained. • There are no financial implications associated with this report • Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2022-IV-010 and HPA-2022-IV-011 propose the partial demolition of the existing building, excluding the front fagade and portions of the returns of the property, and the construction of a new 34 -storey residential tower at the subject property municipally addressed as 16-20 Queen Street North. The subject property is currently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage interest or value on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. A Notice of Intention to Designate the subject property was passed by Council on June 28, 2021, but a designating bylaw has not yet been passed. A draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was completed by MHBC Planning Ltd. which proposes a number of key recommendations to ensure the front fagade and portions of the returns of the existing building are efficiently conserved. Most of the heritage attributes of the existing building have been identified on the front fagade of the building and will be conserved as the new construction takes place. These recommendations also included the preparation of key documents that would inform staff how the partial demolition, fagade retention, and the new construction would take place. The key findings from these documents have been summarized in the report below. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Applications HPA- 2022-IV-010 and HPA-2022-IV-011 seeking permission for the partial demolition of the subject property municipally addressed as 20 Queen Street North and retaining only the Page 353 of 399 fagade and some portions of the returns of the property to redevelop the subject property with a 34 -storey multi -unit residential property (Fig. 1) (Attachment A). 48 42 2 Parking Operations A 0' Electrohome Mural Duke& Ontario Garage i i CITY COMMERCIAL CORE 68 6 0 646 48 6 0585654.. Conrad Centre For The Performing Arts 36 .12% Spm Themuseum 10 Figure 1: Location Map of 16-20 Queen Street North. REPORT: The subject property is located on the west side of Queen Street North between King Street and Duke Street in Downtown. The subject property contains a 3 -storey commercial building built in the early 19th century built in the Classic Revival architectural style (Fig 2 &3). 16-20 Queen Street North is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value of interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register (Attachment B). It was added on the City's Municipal Heritage Register by Council on September 7, 2010. A motion to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate 16-20 Queen Street North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act was passed by Council on June 28, 2021. Council resolved: "that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the entire front fagade and position of the returns of the property municipally addressed as 16-20 Queen Street North as having cultural heritage value or interest, and further; that Heritage Planning staff be directed to continue to work with the applicant to mutually identify interior heritage attributes to remain in situ or be repurposed as part of the proposed development." The Notice of Intention to Designate was published on June 30, 2021. A designating by-law has not yet been passed by Council, however there is a site plan approval in principle condition that requires Council to pass a designating by-law under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act prior to final site plan approval. The building is recognized for its Page 354 of 399 design/physical, historical, and associative, and contextual values. It is also located within the Downtown Cultural Heritage Landscape. Figure 2: Front Fagade of 16-20 Queen Street North (2010). Page 355 of 399 Figure 3: East (front) and north (side) elevation of 16-20 Queen Street North (2010). Design and Physical Values The design and physical values of the property relate to the Classic Revival Architectural style of the building. The design features include an `H' style floorplan with brick construction; concrete cornice with block dentils; first storey concrete portico with entablature; decorative brick details; concrete columns; concrete balustrade; front door and opening with concrete decorative door surrounding reading "1871-1916"; window and window openings with decorative concrete headers and sills; concrete cartouches above the first -floor windows; and decorative iron work. Historic and Associative Values The historic and associative values relate to the original owner — The Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company- and use of the building. The Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company was founded by Hugo Kranz and other businessmen in 1871 in order to protect properties against the devastating hardships caused by fire and lighting. The company issued its first policy on a house and barn on November 25, 1871. The first president of the company was Henry Fletcher. The company name changed in 1937, dropping the fire designation when the directors decided to enter the casualty field, giving its agents a complete portfolio including providing insurance for automobile, plate glass, accidents, and health. Over the years, the Kitchener head office moved five (5) times to progressively larger headquarters. 16-20 Queen Street North was the company's second office location. This building was the company's head office for 38 years between 1916 and 1954. Page 356 of 399 The building is also directly associated with William Schmalz (Sr.), who was the managing Director of the Company between 1916 and 1933, and who was also the first Mayor of the City of Berlin (later City of Kitchener). Contextual Value The contextual value of the building is related to its location within Downtown Kitchener. It supports the character of the area and is contextually valuable to the streetscape of Queen Street North, and the overall downtown area. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 16-20 Queen Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction and Classic Revival architectural style of the building, including: • `H' floor plan; • Brick construction, including: o Decorative brick details; • Roof and roofline, including: o Concrete cornice with block dentils; • First storey concrete portico with entablature, columns, and balustrade; • Front door and opening with concrete decorative door surround reading 1817-1916"; • Windows and door openings, including: o Decorative concrete headers and sills; o Decorative brick voussoirs; • Concrete cartouches above the first -floor windows; and • Decorative iron work The proposed development gave the City an opportunity to identify interior elements of the building that could have cultural heritage value. Through the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), and the Documentation and Salvage Plan, MBHC Planning Ltd. and heritage planning staff have been able to identify certain interior heritage attributes. These interior heritage attributes are: • Foyer of 20 Queen Street North with classical crown moulding, wood panelling and marble wainscoting; • Decorative crown mouldings throughout the building, Doric pilasters and Greek fretting; • Main meeting room on second storey including c. 1916 electric fireplace; • Wood features including partition wall on third floor with glass windows and transoms separated by wood mullions and original staircases; • Original wood and terrazzo (foyer) flooring; • Original light fixtures; • Original Goldie & McCulloch Co. Limited Galt fireproof safe doors; • Mechanical equipment including: original boiler by Waterloo Manufacturing Company Limited, "Square D" breaker and Dominion Electric Manufacturing breaker. Page 357 of 399 Proposed Development The City of Kitchener has received a site plan application for the subject property (Fig. 4-6). Site Plan Application SP21 /040/Q/AP proposes the following: The partial demolition and retention and integration of the facade and some returns of the existing building with the new building; and The new construction of a thirty-four (34) storey multi -unit residential building with 212 units. The property owner is seeking permission