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 - 2022-09-06
Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 6, 2022, 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 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 (a)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 September 6, 2022 in order to participate electronically. 2.1. Item 3.1. - Mike Topham, Crystal Topham 2.2. Item 3.2. -Vanessa Hicks, MHBC Planning 2.3. Item 3.3. - Sara Sosnoski 3. Discussion Items 3.1. Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022 V-022 - 10 m 3 44 Henry Street - Proposed Second -Storey Addition, DSD -2022-393 3 5. 3.2. Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 544- 30 m 13 550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street West, DSD -2022-327 3.3. Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022 V-021 - 10 m 138 139 Queen Street North - Demolition and Replacement of Front Portico, DSD -2022-396 3.4. Sub -Committee Updates 15 m 3.5. Status Updates - Heritage Best Practices 5 m Update and 2022 Priorities, Heritage Impact Assessment Follow-ups Information Items 4.1. Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 154 Adjournment Mariah Blake Committee Administrator Page 2 of 154 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: September 6, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: August 8, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-393 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-022 44 Henry Street Proposed Second -Storey Addition RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-022 be approved to permit the construction of a second -storey addition on the property municipally addressed as 44 Henry Street in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following condition: 1. That the final building permit be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present staff's recommendation to approve the proposed second -storey rear addition on the property municipally addressed as 44 Henry Street. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed addition will not adversely impact the cultural heritage value of the original building and the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included posting this report and associated agenda in advance of the meeting and consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage permit Application HPA- 2022-V-022 seeking permission to construct a second -storey rear addition on the subject property municipally addressed as 44 Henry Street, located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) (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 154 es t: i; i'R P1fPm � �x9.� 164 y C;RERRY RILL iTI 1]3 54 6G 3t Zt lea ,,Y3 i 1A0 fY./ q p L S —CMA. PARK (( u am /� r94 46 110 " ra n mr 1 33 �r as xa v sr 9 5 22 4 'Le-M-S Par% SPi1iCT5FIFLG Figure 1. Location Map of 44 Henry Street REPORT: The subject property is located on the north side of Henry Street between Victoria Street South and Devon Street. The subject property is located within the VPAHCD and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (Fig 2 U). Figure 2: South (front) elevation of the house Figure 3: South and east elevation of the house Page 4 of 154 The VPAHCD Study describes 44 Henry Street as a wood -frame one and a half -storey front gabled Berlin Vernacular house, with original proportions intact and as being well- maintained. Proposed Second -Storey Addition The VPAHCD Plan contains direction pertaining to the construction of additions on properties within the HCD. While these provisions recognize that additions may become necessary to homes to provide more living space for residents, it notes that it is important for such new construction to be complementary to the architectural style and character of the existing dwelling, and of the HCD. There are detailed policies that relate to location, design, height, material, chimneys, roofs, walls, entrances, verandahs, and colours of building additions within the district. It is important for any building additions to adhere to these policies. The applicant is seeking permission to construct a new, second -storey addition at the rear of the existing dwelling to increase the livable space (Fig. 4) (Attachment A). Figure 4: Location of the Proposed Addition on the Second Storey This second -storey addition will be built on top of the existing kitchen and will be approximately 18'2" x 6'5" (118.3 square metres) in size (Fig. 5). The addition will be clad in wood -composite siding of a different but compatible colour than the existing siding. The existing window on the rear second -storey of the existing dwelling does not appear to be original. The new windows on the addition will be similar to the existing windows in size, proportion and materials. Page 5 of 154 The brown part is the only part we are adding, The other colour is our house as it stands now. E Figure 5. Proposed Addition at the rear of the house (depicted in orange colour). House width from front view is 19'8" House width from back view is 187' The Addition will be slightly taller then the existing roof by about 2 feet to accomdate a shower in the bathroom. The dimensions of the addition will mirror the pre-existing kitchen below it. The applicant intends to increase the size of one of the bedrooms and install an additional bathroom, and in order to accommodate that, will need to have a roof slope that is slightly higher than the existing roof slope. The existing roofline, however, will not be altered or impacted by the proposed addition. The roof ridge will also remain the same. The roof of the addition is sufficiently set back from the streetscape and the front fagade of the existing dwelling (Fig. 6). It will also not negatively impact the streetscape of the VPAHCD. The roof of the proposed addition will be a metal roof, to match the existing. Figure 6. Approximate location of the addition's roof (highlighted by the red box). Page 6 of 154 Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addressed as 44 Henry Street is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; • The proposal is for the construction of a new second -storey addition to increase the living space within the house; • The subject property is not classified as a Group `A' building within the VPAHCD; • The proposed addition meets the following VPAHCD Plan policies for building additions; o Location — Additions should be located to the rear or rear side of the existing historic building so as to maintain the original principal fagade as a visual entity. Where additions are brought forward, they shall not visually dominate or overpower the existing historic building. ■ The addition is proposed to be located at the rear of the property with the principal fagade remaining unchanged. The proposed addition will not visually dominate or overpower the existing historic building. o Design — A clear distinction between old and new building design is encourages. Contemporary design for additions is encouraged that is complementary in terms of scale, mass, and texture to the existing or neighboring historic building ■ The proposed addition is distinct from the original historic building through the use of differing but complementary colours and materials. Furthermore, the proposed addition is subordinate in scale to the existing original dwelling and respects the existing dwelling. o Height — Height of additions shall complement the predominant height of the original building and immediate streetscape. ■ The proposed addition is one -storey in height and complements the predominant height of the original building and the immediate streetscape. o Materials — For additions, materials typical of the Area shall be used, with an emphasis on brick, stone and wood. ■ The proposed addition will be clad in wood -composite siding which will be complementary to the existing dwelling. o Roofs — Original historic roof shapes, finishes, chimneys and shall be conserved. The roof of the addition shall be similar or complementary to the existing historic building or style in the Area. New roof vents, skylights, satellite dishes and metal chimneys shall be located in an inconspicuous manner ■ The proposed addition will also have a gable roof which is similar and complementary to the roof of the existing historic building. In order to accommodate the shower, the roof slope of the addition will be slightly higher than the existing roof. However, the proposed roof is complementary to the existing historic building and will not negatively affect the historic building. o Chimneys — Original historic chimneys shall be conserved or rebuilt to match the original where feasible. In addition, masonry chimneys should be given Page 7 of 154 priority over metal. Unused chimneys should be capped and conserved, not removed. ■ The chimney will be conserved. o Entrances — New entrances to additions are encouraged to be located on secondary rather than principal facades. ■ The entrance will be located at the rear fagade of the existing historic building. o Windows — The appearance, placement and proportion of height to width of windows shall be similar or complementary to the existing historic building style or as established in the vicinity. ■ The appearance, placement and proportion of the windows on the addition will be similar and complementary to the existing historic building. o Colours — Colours of paint and materials shall be appropriate to the historic style of the building or as established in the Area. ■ The colours on the proposed addition will be in keeping with the historic style of the building and with other buildings within the VPAHCD. • The proposed addition will not adversely impact the heritage attributes or character of either the subject property, adjacent properties, or the streetscape of VPAHCD. 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 — The Heritage Kitchener Committee will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2021 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-022 Page 8 of 154 2#22 J KjTc�t-ierrF:R STAFF USE ONLY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6th Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426. Page 7 of 10 Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA -2021 - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY 3. .TJ Municipal Address: 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 p p Y J 9 9 PROPERTY OWNER Name: Address: City/Province/Postal Code Phone Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company: Address: City/Province/Postal Code: Phone: Email: Working together • Growing thoughtfully 9 Building community 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 impri onment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent Date: Signature of Owner/Agent Daterr:',f�- 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, 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 I 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 9 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. .S -e e-- a� Wit.L P� n 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: C- C. r► A - Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: �6VOCK ef Cld, 0a i f 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/paces/standards-normes.aspx): r w 2- c�r2 �3 f. Lie-, c �0 6,e 7. PROPOSED WORKS ak Expected start date: 9_00A3 Expected completion date: a 00.3 .24'3-q b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? Ell�es ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? - If yes, who did you speak to? ❑ Yes CNko d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes M"No e) Other related Building or Planning applications Application number, Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 11 of 154 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 9 Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 10 of 10 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: September 6, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1 DATE OF REPORT: August 12, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-327 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 544-550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street West RECOMMENDATION: For Information REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated May 2022, to redevelop the subject properties municipally addressed as 544-550 Lancaster Street West. The subject lands contain two buildings, municipally addressed as 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West, which are not designated or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act but have been identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory as having potential cultural heritage value or interest. Per Section 12.C.1.4 of the City's Official Plan, it is acknowledged that not all cultural heritage resources have been identified and a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. As part of a complete Planning Application, the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was required. An HIA was initially prepared by MHBC planning dated September 2021 and submitted to the City. The draft HIA contains an assessment of the buildings addressed as 544-546 Lancaster Street West and concluded that the properties have cultural heritage value or interest design/physical and historic/associative values. The two buildings on the subject properties were constructed c. 1873 in the Gothic Revival architectural style by I.E. Shantz. According to the HIA, their proximity to each other and the similarities in design and features are considered unique. The development proposal includes the re -location of the heritage buildings and the removal of all remaining buildings and features that are not considered to be of cultural heritage value *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 13 of 154 on the subject lands to allow for the construction of a mixed-use development comprised of five (5) new buildings with a combined total of 1,281 units and 924 parking spaces. Preliminary staff comments regarding the proposed development and the draft HIA were circulated to the applicant in November 2021. An updated HIA (the present version) (Attachment A) was submitted to staff in June 2022. Furthermore, at the time of the first submission of the draft HIA, the re -location site had not been determined. The applicant has now confirmed the site for re -location; the property municipally addressed as 26 Bridge Street West. 26 Bridge Street West is located on the north side of Bridge Street West, between Woolwich Street and Carisbrooke Drive. It does not contain any protected or listed heritage resources. It is, however, located adjacent to 20 Bridge Street West, which has been identified on the Inventory of Historic Buildings. The building is a 2 -storey red brick house that was constructed c. 1890. Due to this, an Addendum dated August 2022 has been included with the draft HIA which assesses any potential impacts of the relocation of the two buildings currently located at 544-550 Lancaster Street West on the heritage resource located at 20 Bridge Street West (Attachment B). A structural assessment of the two buildings of cultural heritage value located at 544-550 Lancaster Street West has also been included in the draft HIA (Appendix D). The assessment has concluded that the two buildings can be re -located. Heritage Planning staff have not been able to complete a fulsome evaluation of the updated HIA and are currently in the process of reviewing the HIA. Staff will be providing detailed comments to the applicant to address any areas that require further assessment and discussion. At this time, 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 September meeting. A copy of the draft HIA and the Addendum are 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, 2021 Page 14 of 154 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A- Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 544-546 Lancaster Street West Attachment B- An Addendum to the draft HIA assessing potential impacts to 26 Bridge Street West Page 15 of 154 HERITAGE MPACT ASSESS REPORT (revised) ENT • 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Date: May 2022 Prepared for: 550 Lancaster Inc. c/o Corley Developments Inc. Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 Our File: 15213 S' a A r 11,0A VA Aur to; III MHBC P L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Table of Contents ProjectPersonnel..........................................................................................................................................3 Glossaryof Abbreviations.............................................................................................................................5 Acknowledgement of First Nations Territory, Traditions, and Cultural Heritage.........................................5 1.0 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................6 2.0 Description of Subject Property............................................................................................................11 2.1 Location of Subject Property.............................................................................................................11 2.2 Heritage Status............................................................................................................................13 3.0 Policy Context..............................................................................................................................15 3.1 The Planning Act and PPS 2020 ....................................... ............... ..........................................15 3.2 The Ontario Heritage Act ........................................ ............................I......................................16 3.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan ...........................................................................................16 4.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan...........................................................................................................17 4.0 Historical Overview...............................................................................................................................20 4.1 Indigenous Communities Histo. ........ ............................................................................20 4.2 County of Waterloo, Waterloo ......................................................................................... 21 4.3 Former Village of Bridgeport (Shoemaker's Mills), now part of the City of Kitchener ..................... 22 4.4 544-546 Lancaster Street West......................................................................................................... 26 4.5 Eby & Shantz, Hamel & Rothaermel................................................................................................. 29 5.0 Description of Subject Property............................................................................................................ 36 5.1 Description of 544-546 Lancaster Street West.................................................................................36 5.2 Description of Built Heritage Resources...........................................................................................40 5.2.1 546 Lancaster Street West.........................................................................................................41 5.2.3 544 Lancaster Street West......................................................................................................... 53 6.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources........................................................................................... 58 6.1 Evaluation Criteria.............................................................................................................................58 6.2 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Landscapes (544-546 Lancaster Street West) ................................ 59 6.3 Evaluation of Built Heritage Resources.............................................................................................61 6.4 Summary of Evaluation.....................................................................................................................65 7.0 Description of Proposed Development.................................................................................................67 May, 2022 MHBC I i Page 17 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 8.0 Impact Analysis.....................................................................................................................................73 8.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................73 8.2 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................................. 73 8.2.1 Alteration of Buildings & Relocation to 26 Bridge Street West ................................................. 73 8.2.2 Analysis of Potential Receiving Site at 26 Bridge Street............................................................ 75 8.2.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts on Lands Adjacent to 544-540 Lancaster Street West......... 77 9.0 Consideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Recommendations...................................................................................................................................... 78 9.1 Alternative Development Approaches.............................................................................................. 78 9.1.1 Do nothing..................................................................................................................................78 9.1.2 Develop the site while retaining buildings and integrating them into the development concept ............................................................................................................................................................ 78 9.1.3 Develop the site while retaining buildings at an alternate location on the subject property... 78 9.1.4 Demolition of all Buildings and Features...................................................................................79 9.2 Mitigation and Conservation Recommendations .............................................................................79 10.0 Recommendations and Conclusions...................................................................................................81 11.0 Sources............................................................'.............................................................82 AppendixA ........................................ ....... ......................................................................................84 LocationMap (next page)..................................................................................................................84 AppendixB.................................................................................................................................................85 Site Plan & Relocation Plan(next pag ...........................................................................................85 AppendixC..................................................................................................................................................86 ViewsAnalysis (next page)..................................................................................................................86 AppendixD..................................................................................................................................................87 Structural Analysis (next page)...................................................................................................................87 AppendixE.................................................................................................................................................. 88 PhotoMap (next page)...............................................................................................................................88 AppendixF.................................................................................................................................................. 89 TitleSearch (next page)..............................................................................................................................89 May, 2022 MHBC I ii Page 18 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Heritage Planner Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl. Heritage Planner Senior Review Research, Author Research, Site Analysis Dan Currie, B.A., BES, M.A., M.C.I.P, UP, C.A.H.P Dan Currie, a Partner with MHBC, joined MHBC Planning in 2009, after having worked in various positions in the public sector since 1997 including the Director of Policy Planning for the City of Cambridge and Senior Policy Planner for the City of Waterloo. Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients including a wide range of policy and development work. Dan has experience in a number of areas including strategic planning, growth plan policy, secondary plans, watershed plans, housing studies and downtown revitalization plans. Dan specializes in long range planning and has experience in growth plans, settlement area expansions and urban growth studies. He has provided expert planning evidence to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal and heritage planning evidence to the Conservation Review Board. Vanessa Hicks, M.A, C.A.H.P Vanessa Hicks is an Associate and Senior Heritage Planner with MHBC. Vanessa and joined the firm after having gained experience as a Manager of Heritage Planning in the public realm where she was responsible for working with Heritage Advisory Committees in managing heritage resources, Heritage Conservation Districts, designations, special events and heritage projects. Vanessa is a full member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and graduated from the University of Waterloo with a Masters Degree in Planning, specializing in heritage planning and conservation. May, 2022 MHBC 13 Page 19 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Rachel Redshaw, M.A., H.E., Dipl. Rachel is a Heritage Planner with MHBC and joined the firm in 2018. She holds a Masters of Arts degree from the University of Turin in collaboration with the International Training Centre of the ILO and UNESCO in World Heritage and Cultural Projects for Development and is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Rachel has experience in research and report writing for both public and private sector clients. She has experience in historical research, inventory work and evaluation on a variety of projects, including heritage conservation districts and cultural heritage impact assessments. Prior to Joining MHBC, Rachel gained experience working for Municipal Development Services in rural settings, museums and archives. Rachel's B.A. has a Joint Advanced Major in Anthropology and Celtic Studies from Saint Francis Xavier University and Higher Education Diploma from th iversity of the Highlands and Islands which allowed her to work with tangible and intangiblictural heritage resources in Nova Scotia and Scotland. May, 2022 MHBC 14 Page 20 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Glossary of Abbreviations HIA HCD MHBC MHSTCI OHA OHTK O -REG 9/06 PPS 2020 Acknowled� rieri o first Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage Conservation District MocNoughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritage Toolkit Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining cultural heritage significance Provincial Policy Statement (2020) Nations Territory, Traditions, auffral Heritage This Heritage Impact Assessment acknowledges that the subject property located at 544-546 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener (formerly the Village of Bridgeport), is situated on part of the Haldimand Tract, which was promised to the peoples of the Six Nations on the Grand River and is located within the recognized territory of the Anishinaabe peoples (Attiwonderonk (Neutral), Haudenosaunee, and Anishinaabe). These lands are acknowledged as part of the following treaties: • Treaty 4, 'The Simcoe Patent', 1793; and • Haldimand Treaty, 1784. May, 2022 MHBC 15 Page 21 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 1.O Executive Summary MHBC was retained by 550 Lancaster Inc. c/o Corley Developments Inc.to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development located at 544-550 Lancaster Street West. The subject lands includes two individual properties located at a) 544-546 Lancaster Street West, and b) 550 Lancaster Street West. The property located at 544-546 Lancaster Street West includes two 19th century dwellings which have been adaptively re -used as multi -unit residential dwellings. This HIA pertains only to the property located at 544-546 Lancaster Street West as it has been identified by the City of Kitchener as being of potential