to use bonusing provisions to add increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR) beyond what is permitted in the existing commercial zoning. Specifically, it is proposed that a special regulation be included in the zoning that would permit an increased floor space ratio —from 2.0 to a maximum of 24.26 through a bonusing agreement. The applicant is proposing an FSR of 21.0. The proposed development will retain the front facade of the building while integrating it with the first three floors of the new building. The new building will be setback approximately 3 metres from the front fagade. The construction of the new building has broadly been divided into 6 stages based on the plan designed by Jablonksy, Ast and Partners, who are the engineers on the project. Stages 1-4 are for the partial demolition of the building as well as for the stabilization of the existing heritage building on-site. Stages 4-6 are related to the new construction and integration of the retained heritage building. Page 358 of 399 0 0 0 0 r Cx.) 0 0 1 0 C) (I. , ) Q Q Q Q Q GEAST ELEVATION G SOUTH ELEVATION Figure 4: Proposed 34 -storey residential tower on 16-20 Queen Street North Page 359 of 399 Figure 6z- Rendering of proposed development (Source: ABA Architects Inc., 2021). Figure 5: Integration of the existing building's front facade building with the new development. - V-DD 135.1101 CC MUNITY ffNffITSPAa AT LwIII _WM_1F1 HERITAGE MU iG SM, -MTEIJIALK�E B�FA�UTC � INTEME *WAOEMOFMUM Figure 6: Integration of the south (side) elevation with the new development. Page 360 of 399 Ion ■ I I MV II sun 1111111 1 111: 11 ONE �_-- Mommom moommom CC MUNITY ffNffITSPAa AT LwIII _WM_1F1 HERITAGE MU iG SM, -MTEIJIALK�E B�FA�UTC � INTEME *WAOEMOFMUM Figure 6: Integration of the south (side) elevation with the new development. Page 360 of 399 As part of the Site Plan Approval in Principle Letter, a number of cultural heritage conditions were included to ensure the conservation and integration of the existing building into the new development. One of the conditions that was included was the submission of two separate heritage permit applications; one heritage permit application for the partial demolition of the new building, except for the front facade and portions of the returns of the building, and the second heritage permit application for the construction of the new 34 -storey residential tower. The proposed site plan application has received approval -in -principle. The following documents were submitted with the site plan application and received by staff to ensure that the existing building will be retained and integrated properly: - A Documentation and Salvage Plan for 16-20 Queen Street North — identifying methods of salvaging the interior and exterior heritage attributes of the existing building, and the architectural documentation of the building; - A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 16-20 Queen Street North; - A Conservation Plan (CP) for 16-20 Queen Street North; - A Temporary Protection Plan (TPP), which includes a Demolition Plan and a Stabilization Plan for 16-20 Queen Street North; - A Risk Management Plan for 16-20 Queen Street North; and - An Engineer's Certification regarding the temporary retention system for the existing building's facades and returns, and that the new building will be able to support the existing building's facade and returns. The need for most of these documents arose from the recommendations of the HIA that was conducted to study the impact of the proposed development on the existing heritage resource. These documents are still in their draft stage and have not been approved by the Director of Planning and/or been given clearance by staff. Draft Heritage Impact Assessment for 16-20 Queen Street North The subject property owner has commissioned MHBC Planning Ltd. to complete a HIA and a CP as part of the development review process. The draft HIA, which was received and discussed by the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee on June 1, 2021, establishes that the existing building is a significant cultural heritage resource and meets the criteria for heritage designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. An excerpt from the HIA summarizing some of the report findings and recommendations is attached to this staff report (Attachment C). The HIA makes the following key observations and conclusions: • Moderate impact on 16-20 Queen Street North is identified due to the destruction of exterior and interior heritage attributes and original mass of the building; • Moderate impact of land disturbances during construction The proposed development will result in the removal of the majority of the existing building's mass, including certain exterior and interior heritage attributes that have been identified. A Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), completed by GHD Group in October 2020 investigated soil and groundwater quality. The ESA identified mercury contamination below the existing building, primarily in the rear of the existing property. The HIA recognized Page 361 of 399 that the proposed development required the extraction of the contaminated soil, which was an important factor in the decision to remove the majority of the existing building. The table below has been included in the HIA (Attachment C) and includes a summary of the impacts of the proposed development: I able i.o Adverse Impacts 1b-20 Uueen Street North, Kitchener Analysis Impact Level of Impact ((Potential, No, Minor, Moderate or Major) Moderate Destruction or alteration The development will retain the front fagade of of heritage attributes the building; however, the majority of the building is proposed to be removed to facilitate the development. Subsequently, the interior heritage attributes identified in sub -section 5.2.4 will be removed, however, the majority of exterior attributes will be conserved with the retention of the front facade which has been determined to be the significant fagade. See sub -section 7.2.i. Shadows No. Due to the location of the building facing southeast, nearly all shadows will fall away from the front fa ade. Isolation No. The proposed development will not isolate the facade from its original context as itwill retain its original location on Queen Street N. and contextual relationship with Queen Street North and Goudies Lane. See sub -section 7.2.2. Direct or Indirect No. There will be no direct obstruction ofsignificant Obstruction of Views views of the main fagade (which has been determined to be the significant facade of the building), however, the new portion of the building will be visible from all vantage points. See sub -section 7.2.3. A Change in Land Use No Land Disturbance Moderate. Land disturbances will bea result ofconstruction activities within close proximity of the retained fagade. Figure 7: Table summarizing the impacts of the proposed development on 16-20 Queen Street North The HIA makes the following recommendations to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development: • A Documentation and Salvage Plan identifying interior and exterior heritage attributes and other salvageable material prior to the removal of the building fabric; • A Conservation Plan identifying the short-term, medium-term, and long-term conservation works for the existing building; • An Interpretation Plan commemorating the portions of the existing building to be removed in a community space identified on the first floor of the proposed Page 362 of 399 development through commemorative/interpretive signage and/or installations of the removed portions of the building. Materials, details and ornamentation of the first three levels (pedestrian level) of the proposed development should be sympathetic to the existing building; Signage and lighting of the retained building should emphasize the existing building's prominence along with the streetscape; and The retained fagade should be conserved in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. The CP, together with the HIA is to be approved by the Director of Planning as a condition of final site plan approval. These two documents will serve in part to identify the measures to be undertaken to conserve the heritage attributes as part of the