cultura 'eritage value or interest. The property located at 544-546 Lancaster Street West is not 'listed' \designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment is t evaluate thed development in terms of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources located on-site and adjacent. This report has been prepared as input to the planning application and development proposal. The background information and research has provided direction on the redevelopment concept. This report evaluates the proposal in the context of the City's policy framework and Provincial policy. Summary of Cultural Hage Val Interest ,, The evaluation of the sub' ct property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 determined that the property located at 544-546 L ster Street West meets the legislated criteria for determining cultural heritage value or int (CHVI). The property is of CHVI for the two existing dwellings and their design/physical and hist I/associative values. The two buildings were constructed c. 1873 in the Gothic Revival architectural style by I.E. Shantz and are considered representative examples of Gothic Revival residential buildings. Their proximity to each other and similarities in design and features are considered unique. The spatial relationship between the two buildings is significant. The property is not considered a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape. The two buildings identified in this report as 546 Lancaster Street West ("A"), and 544 Lancaster Street West ("B)" are the only features located on-site which warrant conservation. May, 2022 MHBC 16 Page 22 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener dashed line. Location of buildings proposed for re -location outlined in red. (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Map, accessed 202 1) Proposed Development and Impact Analysis The proposed development includes the re -location of the two existing dwellings to an alternative location off-site at 26 Bridge Street, within the community of Bridgeport West. The re -location will permit the construction of a comprehensive mixed-use development comprised of five new buildings (A, B, C, D, and E). The buildings are 10 (A), 16 (B), 20 (C), 26 (D), and 20 (E) storeys in height with a combined total of 1,198 suites and 808 vehicle parking spaces. May, 2022 MHBC 17 Page 23 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 2: Aerial photograph;Othe City of Kitchener. Approximate location of subject property noted with red star. Proposed relocation destination noted with green star (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Map, accessed 2022) The proposed re -location of the two buildings (See Figures 2 & 3) of CHVI will result in a range of impacts. The removal of the concrete patios, walkways, and the rear additions to 546 Lancaster Street West is considered a neutral impact. The removal of the stone foundation of both buildings is considered a minor adverse impact as it will result in the removal of an original foundation. The placement of the buildings on a new foundation will allow for the buildings to be adaptively re- used and conserved over the long-term. The removal of the buildings from their existing location to an alternative location off-site is considered a minor adverse impact as the buildings do not have a significant contextual relationship with their existing location in-situ. However, the buildings have a significant spatial to each other. The proposed new location allows the buildings to retain their close proximity to each other, and remain visible from the public realm within the community of Bridgeport. May, 2022 MHBC 18 Page 24 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 3: Site plan for pll Lancaster Street West at 26 P 5Yr - Pi3M1FA `> 3.4:0 TT1 5.183 Y • lC�YF1G TREES i ■p I �r yy AMEW1 AREA Z + Nn 596 'JJON' �➢ STORhGE �n 'a d.r i 30 a t'. s.5 a Tl Ttf t b L PRO DiAm FEND l Z� l I i.woscr�eNG ++ � au li ag I c 64 J , ` 2 7 _ 6 5..:.h a3 re -lo d dwellings currently located at 544 Lancaster Street West and 546 Str Source: MHBC, 2022) A structural assessment has been undertaken and confirms that the buildings could withstand the physical act of relocation (See Appendix Q. Additional work would be required in order to ensure that re -location would be undertaken safely to avoid any potential adverse impacts. The following provides conclusions and recommendations regarding the proposal. Conclusions and Recommendations It should be noted that a range of alternative development options were considered as it relates to the proposed development and the identified cultural heritage resources. This includes retaining the buildings in-situ and incorporating into the proposed development, as well as demolition. While retaining the buildings on-site may result in fewer impacts, the proposed re -location off-site May, 2022 MHBC 19 Page 25 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener is a viable development alternative and the identified impacts to cultural heritage resources can be considered provided that the following mitigation recommendations are undertaken: • That a Re -location and Conservation plan be drafted which provides details on how the buildings will a) be prepared for re -location, stabilized, and re -located to their new location and b) be repaired, altered, and conserved over the long-term (including recommendations for maintenance and monitoring); • An interpretive plaque be drafted and installed at the proposed new location which interprets the history of the buildings, as well as their original location; and • That this report and its attachments be accepted as a historic and photographic record of the buildings in their existing locations in-situ. May, 2022 MHBC 110 Page 26 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 2.0 Description of Subject Property 2.1 Location of Subject Property The property located at 544-546 Lancaster Street West is situated east of Lancaster Street West, north of Bridgeport Road East and south of Bridge Street East. The property is located west of the Grand River and is located within what is now the City of Kitchener, formerly the Village of Bridgeport (See Figure 4 and Appendix A). LOT 15 1 , .Gr av,u,,„a, a -z sr, meriur rifer ■ ml 11El4n, — u:a - P . ra. 22712- OD3r: feae. 1t� gRiS PAR? 3, PLAM 5HP- "777T m lr5r NO B -clear Kyr-- LOT 16 T NST AcA.1- —0-- +aTa� > LOT 17 w. N �-eamc svno �d��P r�- QLOT 19 s '.3 .. , r PART a, r+eeal sere- ala ` uvea .dw ra sn Figure 4: Plan of Survey of the subject property. The subject property is comprised partially of Part of Lot 59 of the German Company Tract (east half of the lot), as well as part of Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19 of Plan 577. The buildings located at 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West are primarily located on Part of Lot 59, with front elevation porticos located on part of Lots 17 and 18, respectively. May, 2022 MHBC 111 Page 27 of 154 V � _ T777LO1, , RAN Sae- a19 I. 22712- 0037 AV.. a -J2616 --------------IPA ,-- r�- QLOT 19 s '.3 .. , r PART a, r+eeal sere- ala ` uvea .dw ra sn Figure 4: Plan of Survey of the subject property. The subject property is comprised partially of Part of Lot 59 of the German Company Tract (east half of the lot), as well as part of Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19 of Plan 577. The buildings located at 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West are primarily located on Part of Lot 59, with front elevation porticos located on part of Lots 17 and 18, respectively. May, 2022 MHBC 111 Page 27 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener The subject property is zoned Mixed Use 2 (MU -2 624R) which accommodates a variety of medium density mixed use buildings and developments. Map 2 (Urban Structure) of the City of Kitchener Official Plan identifies that the subject property is located north of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), within an Urban Corridor Intensification Area and Planned Transit Corridor. Map 5 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan identifies that the subject property is included in the Lancaster Urban Corridor Specific Policy Area (See Figures 5 & 6). May, 2022 T'rrban Structure) with approximate location of subject lands noted of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014) MHBC 112 Page 28 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 552 sed srG 559 9 9 d6 P4 77 555 ''?,� — B MIX — MU -1 6248 _ 549 � � SSd 547 a h -2 824R MIX 5yfi1y Z 3 543 J 543 _ 675 $4, 51 $37 MU -1 6298, 6248, 65HM-1 621R 6248 7S 11 1 9 B-2 32R, 400 EMP -5 {791. 17b, 7a t. 526 P�3 C' mix -2 (49), (65) �d{f � l Figure 6: Approximate location of subject property within the Mixed Use 2 Zone. (City of Kitchener Interactive Zoning Maps, Accessed July 2019) 2.2 Heritage Status The property located at 544-546 has been identified by the City of Kitchener as being of potential cultural heritage value or interest. According to a review of the City of Kitchener Register of Heritage Properties as well as the City of Kitchener Interactive Map, the property is not 'listed' (non- designated) or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The property is not part of a designated Heritage Conservation District (HCD). .Iff The subject property is located adjacent to the Grand River Corridor (L-GRC-1), which was identified as a potential Cultural Heritage Landscape as per a review of the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study report. The CHL Study document identifies that the study area generally follows the meandering route of the Grand River (identified as a Canadian Heritage River) through Waterloo Township from Kiwanis Park to the north and Fountain Road South (See Figure 6). The Grand River, was designated as a Canadian Heritage River in 1994. The designation acknowledges its associations with the peoples of the Six Nations, Mississaugas, as well as Euro - Canadian settlers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. May, 2022 MHBC 113 Page 29 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 7: City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resources Study map noting approximate location of subject property within the Grand River Corridor (L-GRC-1) as a potential Cultural H Mage Landscaource: City of Kitchener CHL Study Appendix 6, 2014) It is important to note that local historiar-k Idessa Zimmerman, compiled a 'Historic Building Inventory' in the 1960s/1970s for the historic Village of Bridgport. The subject property was not included on the inventory at this time (See Figure 7). 11 : Le"1c:�llte- Hated 1853 14 L,Rn+ceeter St. 518ba 15 69 051 16 frog 054 7 . _ 615 '� � 1 � Figure 8: Excerpt of HistoridinUfflentory noting properties on Lancaster Street West (the subject property was not included in this list) (So merman Tweedsmuir History (Bridgeport), n.d.) May, 2022 MHBC 114 Page 30 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 3.OPolicy Context 3.1 The Planning Act and PPS 2020 The Planning Act makes a number of provisions regarding cultural heritage, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2, the Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. One of the intentions of The Planning Act is to "encourage the co-operation and co-ordination among the various interests". Regarding cultural heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that: The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as... (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; The Planning Act therefore provides for the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the land use planning process. In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS is "intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation". This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Significant: e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. May, 2022 MHBC 115 Page 31 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Built Heritage Resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario HeritageAct, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers. Conserved: 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. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a Temporary Protection Plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision -maker. Mitigative measures agglor alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. The subject lands do not include property that is con ' red to b rotected heritage property under the consideration of the PPS, as the subject la do n include perty that is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act 3.2 The Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario HeritageAct, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains the guiding legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario.This Heritage Impact Assessment has been guided by the criteria provided with Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario HeritageAct outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The regulation sets forth categories of criteria and several sub -criteria. 4 3 3.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.G of the Regional Official Plan provides policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources which are related to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment. This includes the acknowledgement of cultural heritage resources as contributing to a unique sense of place, providing a means of defining and confirming a regional identity. The Regional Official Plan includes policies regarding the requirement of Heritage Impact Assessments and outlines their general requirements. May, 2022 MHBC 116 Page 32 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 4.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan Section 12 of the Kitchener Official Plan (2014) provides the following policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources as it relates to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: Objectives 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 ond/ormanagement ofcultural heritage re cesowned ond/or leased by the City. Policies 12.0.1.4. The City acknowledges that not all of the city's cultural heritage resources have been identified as a cultural heritage resource as in Policy 12.01.3. Accordingly, a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. 12.01.5. 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 heritage valu interest on the Municipal Heritage Register and/or designation under the Ontario He ge Act. 12.0:1.21. All development, edevelopment 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. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans 12.01.23. The City will require the submission of Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan fordevelopment, redevelopment andsitealteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed.- a) roposed.a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; May, 2022 MHBC 117 Page 33 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.0:4.6 through 73.C4. 78 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. 12.0:1.25. A Heritage ImpoctAssessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements as outlined in the City ofKitchener's Terms of Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans. 12.0 7.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Reference. In general, the contents of Herita be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; ce for Heritage Impact ,d in a Terms of include, but not b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assess of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse e) considera of offnatives, mitigation and conservation methods; 0 implementation and monitoring, and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. Demolition/Damage of Cultural Heritage Resources 72.0 7.32. 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. 12.0:1.33. 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 May, 2022 MHBC 118 Page 34 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 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. May, 2022 MHBC 119 Page 35 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 4.0 Historical Overview 4.1 Indigenous Communities History First Nations history in Southwestern Ontario is broken into categories and sub -categories, including the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and Woodland periods. The Paleo-Indian period in Waterloo Region was marked by big game hunters following glacial spill -ways as early as 13,000 B.C. By 8,600 B.P., glacial ice had receded to the extent that access to all of Sooty -western Ontario was possible. Paleo-Indian groups were scattered at this time, as was their nomadic nature. The Archaic Period saw an increase in the number and variety of settlements w11h were located near waterways and hunting land. The Woodland Period saw the introd n of horticulture and an increasingly sedentary way of life (Region of Waterloo, 1989). foll ng provides a chronology of First Nations in Southwestern Ontario (See Figure 8). Pmod Group I ime Fiun�"c Comment PALEO-INDIAN Muted 9500-8500 B.C. Big Game hunters; &SDO B.C. small, nomadic groups ARCHAIC Early Side- S 7700 B.0 Nomadic hunters and gatherers turner- 7700 - 6900 B.C. Rifidiblate 6900 - 6000 B.0 Middle - Stem Dints 6000- 3500 B.C. Transincrs to tcmio-1 NDtchedPoints 3500-2500 B.C. settlements Lm: Narrow Points 2500 . 1800 B.0 Bread Points 2500.1500 B.C. Small Points 1300-7008 ' C Glacial Kamc 1000. 800 B.C. Burial ceremonialism WOODLAND Introduction of pottery Early Meadowood 900 - 400 B.C. Adena 400 B.C. - A.D. 1 Middle Saugccru 300 B.C. - A.D. SOD Point Peninsula Princess Point A,D. 500 - 900 Incipient horticulture Late Glen Mayer A.D. 900 - 1300 Transition to village life and agriculture Middleport A,D. 1300 - 1400 Establishment of large palisaded villages Neutral A.D. 1400 - 1650 Tribal differentiation and warfare I11STORtC I�arly Mississauga A.D. 1700-1875 Tribal displacements Late Euro -Canadian A.D. 1800 - present European settlement Figure 9: Cultural Chronology for Southwestern Ontario First Nations (Source: Region of Waterloo, 1989) May, 2022 MHBC 120 Page 36 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener According to the Region of Waterloo Archaeological Master Plan, little is known of native historic settlements and activity in Waterloo Region. Early maps identify that the area was part of the hunting grounds of the Mississauga or Ojibway. As noted in the Acknowledgements section of this report, the subject property is situated on part of the Haldimand Tract, which was promised to the peoples of the Six Nations on the Grand River and is located within the recognized territory of the Anishinaabe peoples (Attiwonderonk (Neutral), Haudenosaunee, and Anishinaabe). According to the teachings of the Anishinabek Nation the Anishinaabe peoples included the Ojibway (Chippewa), Odawa, Potawatomi Nations and formed the Confederacy of the Three Fires. The Ojibway were the providers, the Odawa were the warriors and the Potawatomi were the firekeepers. The Confederacy controlled the hub of the Great Lakes and maintained relationships with the Iroquois Confederacy as well as the British and French. 4.2 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Townshi The subject lands were originally located in WateSo Township Mere pioneer settlement commenced in the late eighteenth century. In 17841Genera climand, then Governor of Quebec, acquired six miles of land on each side of the Grand River from the Mississauga Indians (Bloomfield; 19: 2006). A tract of land 12 miles wide along the course of the Grand River were granted to the Six Nations Indians by the British in recognition of their support during the American Revolution. The land was later divided into four blocks; Block 2 later became Waterloo Township. Brant and the Six Nations drew up aIe of Block 2 in November 1796. The deed was recorded at Newark (Niagara on the La "e) and in ebruary 1798 the title was registered and a Crown Grant was drawn for t lock (McLaughlin, 21: 2007). The buyer was Colonel Richard Beasley, a Loyalist from New Y ho had arrived i`h Canada in 1777. Beasley bought the 93160 acres of land along with his business ners, James Wilson and Jean -Baptiste Rousseaux (Bloomfield, 20: 2006). The land was then surveyed by Richard Cockrell who divided the township into upper and lower blocks (Hayes 3, 1997). At this I me, German Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania were scouting outfarmland in the area. Several of them went backto Pennsylvania and returned with theirfamilies the following year to buy and settle the land (Hayes, 5: 1997). In order to raise the £10,000 needed to purchase their prospective land holdings, the Pennsylvanian farmers, led by Sam Bricker and Daniel Erb, established an association to acquire the approximately 60,000 acres, later known as the German Company Tract (GCT). The deed for the land was finally granted to the German Company and its shareholders on 24 July 1805 (Eby, N-3: 1978). After the arrival of the GCT shareholders, settlement in the GCT slowed. Many immigrants were unable to leave Europe during the Napoleonic War, and the War of 1812 in North America also prevented many settlers from relocating to join their relatives. By 1815 both conflicts had ended, and settlement to the GCT began to increase, with additional Pennsylvania Mennonite settlers, May, 2022 MHBC 121 Page 37 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener German -based settlers, and later English, Irish and Scottish settlers. A number of settlers from England, Scotland and Ireland came to Waterloo Township by assisted immigration and colonization schemes (Bloomfield, 55: 2006). In 1816 the GCT lands and Beasley's lower block were incorporated into Waterloo Township, and in 1853 became part of Waterloo County. Figure 10: Map of Waterloo Township in 1831 showing settled and cultivated land. Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow. (Source: Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries) .+ The GCT was a uni survey t t was done in equal sized farmsteads in contrast to the surrounding lots and con ion is survey pattern had a lasting influence on the township that resulted in an irregular netwo roads which followed the contours of the land and avoided high quality agricultural land. 4.3 Former Village of Bridgeport (Shoemaker's Mills), now part of the City of Kitchener The subject property is located within the former Village of Bridgeport, which was settled beginning in 1807 with the arrival of Peter Erb to Waterloo County (City of Kitchener Corporate Archives, Village of Bridgeport Fonds). What became the Village of Bridgeport was not settled until Joseph Shoemaker purchased part of Lot 59 of the German Company Tract in 1827. Shoemaker established a grist mill and a saw mill in 1829 (Seiling, 1969). Shoemaker is often cited as the founder of the Village of Bridgeport. May, 2022 MHBC 122 Page 38 of 154 r . N" J• .r:�;r x'.13 .;x.IAN VFW l�'� t fs;� •��y ck Figure 10: Map of Waterloo Township in 1831 showing settled and cultivated land. Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow. (Source: Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries) .+ The GCT was a uni survey t t was done in equal sized farmsteads in contrast to the surrounding lots and con ion is survey pattern had a lasting influence on the township that resulted in an irregular netwo roads which followed the contours of the land and avoided high quality agricultural land. 4.3 Former Village of Bridgeport (Shoemaker's Mills), now part of the City of Kitchener The subject property is located within the former Village of Bridgeport, which was settled beginning in 1807 with the arrival of Peter Erb to Waterloo County (City of Kitchener Corporate Archives, Village of Bridgeport Fonds). What became the Village of Bridgeport was not settled until Joseph Shoemaker purchased part of Lot 59 of the German Company Tract in 1827. Shoemaker established a grist mill and a saw mill in 1829 (Seiling, 1969). Shoemaker is often cited as the founder of the Village of Bridgeport. May, 2022 MHBC 122 Page 38 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener The community was first known as 'Shoemaker's Mills', and later 'Glasgow' and 'Lancaster', eventually being recognized officially as the Village of Bridgeport by the mid. 19th century. By this time, the community included both communities on the east and west sides of the Grand River (City of Kitchener Corporate Archives, Village of Bridgeport Fonds). During the first half of the 19th century, the Village of Bridgeport was considered a larger, more industrious community than Berlin (Kitchener) (Zimmerman, 1966). When Bridgeportwas bypassed by the Grand Trunk Railroad, its growth stagnated (City of Kitchener Corporate Archives, Village of Bridgeport Fonds). The early settlers of the Village of Bridgeport were of Pennsylvania German and Mennonite descent, immigrating to the area primarily between 1800 and 1830 (Seiling, 1969). According to Smith's Gazeteer of 1846, 'Shoemaker's Mills' (Bridgeport), was noted Village of the Township of Waterloo, situated west of the Grand River, containing 160 r n with a 'large establishment' including a grist and saw mill, distillery, fulling mill, carding in mill, and cigar manufacturer (Seiling, 1969). According to the County of Waterloo Gazeteer and T;enera.I fisiness Directory for 1864, the Village of Bridgeport was described as being primarily settled byJohn Brimgeman and Jacob S. Shoemaker and lists proprietors as Peter Tagge, Elias Eby, Barnabas Devitt and Thomas Ferrier. By 1864 the Village had a population of 400 persons, mainly of German descent. The Village included a church, school, post office, flouring mill, saw mill, stave factory, linseed oil mill, woollen factory, and others. Many of these industries are noted as being powered by Laurel Creek. The 1884-1885 Waterloo County Gazeteer and Directory describes the village to now include hotels, stores, two churches, and a population or. -t lwmt vill-Ae i rk tiw . towniile i p or lVatcrloo, At LLat€ d fit the Coll fl LI I'iaty uiIaur l Creek villi the Orr.and ILiver. one mile and 1 hnTf from 113� Gmekd Trunk ]tall tiviky track, and 114LI r n n940 &OIn i h0 3 Mrt,hF,-rai I i Gtlit-s u r llJu tOW13 of I lerl i it, •1`hv p4ce waaq ili rat wttIc4 lad 'Dula Lr firi mgemim imil Xm—r)b S. ;6313ouinnh rg :rata arras iliCl Oat :R!A a V'11na far Pet" N. I.liai Eby. I�aimabax Durit.t, :Ltkd Taipmas 1o, Ferrier, the Prn- prir-STA. Figure 11: Excerpt of the County of Waterloo Gazeteer and General Business Directory, 1864 (Village of Bridgeport) (Source: National Archives of Canada) Lancaster House was the first hotel, built in 1840 and situated at the junction of Lancaster and Mill Streets (now the Lancaster Smokehouse, situated approximately 150 metres north of the subject property). Berlin (now the City of Kitchener) and Bridgeport were connected by the Berlin and May, 2022 MHBC 123 Page 39 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Bridgeport Electric Railway, leading to the village becoming a summer retreat (Featherston, 1939). Bridgeport became part of the City of Kitchener in 1973 (City of Kitchener Corporate Archives, Village of Bridgeport Fonds). 63 Figure 12: Early map of Waterloo Township showing subdivided lots of the German Company Tract. Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow, part of Lot 59, west of the Grand River. (Source: Seiling, 1969) Figure 13: Detail of M.C. Schofield map of Berlin, 1853. Approximate location of subject lands denoted in red (south of the 'Lancaster Hotel'). (Source: Kitchener Public Library) May, 2022 M H BC 124 Page 40 of 154 s .. ,. J's..w*" .w• cry RN1 NGS �,,s.cn ,r n.r} 63 Figure 12: Early map of Waterloo Township showing subdivided lots of the German Company Tract. Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow, part of Lot 59, west of the Grand River. (Source: Seiling, 1969) Figure 13: Detail of M.C. Schofield map of Berlin, 1853. Approximate location of subject lands denoted in red (south of the 'Lancaster Hotel'). (Source: Kitchener Public Library) May, 2022 M H BC 124 Page 40 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 14: Detail of Schofield and Hobson Plan of the Village�of Bridgeport of Waterloo County, 1856. Approximate location of the subject property noted with red arrow. Note: The subject lands are not included on this early Plan of Bridgeport. (Source: Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room of Local History) a �- �161d Pro D r „r r I., -i Figure 15: Tremaine Map of Waterloo Township, 1861. Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow. (Source: Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room of Local History) May, 2022 MHBC 125 Page 41 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 16:1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Waterloo & Wellington Counties. Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow (Source: Kitchener Public Library, Grace Sc t Room of Local History) 4.4544-546 Lancaster Street West The property located at 544-546'Lancaster Street West is legally described as follows: -40 Part lot 16 Eby & De's Survey PL 577 Kitchener; Lot 17 Eby & Devitt's Survey PL 577; Lt 18 Eby & Devitt's Survey PL 577; Pt Lot 19 Eby & Devitt's Survey PL 577 Kitchener; Pt Lot 59 German Company TjfCct PT 8 58R 12777; SIT debts in 1491920' Kitchener. The Plan of Survey below indi es the location of the existing buildings in relation to the lot fabric. The two dwellings are located on Part of Lot 59. The two porticos on each of the buildings are located on part of Lots 17 and 18. May, 2022 MHBC 126 Page 42 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener LOT 15 0 Jff, AV. -vy B -IMI NM WTR A7277y 6 7C iL T4 AWY A Pb" 56R- 7777 Al \t AV. LOT T aT ---- — — — — — — Asr Na _-MI) InaF74W 9"M;ares "Mr is LOT 17 .9 i" ._. . ----------- %IV A PUN �5W W77 I LOT 16run I, PLAN MR- M A P.I.N. 22712- 0037 W-) s, -------------- — ---�r ; s": IV LOT 19 iz. - f -A 2. PLAN sm- Big PI N 22712- 0030 41 WATERLO() 'JOKE, IIVI PW' S. PLAN R SM Na 10006M P�?27!_ Figure 17: Plan of Survey of the subject pr e erty boundaries noted in red. The subject property is comprised partially of Part of Lot 59 of the German Company Tract (east half of the lot), as well as part of Lots 16,17, 18, and 19 of Plan 577. The buildings located at 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West are primarily located on Part of Lot 59, with front eleva os loc d on part of Lots 17 and 18, respectively. Therefore, the subject property is art of Eby and Devitt's Survey (Plan 577) dated 1856 and part of Lot 59 of the German Company Tract (See Figure 10 for Plan of Survey). According to records retrieved from the Kitchener Land Registry Office, Richard Beasley and his wife sold Part of Block 2 to Daniel Erb and Jacob Erb in 1805 containing 60,000 acres. This sale included lands within GCT Lot 59. The first reference of a sale of land pertaining specifically to Lot 59 of the German Company Tract occurs in 1805. Here, all 448 acres of Lot 59 were granted from Daniel and Jacob Erb to Susanna Brubacher. Beginning in 1822, Jacob Shoemaker began to acquire lands within Lot 59 of the GCT. He purchased 212 acres in 1822 from John Brubacher, and 222 acres in 1833 from John Brubacher. At this time, 14 acres of Lot 59 remained owned by the Brubacher family. Jacob Shoemaker (also written as 'Schumaker') constructed several mills and industries shortly after. He sold his mills and May, 2022 MHBC 127 Page 43 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener lands (434 acres) to Elias Eby in 1850 and subsequently moved to Preston (now part of the City of Cambridge). By 1856, Plan 577 was registered and Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19 were created (which encompasses the west part of the subject property). However, the 1856 Plan does not indicate any buildings, suggesting the two buildings were not yet constructed. The existing buildings are not indicated on the 1861 Tremaine Map or the 1877 Historical Atlas map. Isaac. E. Shantz was granted part of Lot 59 of the German Company Tract in 1873 as per Instrument no. 5684. This transaction included part of lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 of Plan 577 as well as part of Lot 59. It is likely that I.E. Shantz constructed the existing buildings shortly after acquiring the lands from Elias Eby in 1873. Existing instruments and deeds available at the City of Kitchener Land Registry Office do not offer any information as to why two separate buildings were constructed within close proximity to each other or whether or not they were constructed at t same time. Figure 18: Detail of the Plan of the Village of Bridgeport of Waterloo County, 1856. Approximate location of the two houses located on the subject property at 544-546 Lancaster Street West noted in red (not to scale) (Source: Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room of Local History) May, 2022 MHBC 128 Page 44 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 4.5 Eby & Shantz, Hamel & Rothaermel Elias Eby & Isaac E. Shantz Isaac Erb Shantz likely constructed the buildings located at what is now 544-546 Lancaster Street West as per a review of records available from the Land Registry. Isaac E. Shantz (son of Samuel and Susannah Erb), was born 1839 and is noted as being a farmer, merchant, and owner of a planning mill and foundry and other industries. I.E. Shantz married Magdalena Eby, who was the eldest daughter of Elias Eby (the original owner of the subject lands in the early 19th century after Jacob Shoemaker). Elias Eby purchased the majority of Lot 59 of the German Com the 1850s, which included Shoemaker's house as well as hisj to local history records, Elias Eby did not reside on the sum ract from Jacob Shoemaker in d other industries. According 6,as he took up residence in Jacob Shoemaker's house which was adjacent to his mills (north of thject property). The majority of references to Isaac Erb Shantz in Bridgeport Directories list him as a farmer on Lot 59, U.B. (Upper Block/German Company TracLot 59) between 1885 and 1890 (See Figure 12). This reference (as well as land titles and instrumets) indicates that the subject property included the majority of lands on the east side of Lancaster Street West west of the Grand River) and operated as a farm. "0^1 LANCASTER STAVE, HEADING, SIINGLE, —A- r)— Patent Coiled Hoops Factory --e T. E. 5HAZXTZ3, .1, P3101-UXETORm Keeps constantly on hand a full stock of 5taTes, Heading, 5bingles, Patent Coiled Hoops, Carriage and Waggon Hubs, Broom Handles, &e., of the very best duality, and on reasonable terms. —U— THE THE PATENT COILED HGOPS CLAIM PARTICULAR ATTENTION. —0— A&- Coopers, Carriage Makers and Builders supplied on short notice :aR117c3-S1=30RT, CO_ OF WA'Z'ER1,OO, OXT07. LANCASTER FLOUR M S Figure 19: Excerpt of Advertisement for I.E. Shantz Co., retrieved from the 1878 Waterloo County Directory (Source: 1878 Directory for the County of Waterloo) May, 2022 MHBC 129 Page 45 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener -- �r •••••.•�.... �a rva aua� v ■ u. avu VU, Shantz Ephraim (German Miller U. B. lot 50, farmer 148 Shantz Franklin (Waterloo) U, B. lot 9, farmer Shantz $enry B. • Berlin) U. B. lot 37,' farmer 100 Shantz Isaac B. Waterloo) U. B. lot 44, farmer 196 'auftuLZ J&cav VA. and X004M J& 4r'reeport) B. F. lot 13, farmers lease of Samuel Y. 230 Shantz Jacob W.Berlin) U. B. lot 120, laborer Shantz Ja&b Y. glia) U. B. lot 60, farmer 473 Shantz John W(Brims) U. B. lot 114, fetmer leaser of } _ Y. 182 Figure 20: Excerpt of the 1885 Waterloo County Directory (Source: 1885 Directory for the County of Waterloo) Further confirmation as to this is provided by Idessa Zimm Tweedsmuir history book of the Village of Bridgeport which® houses which were converted into apartments (Shadovy#wr OTHER EARLY STRIES n (Bridgeport historian), in the �t I.E. Shantz owned two large Shingle Factory owner Isaac Shantz The first factory in Bridgeport was a shingle factory, owned by Isaac Shantz, who arrived in Galt May 26 1806. Isaac Shantz owned the large houses which are now (7 954) the Shadow Lawn Apartments. Mr. Isaac Shantz had hired many servants, one of them was Susannah Kreutzwieser (Mrs:John Schaefer) who worked there as a servant at the age of 12 looking after small children, and worked there until she was 21, and earned 0.50 cents a month. Isaac E. Shantz served as a local councillor in 1872 and as a County Councillor also in 1872. He became postmaster in Bridgeport in1878. He is noted as moving to Berlin in 1883, residing on College Street. He set up further industries in Berlin, including a foundry (manufacturing stoves, boilers, engines, etc.) known as I.E. Shantz and Co. Isaac E. Shantz died in 1908 (Bloomfield, 1995). Hamel & Rothaermel In 1901, Isaac E. Shantz sold the subject property to Conrad Hamel. At this time, the land was purchased for $6,000.00 which suggests a house was included with the land at this time. Conrad Hamel sold to his son Andrew Hamel shortly afterwards for the same price. Andrew Hamel was born 1867 (died 1929) and is noted as a retired farmer according to his death certificate. Andrew Hamel married Maria Doering in 1893. Andrew and Maria had a daughter, Pearl Duella Hamel who was born in 1894 (died 1970). The 1911 census for the Village of Bridgeport May, 2022 MHBC 130 Page 46 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener (Waterloo Township) confirms that Andrew Hamel, wife Maria and daughters Pearl and Mildred resided in Bridgeport. Andrew Hamel is listed as a farmer. ■ —. -OL,u � �/_ r8 N1r f1A At � �..�IK�r .1_._. _- .1 . �f� yr •' ;� � �rr11 d-r� rias 7 ?Q csf ,.,1!1slr� rd i ,;. A' e at &.L.., � 1rL �I► SP1!+iT Figure 21: Excerpt of the 1911 Census of Bridgeport (Waterloo Township), noting Andrew Hamel, age 43, farmer of German descent. (Source: Ancestry.ca) Pearl D. Hamel married Earl Rothaermel in 1916. The subject property was granted to Pearl Rothaermel (nee Hamel) by the estate of Andrew Hamel (her fathin 1939. According to descendants of the Hamel-Rothaermel family, the tvvQ buildings were converted into apartments in the early 1900s. It is unknown if these alter ions took place when the property was owned by either A. Hamel or P. Rothaermel (nee Ha . These buildings are likely the 'Shadow Lawn' apartments noted by Idessa Zimmerman in t wee uir history books. Pearl Rothaermel subdivided the lot over the burse of her'wnership and the existing lot has been retained with the two dwellings at 544 and 546 Lancaster StreetWest. According to the 1921 census of Waterloo Township, Earl E. Rothaermel is noted as residing in a brick house with 9 rooms in the Village of Bridgeport with his wife Purl (See Figure15& 16). tai Cfrrs - :Ali '' bw apFigure 22: Excerpt of the 1921 Census of!Bridgeport (Waterloo Township), noting Earl Rothaermel (bookkeeper), and wife Pearl Duella, residing in a 9 room,house of brick construction. (Source: Ancestry.ca) In May, 2022 MHBC 131 Page 47 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 23: Early 20" ce Ancestry.ca) According to the 1 addressed as 582-58, patios and addition (Aiii) was nbt yet constructed. May, 2022 �rmel (nee Hamel) (Source: lands were previously e existina rear concrete MHBC 132 Page 48 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 24: Detail of 1908 (revised 1947) Fire Insurance Plan. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. (Source: University of Waterloo Rare,Book RoomDana Porter Library) Other portions of landbel ing to A:,Hamel were sold to Pearl and Earl Rothaermel through the 1920s and 1930s, including parts of Lot 0 and 18 (on which part of the existing building stands). By the mid. 19th century, the property became smaller, having subdivided lots along Lancaster Street West sold by both members of the Hamel and Rothaermel families. Pearl D. and Earl Emmanuel Rothaermel were survived by their son Gerald Maurice Rothaermel (b. 1924). Pearl D. Rothaermel passed in 1970, while Gerald "Gerry' Maurice Rothaermel passed away in 2018. Gerald's wife, Lorraine Pauline Rothaermel (nee Borsje) passed away in 1990. The Obituary of Gerald Maurice Rothaermel notes that he was a hockey player (Waterloo Siskins) and served in the Canadian Air Force in WWII. Also, that he was employed in both the insurance and 'marine' business, which may confirm the presence of the Fish Hatchery (described in this report as the addition (Aiii) to 546 Lancaster Street West) noted by a descendant of Gerald Rothaermel. May, 2022 MHBC 133 Page 49 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener p I�z j W-1 Figure 25: Photograph of IWO Maurice Rothaermel (current registered owner) and wife Lorraine Rothaermel (nee Borje). (Source: Ancestry.ca) IL ld� The 1997 aerial photograph of the property confirms the presence of the two buildings and the barn/garage, which was previously owned by the Region of Waterloo (now demolished) it is unknown whether or not this structure (which appears to include two chimneys at the roofline) was a barn or outbuilding which was originally associated with this property. May, 2022 M H BC 134 Page 50 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 26: 1997 Aerial Photo noting location of 546 and 544 Lancaster Street West and structure previously located to the south on a sub -divided lot (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Map, Accessed August 2019) a v May, 2022 MHBC 135 Page 51 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 5.0 Description of Subject Property 5. 