fagade retention and integration into the proposed development, in a manner consistent with recognized heritage conservation principles and practice. The Interpretation Plan is also to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review and the City's Heritage Planner as a condition of final site plan approval. Salvaging Heritage Attributes — Sa/vape and Documentation Plan for 16-20 Queen Street North MCBC Planning Ltd. submitted a draft Documentation and Salvage Plan, dated December 2021, in February 2022, as was recommended to be submitted in the HIA. The Salvage and Documentation Plan provides an inventory of the built and non -built heritage fabric that can be salvaged from the subject property before the partial demolition of the building. The items that can be salvaged were: Interior Features • Classical crown moulding including Doric pilasters and Greek fretting and marble wainscoting; • Wood features including: flooring, doors, trim, panelling, partition walls and staircases; • Original window frames; • Other items that include: o C. 1916 electric fireplace o Original light fixtures o Original Goldie & McCulloch Co. Limited Galt fireproof safe doors o Mechanical equipment including "Square D" breaker and Dominion Electric Manufacturing breaker and hardware Exterior Features • Masonry where feasible; • Original windows; • Copper flashing; and • Painted advertisement on masonry on west elevation The report states that the most preferred option is to salvage these materials and incorporate them into the proposed development. Page 363 of 399 Partial Demolition of 16-20 Queen Street North The partial demolition of the building is proposed to be completed using the convention techniques of demolition — "utilizing heavy machinery such as shovels, buckets, grapples, shears, and cranes as required' (Attachment D). Broadly, the demolition is proposed to take place in the following sequence: 1. Public safety measures around the building will be installed with demolition hoarding or fencing. 2. All mechanical and electrical systems of the building will be decommissioned and removed. 3. All interior elements of the building, including the furniture will be removed. 4. A temporary retention system, including temporary foundation will be constructed. 5. The building framing structure (the floor and roof) will be disconnected from the fagade of the building. 6. The selected components of the buildings will be demolished. 9allonsky. Ase and Partners PRELIMINARY STRUCTURE JOB ❑ 24275 € MAY 6. M1 GROUND FLOOR PLAN mvo SK 3 Figure 8: Proposed Demolition Plan for 16-20 Queen Street North ■nu�Ia tem zem • MAE�InY COMMfhC U•1 clfEtcf anfawO :g Stabilization and Retention of the Front Facade and Returns of 16-20 Queen Street North Once the demolition of the building is complete, the fagade and returns of the building will be stabilized using a broad range of techniques (Attachment D). A temporary fagade retention system will be installed to support the fagade and returns during construction (Fig. 9). Once construction is completed and the heritage fagade is incorporated into the new Page 364 of 399 building, the temporary retention system will be removed. The stabilization of the existing building on-site will be monitored by Zehr Levesque Inc. and Jablonsky, Ast and Partners Consulting Engineers. The stabilization and retention of the facade and returns of the building is proposed to be carried out in stages. These techniques would include, but not be limited to: - Installing a steel structure on the south and east sides of the buildings and an interior steel frame on the ground floor. - Installing interior bracing at the northeast and southeast corners. - Tying the heritage facade and returns to the exterior steel supporting structure and installing perimeter shoring. - Altering the existing foundation walls to support the retention of the fagade and returns. SECTION 5995 sc 1 m Figure 9: Temporary steel support system for the existing building while the new development is constructed. The retained portion of the building will be connected with the new building with vertically slotted joints or `anchors' with bolted connections once the temporary retention system is Page 365 of 399 removed (Fig. 10). This will ensure that the integrity and heritage value of the retained portion of the existing building is maintained with minimal intervention. J NW ky, As! —d Partners PRELIMINARY STRUCTURE JaB n 20275 E' MAY B, 2621 Gfi-111,17-11 PLAN SKfi Figure 10: Drawing showing how the retained existing building will be integrated into the new development. Conservation Plan for 16-20 Queen Street North ■SS8g0 1697 2 8fll r 3 eR} r nMEnnv s GgMME�'G�/d 9 CE FAMI" A draft CP was prepared by MHBC Planning Ltd. in May, 2021, and revised April 2022. The CP details how the retention and integration of the fagade and returns of the existing building will be conserved according to the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, and as well how the proposed development will satisfy the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties. An excerpt of the draft CP detailing the conservation measures has been included along with this staff report (Attachment E). The City of Kitchener supports this approach through the following policy in its Official Plan: 12. C. 1.21 The City will make decisions with respect to cultural heritage resources with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, which require the conservation of significant heritage resources. In addition, such decisions will be consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Page 366 of 399 Generally, the method of conservation that has been selected for this building is `Rehabilitation' since the facade and some portions of the returns of the buildings are in good condition but in need of some repairs. The CP also includes short-term, medium-term and long-term conservation measures to ensure the heritage value of the existing building is conserved. These measures have been summarized in the table below. Short -Term Conservation Measures These measures usually include pre - construction conservation measures. These include, but are not limited to: - Efficient documentation of the building prior to any demolition activity through detailed elevations and plans. - Minor repairs of masonry that are required at this stage - Completion of the required reports (finalizing the HIA, CP, Documentation and Salvage Plan, etc) Medium -Term Conservation Measures These measures usually include activities during and immediately post -construction. These include, but are not limited to: - Installing vibration monitoring equipment - Ensuring the heritage resource is conserved and protected during demolition and construction activities and stabilized immediately after demolition. - Repairing and cleaning any heritage elements of the existing building that have been affected during construction activities. Long -Term Conservation Measures These measures outline how the heritage resource should be monitored and conserved post -construction and for the lifetime of the development. This includes regular maintenance of the retained heritage portions of the existing building and record keeping. Table 1: Outlining short-term, medium-term, and long-term conservation measures for 16-20 Queen Street North Heritage Planning Comments Heritage Planning Staff are generally in agreement with the conclusions made in the HIA. Even though the proposed development will remove the majority of the existing building, since most of the exterior heritage attributes are located on the front fagade, they will be conserved, and retained into the new development. Certain materials that are proposed to be removed will be salvaged and incorporated into the new development. The retention of the fagade of the existing building will allow it to be read as part of the existing historic rhythm of the commercial buildings along the streetscape. The first three levels of the proposed development (above the existing building) will be setback Page 367 of 399 approximately 3m from the fagade of the building, with contemporary materials that are sympathetic to the existing building and that do not detract from the existing building's heritage attributes. The CP