1 Description of 544-546 Lancaster Street West The property located at what is now 544-546 Lancaster Street West can be described as an irregular shaped lot approximately 1.7 acres in size. A review of abstracts available from the City of Kitchener Land Registry Office provides evidence that property was much larger in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and included adjacent lots fronting the east side of Lancaster Street West as far east as the Grand River. The subject property is located west of the Grand River as well as the Walter Bean Grand River Trail and the former line of the Canadian National Railway. Historic maps of the property note the location of a fresh water spring which cut south-east across the property towards Kitchener. The property currently includes two dwellings. Both dwellings are oriented west to face Lancaster Street West and are situated a short distance apart from each other (approximately 1.5 metres). The space between the two buildings now includes a concrete pathway which leads to a patio behind 546 Lancaster Street West. Figures 27 & 28: (left) View of 546 and 544 Lancaster Street West looking east from Lancaster Street West, (right) View of Lancaster Street West looking south-west from north side of roundabout driveway. (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 136 Page 52 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener The property is accessed via a circular driveway which includes a parking area and connects to a secondary access route that is now partially located on the adjacent property to the south at 528 Lancaster Street West. The remains of a barn or garage are located on this adjacent property, which was demolished at some point between 1997 and 2000. According to the 1908 (revised 1947) Fire Insurance Plan, this was the previous location of a storage shed for trucks and was owned by the Corporation of Waterloo County. It is unknown at this time whether or not this was the location of a barn or similar structure associated with the subject property and its original farming operations. Figures 29 & 30: (left) View of cedars and roundabout driveway with parking area looking west towards Lancaster Street West, (right) View of adjacent property to the south with access to the roundabout driveway. (Source: MHBC, 2019) The property is generously shaded with large trees, including white cedar, horse chestnut, Norway spruce, Blue Spruce (in front of the house), and one magnolia tree. Figures 31 & 32: (left) View of 544 Lancaster Street West and blue spruce trees, (right) View of Norway Spruce located west of the dwellings (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 137 Page 53 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener T c Figures 33 & 34: (left) View of discontinued well surrounded by cedars, (right) View of narrow walkway between 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West. (Source: MHBC, 2019) A& Figures 35 & 36: (left) View o io stos along terraced open grass area, (right) View of treehouse, located north- east of the buildings on a slope of land in a naturalized area (Source: MHBC, 2019) th The following provides an aerial photograph of the property which identifies the location of laneways, buildings, and other features in order to obtain a more accurate understanding of the site. It is important to note that not all features which are indicated on the following diagram are of heritage interest. The two dwellings located on the property are noted as 546 and 544 Lancaster Street West, respectively (structures "A" and "B"). The additions to 546 Lancaster Street West are noted as "Ai", "Aii", and "Aiii". May, 2022 MHBC 138 Page 54 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener The above map does not indicate heritage resources, but is provided to understand where built features are located within proximity to each other. (Source City of Kitchener Interactive Maps, Accessed July 2019) . , . , Identifier ription Construction Date A 54 caster eet West (yellow) c. 1873 Ai Addit7i%JLJF Bet. 1873-1947 Aii Addition urple) Bet. 1873-1947 Aiii Concrete Hatchery (red) Post 1947 B 544 Lancaster Street West (orange) c. 1873 Blue star Treehouse Contemporary Yellow star Well Likely 20th century White dashed line Concrete walkway 20th Century Blue rectangle Former garage location (demolished) n/a Black dashed line Property boundary n/a Red dashed Drivewav n/a line May, 2022 MHBC 139 Page 55 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 5.2 Description of Built Heritage Resources The following provides a detailed description of the two buildings located on the subject property. The two buildings are located within close proximity of each other and are oriented west towards Lancaster Street West. The two buildings are both of buff or yellow brick construction and are similar in their design. Both buildings are of side -gabled construction with steeply pitched front gables with lancelet windows which are typical of the Gothic Revival architectural style. Both buildings have been altered and divided as apartment units. The building located at 546 Lancaster Street West includes three apartment units. The building located at 544 Lancaster Street West includes two apartment units. Upon inspection of the two buildings (interior and exterior) they have both undergone substantial changes in order to convert them into apartment units. Due to the presence, quality, and style of existing fixtures, doors, heating systems, (etc.) in both buildings, it appears that these alterations took place shortly after the turn -of -the -century. Bot uildin s have exposed stone foundations which have been parged. Both buildings include f e ces which are likely not original, as evidenced from existing brick layouts. Figure 38: Aerial photo noting the approximate location of built features at 544-546 Lancaster Street West (not to scale) (Source City of Kitchener Interactive Maps, Accessed July 2019) May, 2022 M H BC 140 Page 56 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 39: View of 546 (lett) and 544 (right) Lancaster Street 'Nest looking east from driveway (Source: MHBC, 2019) 5.2.1 546 Lancaster Str est 546 Lancaster Street west escribed as a 1 '/2 storey buff brick single detached residential building with a side -gabled r7W and steeply pitched front gable with lancelet arch window. The front facade of the building includes stone quoins, two gable windows within the roofline and were likely added to the building after the 201h century at the time both buildings were altered to include apartment units. The building includes Common or American bond brick laying techniques. The building is described in this report as including the original (primary) portion constructed in 1873 as Section "A", and three rear additions which are described as Sections "Ai", "Aii", and "Aiii". May, 2022 MHBC 141 Page 57 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 546 Lancaster — EXTERIOR West (front) Elevation The building located at 546 Lancaster Street Westin cludes a five bay front facade. The central door is flanked by two 6x6 wood frame windows on either side with fixed wood storm windows. Each window at the first floor above the basement level includes stone sills. The front entrance has been altered extensively as evidenced from the original brick layout (See Figure 33). The original front entrance appears to have included an arched opening (See Figure 34). Further, upon close inspection of the first and second floors, there appears to be evidence of a former verandah due to the patina and wear patterns of the brick. The existing entrance includes a portico supported by two pilasters along the brick wall and two wood columns. The existing deck of the portico is accessed by steps, which appear to be of recent construction. The front entrance includes two recessed doors which are angled towards the interior with three -pane fixed wood framed transoms above. Th two doors access the first and second floor apartment units. Two early 20th century style m ' xes ve been added at either side of the existing portico. Figure 40: View of 546 Lancaster Street West looking east from driveway (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 142 Page 58 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 41: Detail of front entrance at 546 Lancaster noting evidence of original arched entrance with red arrows. (Source: MHBC, 2019) The half storey above includes two dormer style windows within the roofline on either side of a steeply pitched front gable. The two dormer windows include deep cornices and appear to be of new construction as the windows themselves are contemporary and each window opening does not include stone sills. The central lancet window opening includes a stone drip mould and stone sill. The lancet window includes a fixed pane above two vertical 8 wood pane windows. May, 2022 MHBC 143 Page 59 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figures 42 & 43: (left) Detail view of original lancelet window with stone drip mould below gable, (right) View of altered basement window and cement/plaster foundation to resemble faux ce,&ent blocks (Source: MHBC, 2019) North Elevation The north elevation provides a view of the main portion of th buildings well as a portion of the existing rear addition. This addition provides access into Unio.1. Views of the main portion of the building provide two 6x6 pane windows on the main and second floors. The building was cleverly designed to include flush brickvoussoirs above windows with wood sills as to reduce construction and material costs on the facades which were not visible from the street. Views of the rear addition entrance from the north elevation include a lean-to roof and wood frame door. The door opening includes a flush brick voisir. The north side of the rear addition provides two windows at two different levels, each having flush brick voussoirs. One of the windows have C Figures 44 & 45: (left) View of north elevation of 546 Lancaster Street West, looking east towards addition (Ai) and entrance to Unit no. 1 (right) View of north elevation of additions (Ai) and (Aii) Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 144 Page 60 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener East (rear) Elevation Views of the main portion of east (rear) elevation of the building includes views of basement entrances and windows as well as main and second storey windows. The rear elevation at grade provides access to the basement. Here, one door is located to the south and includes a bracketed roof. A window to towards the north has been replaced with a modern window and board and batten. A small square window has been added between these two openings. At the main level, three window openings are provided with flush brick voussoirs. The windows at this level have been altered as evidenced by the colour, quality and patina of bricks. The dormer windows within the roofline are modern and were likely added after 1900. The rear elevation includes evidence of a former lean-to structure (See Figures 39 &41). A concrete Figures 46&47: (left) View of altered wi: dow openings at east (rear) elevation of 546 Lancaster Street West (right) View of rear elevation of 546 Lancaster S t west including concrete patio and rear additions (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 145 Page 61 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figures 48&49: (left) Detail view of rear elevation of 54( (since removed) above former entrance which has been altered to include a window, (right) Detail view of concrete patio and stairs between 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West (Source: MHBC, 2019 The east (rear) elevation of the rear additions (Ai and Aii) can be described as a simple front-end gable buff brick design with 6x6 window below the gabre peak. A poured concrete structure towards the east of the main dwelling provides a portion of the existing patio. Access to the interior of this structure is available from the east. According to the current owner of the building (whose family has resided on the property f r 118 years) indicated that this structure may have been a fish hatchery (See Figure 44). Figures 50 & 51: (left) View of south and east elevations of additions (Ai and Aii) at 546 Lancaster Street West (right) View of entrance to poured concrete structure (Aiii) looking west (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 146 Page 62 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener South Elevation The south elevation of the main portion of the building includes four windows. All of which are located east of the existing brick chimney. This includes two rectangular windows at the main floor (one of which has been altered to include a smaller window), and two smaller rectangular windows above, all having flush brick voussoirs. The original stone foundation of the building is exposed at the south elevation below a header bond brick string course (See Figures 45 & 46). Figures 52 & 53: (left) View of south-east corner of 546 Lancaster Street West looking north-west, (right) View of south elevation of 546 Lancaster Street West looking north-east, (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 147 Page 63 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure (Source: MHBL, 2019) w � " blocks The south elevation of the rear additions (Ai and Aii) provide views of two entrances, two windows, and a brick chimney between the two buildings. Red coloured bricks are exposed at the south elevation of addition (Aii) are spalling and have been substantially damaged (See Figures 48 & 49). The entrance to the west provides access to Unit no. 1. The entrance to the east provides access to a shed. May, 2022 M H BC 148 Page 64 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figures 55 & 56: (left) View of patio stones along terraced open grass area, (right) View of treehouse, located north- east of the buildings on a slope of land in a naturalized area (Source: MHBC, 20 546 Lancaster — INTERIOR Unit 1 Unit 1 is accessed from the rear addition Ai at either the south or west elevations See Figure 55 & 58). The unit has been extensively renovated and the interior does not include original features with the exception of an 18th century barn style door (See Figure 52). As previously noted, this addition (Ai) was likely a summer kitchen, wood shed or similar structure. Unit 1 is located adjacent to a shed/garage type of structure and is also accessed at the south elevation (addition Aii) (See Figures 50 & 51). Figures 57 & 58: (left) View of south elevations of additions (Ai and Aii) looking north, noting location of damage to red bricks with red arrow (right) View of access to Unit no.1 at 546 Lancaster Street West, looking east (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 149 Page 65 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figures 59 & 60: (left) View of living area within Unit 1 of 546 Lancaster noting location of barn style door with red arrow, (right) View of bedroom area of Unit 1, located above shed within AdditjW (Ai) (Source: MHBC, 2019) Figures 61 & 62: (left) View of en`within unit 1 noting the presence of late 20" century fixtures and materials, (right) View of basement (accessed from Units -,I and 2) noting presence of drywall and other materials which completely cover any existing flooring, beams, sill plates, etc. (Source: MHBC, 2019) Figures 63 & 64: (left) View of interior of shed/addition (Aii) looking north, (right) View of interior of shed/addition (Aii) within portion of structure below grade (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 150 Page 66 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Unit 2 Unit 2 of 546 Lancaster Street West is located on the main floor. The unit has been renovated and does not include any 19th century features. The unit includes doors and other fixtures which are early 201h century. Stairs within Unit 2 giving basement access may be original to the structure as they are steep/spiraling, which is typical of the 19th century. Views of the basement walls, sub -floors, etc. within this unit have been covered with drywall and do not offer information related to the construction of the house. Figures 65 & 66: (left) View of kitchen area within unit 2, looking north, (right) View of interior of unit 2, looking east noting room layout, materials and 20" century fixtures (Source: MHBC, 2019) Figures 67 & 68: (left) View of narrow and winding basement stairs which are likely dated to the 19th century, (right) View of small portion of basement ceiling/sub-flooring covered with sheet rock/drywall, (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 151 Page 67 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Unit 3 Unit 3 of 546 Lancaster Street West is located on the second floor of the building. The unit is accessed via stairs and includes a craftsman style banister which is indicative of the early 1911 century. The majority of windows and other fixtures throughout this unit are either dated to the early 201h century or late 20th century (including dormer style windows). Figures 69&70: (left) View of stair access to Unit 3, looki west towards staircase (Source: MHBC, 2019) X of craftsman style wood banister, looking Figures 71 & 72: (left) View of Unit 3, looking east towards modern windows in dormers (right) View of kitchen area within Unit 3, looking north (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 152 Page 68 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 5.2.3 544 Lancaster Street West EXTERIOR The building located at 544 Lancaster Street West is essentially a smaller, simplified version of the building at 546 Lancaster Street West, which is located approximately 1.5 metres to the north. 