will ensure that the retained portion of the existing building will be conserved in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Heritage Planning Staff are in agreement with the measures outlined in the draft Heritage Impact Assessment and recommend that, excluding the submission of the Interpretation Plan which will be done during the final site plan approval process, they be included as conditions of the Heritage Permit approval. Staff are also of the opinion that additional conditions are warranted to ensure demolition does not occur pre -maturely. This includes: 1. The submission of the Vibration Monitoring Plan prior to the issuance of the final heritage permit. The Vibration Monitoring Plan will be helpful in ensuring that the heritage resource stays protected from land disturbances due to construction activities; and 2. That the owner obtain heritage approval and building permit for the replacement residential tower, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and Zoning By-law. In this regard, staff can confirm that building permits will be needed to undertake the proposed work. In reviewing this application, Heritage Planning Staff make the following comments: • The existing building is currently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; • A Notice of Intention to Designate was published on June 30, 2021, to designate the fagade and returns of the buildings; • Mercury contamination was discovered under the building, which was a critical factor in determining the partial demolition of the building; • Most of the identified heritage attributes of the building are located on the front fagade of the building; • The applicant has submitted a draft Salvage and Documentation Plan, A Temporary Protection Plan, which includes the Demolition Plan and the Stabilization Plan to detail how the heritage attributes will be salvaged, and how the demolition, retention and integration with the new building will take place; • The designating by-law that will be passed by Council will ensure that the fagade and returns of the building are protected properly in case of any future applications; • The issuance of the final heritage permit based upon the conditions outlined above will ensure that the heritage resource is adequately protected and conserved pre - and post -construction activities. Page 368 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. CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener has been consulted. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • DSD -21-111 — Options for 16-20 Queen Street North • Ontario Heritage Act, 2021 • Planning Act, 2021 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Heritage Permit Applications HPA-2022-IV-010 and HPA-2022-IV- 011 Attachment B - Statement of Significance for 16-20 Queen Street South Attachment C - Excerpts from Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 16-20 Queen Street North Attachment D - Excerpts from draft Demolition and Stabilization Plan for 16-20 Queen Street North Attachment E - Excerpts from the draft Conservation Plan for 16-20 Queen Street North Page 369 of 399 2022 Page 7 of 10 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor .jR P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planningCu)-kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA -2021 - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ❑ Exterior ,❑ Interior El Signage El Demolition L .New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, Ontario Legal Description (if know): Building/Structure Type: ❑ Residential Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes SKNo 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Momentum Developments Address: 55 Northfield Drive East, Suite 285 City/Province/Postal Code: Waterloo, Ontario, N2K 3T6 Phone: 1-866-533-4643 Email: tulmer@momentumdevelopments.ca 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Rachel Redshaw, Heritage Planner, M.A., CAHP Company: MHBC Planning Ltd. Address: 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener, Ontario, N213 3X9 Phone: 519-576-3650 Email: rredshaw@mhbcplan.com Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 10 Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. The redevelopment of the site includes the integration of the retained front facade and returns of the existing heritage building on-site into a new 34 storey multi -unit residential building. The new building includes a community space proposed to include re -purposed salvaged material and interpretation/ commemoration. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: The site is contaminated and the redevelopment of the site cannot proceed without the removal of the majority of the existing building to allow for the remediation of the soil. The new construction is required as part of the redevelopment of the site and will support the retained facade and returns. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: None apply. Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx): The review of Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada is included in the supplementary Conservation Plan. 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: TBD Expected completion date: TBD b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? 00 Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Victoria Grohn, Michelle Drake and Deeksha Choudhry c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes R(No - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes N(No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number SP21/040/Q/AP Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: MHBC Date: April 25, 2022 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 9. AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I / We, Momentum Developments owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize MHBC Planning Ltd. to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent: =� Date: 2022-04-25 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage Page 10 of 10 2022 Page 7 of 10 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor .jR P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planningCu)-kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA -2021 - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ❑ Exterior Demolition (Partial) ❑ Interior ❑ New Construction ❑ Signage ❑ Alteration 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, Ontario ❑ Relocation Legal Description (if know): Building/Structure Type: ❑ Residential Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes SKNo 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Momentum Developments Address: 55 Northfield Drive East, Suite 285 City/Province/Postal Code: Waterloo, Ontario, N2K 3T6 Phone: 1-866-533-4643 Email: tulmer@momentumdevelopments.ca 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Rachel Redshaw, Heritage Planner, M.A., CAHP Company: MHBC Planning Ltd. Address: 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener, Ontario, N213 3X9 Phone: 519-576-3650 Email: rredshaw@mhbcplan.com Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 8 of 10 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. The proposal includes a partial demolition of the existing building on-site with the retention of the front facade and associated returns. The conservation methods proposed for this alteration is included in the supplementary Conservation Plan including the method of demolition, stabilization and risk management. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: The site is contaminated and the redevelopment of the site cannot proceed without the removal of the majority of the existing building to allow for the remediation of the soil. The redevelopment will be retaining the front facade and associated returns wnicn includes Me majority of Me exterior rientage attributes. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: None apply. Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx): The review of Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada is included in the supplementary Conservation Plan. 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: TBD Expected completion date: TBD b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? 00 Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Victoria Grohn, Michelle Drake and Deeksha Choudhry c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes R(No - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes N(No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number SP21/040/Q/AP Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: MHBC Date: April 25, 2022 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 9. AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I / We, Momentum Developments owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize MHBC Planning Ltd. to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 2022-04-25 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage Page 10 of 10 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 16-20 QUEEN STREET NORTH Municipal Address: 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener Legal Description: Plan 401 Part Lot 2 & 7, Plan 396 Part Lot 8 Year Built: c. 1916 Architectural Style: Classic Revival Original Owner: Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Co. Original Use: Commercial Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 2 � 83 Q 700 J/ �rF r 99.2U V09elsong PB8 Gbit. 48 8 L,qN� 75 74 95-29 7 Q d'Or M1„ 16-20 Queen Street North is a early 19th century building built in the Classic Revival architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.23 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Queen Street North between King Street and Duke 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 commercial building. Heritage Value 16-20 Queen Street North is recognized for its design, physical, historical and associative values. The design and physical values relate to the Classic Revival architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: an `H' plan; brick construction; concrete cornice with block dentils; first story concrete portico with entablature; decorative brick details; concrete columns; concrete balustrade; front door and opening with concrete decorative door surround reading "1871 — 1916"; windows and window openings with decorative concrete headers and sills; concrete cartouches above the first floor windows; and, decorative iron work. The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the building. The Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company was founded in 1871 by Hugo Kranz and other businessmen in Berlin (now Kitchener) in order to protect against the devastating hardships caused by fire and lighting. The company issued its first policy on a house and barn on November 25, 1971. The first president was Henry Fletcher Jackson. Later presidents included: George Lang, Henry Knell, Senator W.D. Euler, Henry Krug, W.W. Foot, and J.T. Hill. The name of the company was changed in 1937 dropping the fire designation when the directors decided to enter the casualty field, Page 378 of 399 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE giving its agents a complete portfolio including automobile, plate glass, accident and health. Over the years, the Kitchener head office moved five times to progressively larger quarters. The company started in the law office of Alexander Millar, one of Berlin's pioneer barristers. The first office was at the southwest corner of King Street and Ontario Street while the second office was on Queen Street North between King Street and Duke Street — 16-20 Queen Street North. This building was the head office for 38 years between 1916 and 1954. The third office was the building at the corner of Queen Street North and Duke Street West. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 16-20 Queen Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Classic Revival architectural style of the building, including: o `H' plan; o brick construction, including: ■ decorative brick details; o roof and roofline, including: ■ concrete cornice with block dentils; o first story concrete portico with entablature, columns, and balustrade; o front door and opening with concrete decorative door surround reading "1871 — 1916"; o windows and window openings, including: ■ decorative concrete headers and sills; ■ decorative brick voussoirs; o concrete cartouches above the first floor windows; and, o decorative iron work. Page 379 of 399 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos � ,sup►' .. �+ 1 Queen Street North Page 380 of 399 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Page 381 of 399 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 16-20 Queen Street North Period: 1916 Recorder Name: EG/IM Description: Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Co. Photographs: Front Fagade ® Left Fapade ® Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting ❑ Date: May 20, 2009 Design or Physical Value S[y, Ie Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a Continuity particular architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of constrnetio0 Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique Setting structure because of the merits of its design, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ composition, craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ and/or detail noteworthy? RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMIT TEE 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: rich detailing on building exterior contmst with restrained Berlin era architecture (plain) Sub -Committee: railings; cornice; carvings; portico; ornate details Contextual Value RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the continuity N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ 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 ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ or landscaping noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ 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 ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 within the region, city or neighbourhood? ❑ C (indicate degree of importance) ❑ N Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unkmown 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Page 382 of 399 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Notes — Field Team: only building still existing from Berlin an — others have been demolished in 60s or 70s Sub -Committee: link to King and Queen Streets Integrity RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Nate: 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 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 and design features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ alterations that have taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Notes Historical or Associative Value & Significance RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 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 Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 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 far the important contribution it makes to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people? Notes — Field Team: Economical Mutual Insurance Co. est 1871 — spearheaded by Mayor William Pipe, now nationwide; one of five had office locations; board of directors comprised of prominent local citizens: breithaupt, euler, knelle, krug, lang, etc.; creation of Canadian mutual insurance cc in response to 1869 fire at comer of King and Queen Page 383 of 399 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 9. O MITIGATION MEASURES & CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1. MITIGATION MEASURES • A Documentation and Salvage Plan should be completed; that will: o Identify interior and exterior heritage attributes and other salvageable building material to be salvaged prior to removal of the building fabric; o Identify method of extraction of heritage building material and outline plan for re -use within new construction; o Measured drawings of elevations identifying existing features and materials and floor plans; o High resolution photographs thoroughly document the building, context, setting, exterior elevations and interior spaces, detailing, finishes and characteristics. • A Conservation Plan should be completed that will identify short and long-term conservation goals. The short term conservation goals should describe how the retained portions of the building will be conserved during construction including o the method of partial demolition (manual, selective demolition); o Demonstration that the proposed development will be constructed in away that will avoid damage to the building fagade and that during construction the retained portions will be stabilized and protected; o Risk Management Plan which outlines requirements in the event of any damage to the retained facade whether it be partial or total loss. • An Interpretation Plan should be completed to the satisfaction of City Staff; this Plan will: E. Page 384 of 399 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON o Commemorative/ interpretative signage and/or installation commemorating the portions of the building that have been removed; o Describe the commemorative area/ small-scale museum within the Community Benefit space on the ground level of new building and the means by which it will be established; o It is encouraged that the Interpretation Plan be completed in collaboration with local community groups and institutions (i.e. The Museum, the Waterloo Historical Society). 