544 Lancaster Street West can be described as a 1 1/2 storey buff brick building with side gables and steeply pitched front gable with lancelet window. However, this building is slightly smaller in size compared to its neighbouring 'twin' building and includes a 3 bay facade (as opposed to a 5 bay facade) and does not display brick sills, voussoirs, drip moulds, or quoins at any elevation. Figure 73: View of 544 Lancaster Street West, looking east towards front elevation (Source: MHBC, 2019) West (front) Elevation The building at 544 Lancaster Street West was also constructed with American/Common bond bricks. This building does not include evidence of an earlier arched entrance at the front facade. It currently includes the same style of recessed entrance with two doors angled into each other, with transoms above (See Figure 66). The entrance includes a wood frame portico which is likely of 201h century construction. Two mail boxes are located on either side of the portico. May, 2022 MHBC 153 Page 69 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener The building originally included four basement windows at the west (front) facade, two of which have been bricked -over. The two first floor windows on either side of the portico include contemporary windows within the original window openings, having flush brick voussoirs above. The lancelt window above includes what is likely the original wood frame window with a double - row flush brick voussoir above. The two dormer windows at the front facade were added at some point in the early 201h century and are similar to those of the adjacent building at 546 Lancaster Street West. A chimney can be seen at the south end of the building. North Elevation The north elevation of 544 Lancaster Street West is visible from the small walkway between the two Figures 74 & 75: View of walkway between 546 and 544 Lancaster Street West, noting bricked -over window openings at north elevation of 544 Lancaster Street West, (right), Detail view of bricked -over window at north elevation of 544 Lancaster Street West (Source: MHBC, 2019) May, 2022 MHBC 154 Page 70 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener East (rear) Elevation The east (rear) elevation includes views of the exposed stone foundation and basement access at grade. This includes one entrance with bracketed roof structure and two rectangular window openings with 2x2 wood frame windows with wood sills and brick voussoirs. Three windows are provided at the main floor. While the northerly window appears to retain the original window opening, the two existing windows to the south have been altered as evidenced by alterations to the brick walls. Three 2011 century dormer windows are located within or above the roofline and include modern windows. Figures 76 & 77: (left) View of east (rear) elevation of 544 LancasStreet West (right) Detail view of basement entrance and window openings set within stone foundation (Source: MHBC, 2019) South Elevation The south elevation includes two basement windows within the stone foundation, one of which has been enclosed with stones and mortar. Two windows are located at the first storey, the easterly window having been altered to include a smaller window. Both window openings have been replaced with modern vinyl windows. Two window openings are located at the second floor below the gable and have been altered as evidenced from changes to the brick walls. The only original window opening is located at the first storey towards the west and includes a flush brick voussoir (See Figure 70). INTERIOR — 544 Lancaster Street West Unit 4 Unit 4 is located on the main floor of the building. The floors, walls, fixtures, and other main components of the interior have been altered and are indicative of the early 20th century. No 1911 century features are visible at the interior of this unit. May, 2022 MHBC 155 Page 71 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figures 78 & 79: (left) View of hallway and washroom within Unit 4, looking east, (right) View of kitchen area, looking — it nntinn 7(1tF —nti in/ fivti i—c 4—tnrinIc (C— ir— NAWPC 701 Q1 Figures 80& 81: (left) View of hallway and kitchen area within Unit 4, looking north towards hallway, (right) View of bedroom and hallway within Unit 4, noting 20" century fixtures and materials (Source: MHBC, 2019) Unit 5 Vr Unit 5 of 544 Lancaster Street West is located on the second floor. As with unit 4 below, it also includes floors, walls, fixtures and other main components which are indicative of the early 20th century. The only features of the interior which can be dated to the 19th century includes the wood frame Gothic lancet window (See Figure 77). May, 2022 MHBC 156 Page 72 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figures 82 & 83: (left) View of stair access to Unit 5, looking west, (right) View of bathroom within Unit 5 noting 20`F Figures 84&85: View of lanceletwindow wit Unit 5,looking west, (right) View of living area within Unit 5, looking south-west towards dormer windows (Source: BC, 2019) IV May, 2022 MHBC 157 Page 73 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 6.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources The following sub -sections of this report provide an evaluation of the subject lands as per Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. These criteria have been adopted as standard practice in determining significant cultural heritage value or interest. 6.1 Evaluation Criteria Ontario Regulation 9/06 prescribes that that: A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more or the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest.- The nterest. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to on understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of on architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. May, 2022 MHBC 158 Page 74 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 6.2 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Landscapes (544-546 Lancaster Street West) A cultural heritage landscape is defined by Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as follows: Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified os having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit identifies that a Cultur4'Heritage Landscape or Heritage Conservation District may be classified as either designed (purposely planned), evolved (grown over a period of time), static/relict (evolutionary process has ended), or dynamic (continuing to evolve). a Cultural Heritage Landscapes are identified and evaluated based on their associative/historical value, such as with themes or events, the identification of a grouping of heritage resources within a defined area, and its value as determined by a community based on local histories and public consultations, for example. 16"The subject lands ar<1ed adjacent to the Grand River Corridor (L-GRC-1), which was identified as a potential Culture Landscape as per a review of the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study reCHL Study document identifies that this area generally follows the meandering route of the Grand River (identified as a Canadian Heritage River) through Waterloo Township from Kiwanis Parkto the north and Fountain Road South. The City of Kitchener CHL report identifies the Character Defining Features of this potential CHL as follows: • Bowstring bridge at Bridgeport c.1934 • Remnant bridge pier in the middle of the river south of Bridgeport; • View along river through forested area; • View along valley towards Bridgeport crossing. The property at 544-546 Lancaster Street West is not located within the boundary of the L-GRC-1 Cultural Heritage Landscape and the property at 544-546 Lancaster Street West is not specifically identified in the description of the CHL report as making an important contribution to this potential CHL. May, 2022 MHBC 159 Page 75 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener This report demonstrates that property located at 544-546 Lancaster Street West has been significantly altered since it was purchased by I.E. Shantz in 1873, who likely constructed the existing two residential buildings shortly thereafter. Circumstantial evidence and available documentation at the Land Registry Office as well as available census data notes that a) I.E. Shantz was a farmer on the Upper Block, Lot 59 (of the German Company Tract) during this time, and b) his landholdings not only included the existing lot fabric, but also included lands to the north, east, and south resulting in a much larger parcel of land situated west of the Grand River, east of Lancaster Street West. Therefore, the subject property has changed considerably from its original form and character when it was first settled and used as a farm in the 1870s. Therefore, a defined geographical area may meet the criteria of a Cultural Heritage Landscape, but may not culminate in a grouping of landforms and features which make an important contribution to the understanding of a place, event, or people (such as Xce5sory s community of Bridgeport). Typical agricultural farmsteads include a dwelling, barn (an structures), cultivated fields, hedgerows, orchards, gardens, and a circulation system (la eways and paths). These buildings and features were placed intentionally and systematically in order to make use of the natural resources of the landscape and topography to support the function of the landscape for agricultural purposes. Alterations to the subject property include the significant reduction in lot size which likely supported a working agricultural farm with cultivated fields. It also includes the removal of original barn(s) and/or outbuildings (such as sheds, stables, etc.). Land titles and deeds of the original lot fabric indicate that a fresh water spring was located on the property, and has since been either removed, channeled or r -routed. The existing landsca an be descr ,be�s an urban residential lot. Its former agricultural features and settlement pattern ve been r� moved. Others have been added after the 19th century when the two existing buildings were converted to apartments. This includes the existing parking area, and ornamental trees and pAtings (including Norway Spruce, which is indicative of early 1911 century), and open landscaped areas and gardens and patio areas. The property retains its general context, being situated between the Grand River and Lancaster Street West in the former Village of Bridgeport. Therefore, subject property has been altered to the extent that it is not representative of the typical pattern of a mid. 19th century agricultural landscape and does not make an important contribution to the understanding of a theme, event, or people, including. Further, the subject property (including its remaining features of the original farm/residential complex) are not associated with the first wave of development in the historic Village of Bridgeport. Buildings and features associated with the first wave of settlement are dated between approximately 1830-1850 when Bridgeport May, 2022 M H BC 160 Page 76 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener (formerly Shoemakers Mills' and Lancaster) was centered on the milling operations and industries of Jacob Shoemaker. The only remaining features of the original landscape are a) the two residential buildings (now apartments) within close proximity of each other, and b) their original location in-situ and orientation to Lancaster Street West. It is possible that the existing circular laneway is also a remnant of the former farm complex. However, this cannot be conclusively determined. The property remains associated with the overall theme of the second wave of settlement of the community of Bridgeport and its evolution from an early 19th century mill town to its existing character as an urban annexation to the City of Kitchener. 