1 ;WM �ENENT Figure 71— Draft ground floor plan of proposed development (Source: ABA Architects Inc. 2020). The form and location of commemoration or interpretative installation should be part of the Site Plan process to acknowledge the building's significance. 70 Page 385 of 399 Er I 2 3 PR PMR LINE d $ d 7 4 I`..O E, — 7v" — 3 -St 8DR4 Efi35 11Si iC�O '65C LCIAI ING SW ITCH GEAR I C-AR'_A� _ 5i R % LOBBY COMMUNIT BENEF1i 275.0 2560 1Ami AC('CCRDL 1 Ib LDDRI �RDPi] IMIIIIG 1 ;WM �ENENT Figure 71— Draft ground floor plan of proposed development (Source: ABA Architects Inc. 2020). The form and location of commemoration or interpretative installation should be part of the Site Plan process to acknowledge the building's significance. 70 Page 385 of 399 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON 9.2 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS There are federal, provincial and municipal resources that guide the conservation of historic places in Canada. This sub -section of the report will review the proposed development within the context of these guides. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada document was designed to guide the approach and methodology of conservation for cultural heritage resources in Canada. The Standards in this document discourage the removal of character defining elements of a cultural heritage resource. The character -defining elements of retained fagade should be protected and stabilized during the construction period before any intervention is undertaken (Standard 6). Upon the construction of the new building, the appropriate intervention will be identified in a Conservation Plan, which is a recommendation of this report. The proposed development should conserve the heritage value and character defining elements of the retained fagade. The 'addition' of the proposed development should be, "physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place" (Standard 11). Although not able to be subordinate, the new development should be physically and visually compatible by being consistent with the "Elements of Infill" discussed in the following section as well as being distinguishable. The ability to be distinguishable is consistent with the principle of 'legibility' of the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties. The contemporary design of the proposed development is distinguishable in its use of glazing and modern architectural articulations. The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit outlines acceptable infill designs within a cultural heritage landscape (see Figure 72). It is important to note that the current streetscape of Queen Street North is not a designated cultural heritage landscape. According to the OHTK, infills in designated cultural heritage landscapes are to fit in the immediate context, be of the same scale and similar setback, maintain proportions of windows and entrances similar to other cultural heritage resources and be of similar colour and material. 71 Page 386 of 399 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON new infill ,----� Should fit ils ]Q� ®i11 QnD I 10700 - immBdiete context ]Q� L Oz IlfID i i Ilt7p new infill should be generallyZ`11111 FfdD�d �.Q�(TBSame height I Iand width as°�` QIl ®DtlD i OQr3 Rf3[I t I JOD00 QC1a Ik >m neighbours RBwinflllSetbacks Should have similar to neighbours' This is a good maintain DOE r� m example of the proport_n or Q� p�U - Q use ofrimple windows andODE dpD (]fl(] 000 --J. ��_ �UZI entrances Wr'ti•=-' graphic to demonstrate acceptable and use similar or v ae unacceptable Wing C infill design. matenalsandcolours Ministry of Culture) Figure 72: Appropriate Infill Examples in Cultural Heritage Landscape (Source: Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2oi8). Although, the subject land is not included in a designated cultural heritage landscape, it is acknowledged that is a part of mature neighbourhood and is identified Cultural Heritage Landscape (L -Com -2) which is defined as "Downtown." The Region of Waterloo outlines "Elements of Successful Infill" in Infill: New Construction in Heritage Neighbourhoods as part of their series, Practical Conservation Guide for Heritage Properties. The "Elements of Successful Infill" include: setback, scale, orientation, scale, proportion, rhythm, massing, height, materials, colour, roof shape, detail and ornamentation, landscape features, secondary buildings, and parking. The following Table 4.o evaluates the proposed development within this framework: Setback & Orientation I The proposed development proposes to retain the existing building's fagade and thus, will retain the existing setback along the streetscape. Subsequently, the existing building will inherently retain the proposed development's orientation to the streetscape. The new construction will be setback approximately 3 metres from the retained fagade allowing for the streetscape to retain its rhythm (see Figure 73)• Scale, Proportion, The proposed development is of a much greater scale then Rhythm buildings along Queen Street North and greater area. The proportion of the building, however, is consistent with modern/ contemporary buildings within the surrounding area. The hierarchy of space demonstrative of the existing building is 72 Page 387 of 399 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON typical of Beaux-Arts and includes a variety of proportions. The proposed development is consistent with portions of architectural features such as openings and balconies (see Figure 62). The rhythm of panels on the face of balconies are based on a musical score to reflect the sites previous use for the Kitchener Conservatory of Music. Massing and Height The proposed development is of a much larger mass and height than buildings along this stretch of Queen Street North which is predominately low to mid -rise development. The mass and height is setback from the streetscape which allows a buffer between the streetscape and change in mass/ height. The proposed use of glazing also will reduce the perspective of mass. Materials, Colour, Roof IColours are of a neutral palette (light and dark grey). Walls are to Shape, Detail and be composed of precast material. The new construction is Ornamentation modern and simplistic in design. Landscape Features, There are no proposed secondary buildings on-site or surface Secondary Buildings, parking (there is loading area proposed in the approximate Parking location of existing parking lot to the north). There are no proposed landscape features (the subject lands are currently void of vegetation) but would benefit from landscape features to coincide with the historic open space at the north-east corner of i Queen Street North and Duke Street West. 73 Page 388 of 399 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, ON Figure 73: Extent of stepback from fagade to new construction (Source: ABA Architects Inc.). In summary, the proposed development generally complies with thee le me nts of successful infill in a mature neighborhood with the exception of: scale, massing and height. The proposed development is still in progress. In order to guide development, it is recommended that materials, colours, details and ornamentation and landscape features be sympathetic to the retained heritage building fabric contained in the front fagade of the existing building. The following are recommendations as they relate to the proposed development and these elements: • Materials, details and ornamentation particularly on the first three levels (pedestrian level) should be sympathetic to the existing building by utilizing a contemporary interpretation of existing architectural articulations (i.e. roofline, mouldings) and materials that do not detract from the existing fagade; glazing intercepted by high quality materials (i.e. stone and brick) are recommended to integrate the existing cultural heritage resource into new buildings; • Colours should be of a neutral palette; • Signage and lighting of the retained building should emphasis the existing building's prominence along the streetscape and avoid obstructing any views of the front fagade. 74 Page 389 of 399 Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, Ontario 4.0 Demolition Plan 4.1. Demolition Plan The proposed development requires the partial demolition of the existing building while retaining the facade and portions of the returns as shown in blue in the figure below. The length of the retained portion of the building is approximately 32 metres in length. The red outlines the footprint of the new development. Figure 6 — Draft first floor of proposed development; blue sections indicate the extent of the retained facade to be integrated into the new development (Source: ABA Architects Inc. 2020). The Demolition Plan is attached is Appendix's' which was completed by Nick Lawler, an engineer from Tacoma Engineers who is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). The building at 20 Queen Street North is described in this Plan as "three storey mass masonry office building with a mixture of concrete floor slabs by steel framing and conventional wood framing" (Tacoma Engineers, 1). The building is approximate 33m x 15m. April 28, 2022 M H BC 114 Page 390 of 399 Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, Ontario The method of demolition is proposed to be completed with conventional demolition techniques "utilizing heavy machinery such as shovels, buckets, grapples, shears, and cranes as required" (Tacoma Engineers, 1). This Plan identifies step by step the proposed process of demolition. The demolition procedure that is specific to the retained facade and returns of the existing building on- site is identified in "Demolition Procedure- Specific". The following is an extract from the Demolition Plan as it relates to the demolition procedure for the central facade wall and portico (Queen Street): a. Removal of interior furniture and finishes; b. Removal of roofing materials; c. Installation of temporary footings to support retention structure; d. Openings made in the mass masonry structure to allow retention structure to pass through as needed; e. Erection of structural steel retention towers; f. Disconnection of wood framing from mass masonry structure; g. Demolition of roof and floor framing towards the rear of the building; h. Demolition of main masonry wall not to be retained; and, i. Removal of foundations and ground floor construction. The Plan also includes steps for building demolition for the east and west corners similar to the above as well as steps for Goudies Lane Facade (see Appendix'C'). WOOD FRAMING TO BE DISCONNECTED AND DEMDUSMED �----------`----- HS5203n203x5.4 CONT. TYP.—, BRACE 15 BRACE Figure 7 — Schematic detail at disconnection of structure from facade associated with the Demolition Plan for 20 Queen Street North, Kitchener, Ontario (Source: Tacoma Engineers, 2022). April 28, 2022 MHBC 115 Page 391 of 399 Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, Ontario 4.2 Implementation and Monitoring The partial demolition of the existing building on-site will be overseen by the General Contractor (Zehr Levesque Inc.), Jablonsky, Ast and Partners Consulting Engineers and Tacoma Engineers. The implementation and monitoring of the Demolition Plan will be the obligation of these parties who have the expertise to ensure that the Plan is adequately and appropriately executed. Please note that interior finishes mentioned in the first step of the Plan included in the Salvage and Documentation Plan that is associated with this project which was submitted to City Staff in March of 2022. The removal of interior features to be re -purposed will be the responsibility of the general contractor and/ or conservator, which is specified in the Salvage and Documentation Plan. April 28, 2022 M H BC 116 Page 392 of 399 Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5.0 stabilization Plan 5.1 Stabilization Plan A retention sketch which outlines the Stabilization Plan is located in Appendix V of this report. The sketch has been prepared by the Project Team's engineer Jablonsky, Ast and Partners Consulting Engineers and identifies how the existing facade and returns will be stabilized during and post demolition of the remainder of the building (see Figure 8 for excerpt from sketch). Based on the Stabilization Plan provided by Jablonsky, Ast and Partners, the construction sequencing is as follows: 1. Install caisson wall attached to perimeter of building. (Stage 1) 2. Install inner micropiles to support front leg of retention truss. (Stage 1) 3. Install steel structure on south and east sides of building and interior steel frame on ground floor. (Stage 2) 4. Install interior bracing at northeast and southeast corners. (Stage 2) 5. Tie the heritage facade to outside steel supporting structure. (Stage 2) 6. Demolish existing structure of building outside of perimeter facade. (Stage 3) 7. Install remainder of perimeter shoring (Stage 3) 8. Excavate to bottom of new raft elevation and cut existing foundation walls to needle beam elevations. (Stage 4) 9. Pour new raft slab and extend new walls to underside of existing foundation walls (cut in step 8). (Stage 5) 10. Begin construction of structure above raft. (Stage 5) 11. Provide lateral connections at each new floor to existing masonry facade. When all new levels have been poured and laterally bracing the masonry wall, the steel support may be entirely removed. (Stage 6) April 28, 2022 M H BC 117 Page 393 of 399 Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 8 — Retention sketch of facade (east elevation) of 20 Queen Street North, Kitchener (Source: Jablonsky, Ast and Partners, 2022) Appendix 'E' includes a certification from the project engineer confirming that during construction, a temporary facade retention system will be installed to support the facade during construction and furthermore, that post construction, the facade will be connected to the new structure and the temporary facade retention system removed. The certification also confirms that the new construction will be designed to adequately support the heritage facade in its final state. 5.2 Implementation and Monitoring The stabilization of the existing building on-site will be overseen by the General Contractor (Zehr Levesque Inc.) and Jablonsky, Ast and Partners Consulting Engineers. The implementation and monitoring of the Stabilization Plan will be the obligation of these parties who have the expertise to ensure that the Plan is adequately and appropriately executed and have experience with completing similar projects related to heritage conservation. April 28, 2022 M H BC 118 Page 394 of 399 Conservation Plan 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, ON TOConservation Goals 7.1 Short Term- Preparing for Demolition and Stabilization See Appendix'C' for review of current condition of existing building. Short-term preparation includes a Salvage and Documentation Plan and finalization of the Temporary Protection Plan. Table 1.0 Immediate Issue Action Project Team Member 1. Documentation Prior to construction, photographs and ABA Architects Inc. detailed elevations of the current building will provide an accurate record in the event that the building is accidentally damaged (see Appendix'E') A virtual documentation has been completed through iGuide. 2. Masonry Only minor repairs are required at this PJ Materials Consultants stage that are relative to the stability of Ltd. the facade during the stabilization period (a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals) (CAHP) is preferred). This includes the fortification of the foundation walls as it relates to the facade and returns and repointing mortar where necessary. 3. Completion of These reports will inform the demolition Jablonsky, Ast and reports (Structural and stabilization plan. It will also outline Partners Consulting Assessment and the approach to monitoring vibrations Engineers Vibration based on the specifications of the site. Tacoma Engineers* Monitoring Plan) Valcoustics 4. Confirm circulation A circulation plan for construction traffic General Contractor plan for traffic to should be confirmed between the MHBC Planning Ltd. avoid damage to general contractor and heritage facade consultant. May21, 2021 (Revised April 26, 2022) MHBC 139 Page 395 of 399 Conservation Plan 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, ON 7.2 Medium Term- Temporary Protection Plan (Implementation of Demolition, Stabilization Plan and Vibration Monitoring Plan) and Preservation Work The Temporary Protection Plan is included in Appendix'C' of this report which outlines specifically how the items 13 & 4 will be implemented. Table 2.0 Action Project Team Member 1. Install vibration Engineer will install vibration Valcoustics monitoring monitoring equipment as per the General Contractor equipment where Vibration Monitoring Plan. (installation of monitors) required 2. Remove windows Windows and doors will be removed General Contractor and doors from the front facade, inventoried MHBC Planning Ltd. and stored in a safe, dry location. 3. Implementation of The retained facade will be covered General Contractor protection with boarding and other material to MHBC Planning Ltd. measures protect it from dust and debris as well as any potential damage caused by construction. 4. Stabilize during The retained facade will be braced/ General Contractor and after shored to withstand the excavation of Jablonsky, Ast and Partners demolition construction of the proposed Consulting Engineers development. This will be completed Tacoma Engineers in phases as the remainder of the building fabric is removed. This task also includes the removal of bricks from the north elevation to create six (6) window openings. Stabilization will be required to ensure damage is not caused to the overall retained wall. 5. Repair and After construction is completed, or PJ Materials Consultants Ltd. cleaning of near completed, heritage elements/ May21, 2021 (Revised April 26, 2022) MHBC 140 Page 396 of 399 Conservation Plan 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, ON masonry and apply features should be cleaned safely treatment where following the correct protocol for required cleaning techniques of each particular feature subsequent to its material. Elements/ features that require new treatment should be compatible (see sub -section 6.2.1. (7) for recommendations). 7.3 Long Term (Maintenance and Monitoring) Long term conservation is achieved through maintenance and regular monitoring. Regular maintenance is the best way to ensure that a cultural heritage resource is appropriately conserved over the long-term and ensures that damages (including wear and tear, exposure to the elements) are routinely inspected and repaired as necessary. By maintaining a status quo, there should not be the requirement to replace heritage attributes and the need for major interventions. All maintenance, repair or restoration or new design should respect heritage attributes and the original fabric or historic materials, should be based on the documentation provided by the documentation in Appendix'E' and within the relative Salvage and Documentation Report. Attributes and elements of a building will deteriorate over time through daily use. As such, all materials are expected to have a 'lifetime'. It is recommended that the elements of the building be routinely inspected on an annual basis to repair elements. In order to supplement the historic record, it is recommended that a record of all restoration and maintenance work is documented over time. Conservation measures for the long-term include regular monitoring and maintenance to uphold the level of care required. Regular monitoring will identify maintenance issues to be addressed on an ongoing basis. On-going maintenance consists of visual assessments to identify any commencement of deterioration that can be intervened at the earliest time possible. The tasks listed below are the responsibility of the owner. Table 3.0 Long -Term Action Time Frame Maintenance That a record be kept of Annual Record maintenance and repairs over Keeping the long-term to supplement the historic record of the building. May21, 2021 (Revised April 26, 2022) MHBC 147 Page 397 of 399 Conservation Plan 20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener, ON Cleaning of Heritage elements/ features Every five (5) years. Heritage should be cleaned safely Attributes following the correct protocol for cleaning techniques of each particular feature subsequent to its material. Treatment Review of condition of coating Every five (5) years and paint on stone units. 7.4 Implementation and Monitoring The implementation of the goals outlined in this report is contingent on time frames that will be based on the City's approval process. The short-term goal (immediate) outlined in this report is recommended to be pursued, however, prior to any approval, as this is not required for this stage of conservation and may lead to subsequent issues that would require more intervention. In order to ensure the implementation of actions recommended in this Conservation Plan, the City may elect to incorporate recommendations as conditions of the site plan approval process. May21, 2021 (Revised April 26, 2022) MHBC 142 Page 398 of 399 Page 399 of 399 2022 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PA Legend: Unanimously approved by Heritage Kitchener permits an HPA to be approved through delegated authority. # Application Number Property Address Date Complete Staff Report # HK Meeting Heritage Kitchener Recommendation Council Meeting Date/ Delegated Approval HPA Description 1 HPA-2022-V-001 178 Queen St S DSD -2022-011 4 -Jan -22 24 -Jan -22 Proposed demolition 2 HPA-2022-IV-002 1 King St E DSD -2022-012 4 -Jan -22 Carried Unanimously Install a new fascia sign on King St E facade 3 HPA-2022-V-003 53 Margaret Ave DSD -2022-013 4 -Jan -22 Carried Unanimously Construct a rear third storey addition, construct an exterior staircase on the west facade and repair and replace worn windows and cl addin 4 HPA-2022-V-004 Doon Bridges #1 and #2 DSD -2022-052 1 -Feb -22 Carried Unanimously Bridge rehabilitation 5 HPA-2022-IV-005 122 Frederick St DSD -2022-151 5 -Apr -22 Carried Unanimously Replace the existing roof system 6 HPA-2022-IV-006 35 Gordon Ave DSD -2022-167 3 -May -22 Carried Unanimously Repair a section ofthe brickwork above the second -floor bathroom window on the west (rear) elevation and repointing parts ofthe exterior foundation wall as needed 7 HPA-2022-IV-007 35 Gordon Ave DSD -2022-168 3 -May -22 Carried Unanimously Repair and restore the bathroom window on the second floor west (rear) elevation and install a new storm window 8 HPA-2022-V-008 32 Heins Ave 21 -Apr -22 Replace the existing rear yard deck and landing staircase with a new rear yard deck and landing staircase 9 10 HPA-2022-IV-010 16-20 Queen St N DSD -2022-232 7 -Jun -22 Partial demolition of the building, excluding the facade and portions ofthe returns 11 HPA-2022-IV-011 16-20 Queen St N DSD -2022-231 7 -Jun -22 Construct a new 34 -storey residential tower 12 HPA-2022-IV-012 17 Schneider Ave DSD -2022-266 7 -Jun -22 Replace cedar shingle roofwith asphalt shin as 13 HPA-2022-V-013 15-17 Hilda PI 20 -May -22 Replace the roof shingles, repair and restore the soffits, fascia, gutters and downspouts, and replace upper balcony guard with new pressure -treated wood 14 HPA-2022-V-014 172 Queen St N 20 -May -22 Replace the existing roof, rebuild an existing dormer on the front facade ofthe house and construct a new rear dormer 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 29 30 31 32 33 Page 399 of 399