6.3 Evaluation of Built Heritage Resources '14 4 The following provides an evaluation of the property as per Ontan ulation 9/06. This following sub -sections pertain to both buildings located at 544-546 Lancaster t West as their historical descriptions are similar. However, the section which identifies heritage attributes has been described separately. Design/Physical The property located at 544-546 Lancaster Street west has design/physical value as it includes two residential buildings, described in this report as 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West, respectively. While the buildings were likely constructed in the Gothic Revival architectural style, they have been altered for the purpose of converting them into two separate apartment buildings, noted in historical document t* s the'Shadow Lawn Apartments'. These alterations likely occurred in the early 201h century un he ownership of either the Hamel or Rothaermel families as evidenced by i the style, quality, and patina of materials and fixtures (including the presence of craftsman style features throughout the interiors). The alterations at the exterior of both buildings have resulted in the removal of original features (such as entrances), and the addition of others (such as dormer windows set within the roofline). While this is true, these alterations do not necessarily lessen the design value of the buildings. Instead, the alterations have resulted in a uniquely altered Gothic Revival building to include early 19th century style features. The Ministry of Heritage, Sport,Tourism and Culture Industries provides guidance in the integration of different architectural styles in a builtfeature as per the EightGuiding Principlesin the Conservation ofBuilt Heritage Properties InfoSheet as follows: Respect for the Building's History: Do not restore to one period at the expense of another period. Do not destroy later additions to a building or structure solely to restore to a single time period. May, 2022 MHBC 161 Page 77 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Further, the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines (2010) provide that, Conserve changes to an historic place that, over time, have become character -defining elements in their own right. Therefore, the existing alterations to the buildings do not necessarily diminish its design/physical value. In this particular case, the existing alterations may be considered character -defining elements in their own right and are the result of the evolution of the property and its change in use from agricultural/residential to apartment/residential. The 201h century alterations have enabled some of the Gothic Revival architectural attributes at the front facade to remain. Overall, the two original portions of the buildings (Buildings "A", and "B", including their overall frame, construction, bays, and rhythm and massing) are consider representative of the Gothic Revival architectural style and are dated to the later half of the century. They do not display a high degree of craftsmanship, artistic merit, or tech nical/sci i hievement. Building "A" (546 Lancaster Street West) includes thre ar additions, which are described in this report as Sections "Ai", "Aii", and "Aiii". These portions of thej&ilding are secondary and have less design/physical value than that of the original portions of the building. The rear additions ("Ai", and "Aii" do not include the same architectural features indicative of the Gothic Revival style and were not designed to be prominent features visible from the public realm. Instead, they are accessory structures which likely housed a summer kitchen or similar function. Section "Aiii" was constructed in the mid. 201h century and is a poured concrete structure partially located below grade. This portion of the structure may have once been used as a fish hatchery. Sections "Ai", "Aii", and "Aiii" are therefore not of significant design/physical value. Historical/Associative The subject property has associative value related to the theme of the second wave of development of the Village of Bridgeport as well as I.E. Shantz, who likely constructed both of the existing buildings. The property has also been held in ownership by the Hamel-Rothaermel families for over 118 years, with Gerald Maurice Rothaermel being a notable figure in history for his service in the Canadian Air Force during World War II. Subject property does not necessarily have the potential to yield any additional information which would aid in the understanding of the former Village of Bridgeport. This criterion is noted by the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries as being primarily related to buried archaeological resources which may or may not be present. The builder/architect is not noted in the historic record, but should be added to the historic record should it be discovered in the future. Contextual May, 2022 MHBC 162 Page 78 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener The property does not demonstrate significant contextual value as it does not support the surrounding character of the area. The context of the area has changed from the small town village of Bridgeport and now functions as an urban annexation to the City of Kitchener. The subject property is located in the vicinity of paved parking pads and a mix of urban residential and commercial uses to the north, west and south. The subject property itself maintains its overall setting and context, (i.e. its location west of the Grand River, east of Lancaster Street West) and is a remnant part of the historic community of Bridgeport (previously Shoemakers' Mills and Lancaster), now part of the City of Kitchener. Further, the two buildings located at 544-546 Lancaster Street West have a contextual relationship to each other. As noted above,the historic record does not indicate whythe two existing buildings are sited within close proximity to each other. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that one (or both) of the buildings were used for one of Shantz' industrial operations or had a significant functional relationship to its surroundings, such as the use of waterpower supplied by the nearby Grand River. Therefore, there is no evidence to support that the buildi gs have a si nificant relationship to the property in terms of function, views or historical links. 8 The building may not necessarily be considered a local landffiark as it was never identified as being significant on any previous heritage inventories. Heritage Attributes The following provides a list of attributes for the buildings located at 546 Lancaster Street West, and 544 Lancaster Street West, respectively: .AV' 546 Lancaster Street West (Section "A") ti- • Overall 1 '/2 storey buff brick construction with 5 -bay facade and Common or American bond brick laying technique with stone string course above the stone foundation (now parged); • Side -gabled roof with steeply pitched front gable with original window opening including stone sill, stone drip mould, and wood frame lancelet arch window; • Stone quoins at the north-west and south-west corners of the front facade; • Existing west (front) facade entrance, including evidence of original arched bricks as well as the inset and angled set of doors under a pair of rectangular 3 -pane transom with corresponding mailboxes set into the brick, • Existing window dormers at the west (front) elevation and corresponding window openings; May, 2022 MHBC 163 Page 79 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener • All existing window openings at the west (front) facade, including those set within the parged stone foundation, including all stone sills and voussoirs; • Existing wood -frame windows at the first storey, having a double window sash, each having 6 panes separated by wood muntins; • Existing west elevation portico with wood pilasters and columns; and • Close proximity to the neighbouring 'twin' building to the south at 544 Lancaster Street West. It is important to note that only features of the existing west (front) elevation have been identified as heritage attributes as this report has demonstrated that a) the design of the building is such that only the front elevation includes higher quality materials and features (such as quoins, and stone sills, which are only evident at the front facade), and b) the existi north, east (rear), and south elevations were not intended to be readily visible from the st and have been considerably altered. This includes the window openings and fenestrati majority of window openings have been consideraJ_s proximity to its 'twin' building at 544 Lancaster Stre Street West are considered significant, its setback ha t b with 544 Lancaster Street West, the houses were Iikel e east (rear) facade, where the %her, while the buildings' ri tion towards Lancaster _ied as a heritage attribute. As the street as was typical for most farmhouses. The property has been altered over time -and the setback no longer serves an agricultural function. The setback is now part of a residential lot and does not make a significant contribution to the property. For example, the front yard setback of the subject property could be extended or contracted and would not result any impacts to the property. 544 Lancaster Street West ("B") M� • Overall 1 '/2 storey buff brick construction with 3 -bay facade and Common or American bond brick laying technique and stone foundation (now parged); • Side -gabled roof with steeply pitched front gable with original window opening including flush brick voussoirs and wood frame lancelet arch window; • Existing west (front) facade entrance, including inset and angled set of doors under a pair of rectangular 3 -pane transom with corresponding mailboxes set into the brick, • Existing window dormers at the west (front) elevation and corresponding window openings; • All existing window openings at the west (front) facade with flush brick voussoirs, including the two remaining window openings set within the parged stone foundation; • Existing west elevation portico with wood pilasters and squared pillars; and • Close proximity to the neighbouring 'twin' building to the north at 546 Lancaster Street West. May, 2022 MHBC 164 Page 80 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener It is important to note that only features of the existing west (front) elevation have been identified as heritage attributes as the existing north, east (rear), and south elevations were not intended to be readily visible from the street. Two of the original window openings above the stone foundation have been altered. Further, no significant design attributes are present at the south elevation. As with 546 Lancaster Street West, the buildings' proximity to its 'twin' building to the north and their shared orientation towards Lancaster Street West are considered significant. As with 546 Lancaster Street West, the setback of the building is not identified as a heritage attribute. 6A Summary of Evaluation The two buildings ("A", and "B") were constructed c. 1873 in the Gothic Revival architectural style by I.E. Shantz. While the buildings are considered representative examples of Gothic Revival residential buildings, their proximity to each other and similarities in design and features are considered rare and unique. The buildings have been altered for the purpose of converting them into two separate apartment buildings, noted in historical documentation as the 'Shadow Lawn Apartments'. The early 20' century alterations to the buildings do not diminish their design/physical value. In this particular case, the existing alterations may be considered character -defining elements in their own right. The property has direct associations with Isaac Erb Shantz (former Reeve, Postmaster, and notable businessman) as well as members of the Hamel and Rothaermel families who owned the property for 118 consecutive years. The late Gerald M. Rothaermel (registered as the current owner) is noted as serving in the Canadian Air Force in WWII. The subject property is also associated with the general theme of the second wave of development of the Village of Bridgeport, which was considered a more industrious settlement than Berlin (now Kitchener) until the mid. 19th century. The rear additions to 546 Lancaster Street West (described in this report as Sections "Ai", "Aii", and "Aiii" are secondary structures and were not intended to be visible from the street. As a result, they do not include features indicative of an architectural style and do not demonstrate significant cultural heritage value or interest. These portions of the building do not warrant long-term conservation and could be removed. A summary of the evaluation of cultural heritage value as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 is provided in chart form on the following page. Ontario Regulation 9/06 546 Lancaster St. W ("A") 544 Lancaster St. W ("13") 1. Design/Physical Value May, 2022 MHBC 165 Page 81 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method Displays high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit Demonstrates high degree of technical or scientific achievement 2. Historical/associative value Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, institution that is significant Yields, or has potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the community. 3. Contextual value Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area Physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings Is a landmark May, 2022 Yes. Representative of the Gothic Revival Style, being altered in the early 2011 century for apartment use — made unique for its similarities with 544 Lancaster Street West No. While some of the alterations to the building in the early 201h century were done with care and consideration, they are not of artistic merit. No. Yes. Direct associations to the overall theme of the second wave of settlement of the former Village of Bridgeport and direct associations with I.E. Shantz, and the Hamel-Rothaermel families; No. -4 Unknown. Builder/architect 11 unknown and should be added historic record if discouM"h, No. The conte he a relWchanged and the propWry n nge1% ports the character of the ar _ No. The property does not demonstrate an important physical, functional, or visual relationship with its surroundings. The property has been altered overtime and is not identified as a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape. No. Yes. Representative of the Gothic Revival Style, being altered in the early 20th century for apartment use — made unique for its similarities with 546 Lancaster Street West No. While some of the alterations to the building in the early 20th century were done with care and consideration, they are not of artistic merit. No. Yes. Direct associations to the overall theme of the second wave of settlement of former Village of Bridgeport and t associations with I.E. Shantz, and amel-Rothaermel families; Unknown. Builder/architect currently unknown and should be added to the historic record if discovered. No. The context of the area has changed and the property no longer supports the character of the area. No. The property does not demonstrate an important physical, functional, or visual relationship with its surroundings. The property has been altered over time and is not identified as a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape. No. MHBC 166 Page 82 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 7.0 Description of Proposed Development The proposed development concept would result in the retention and re -location of the portions of the site which are of cultural heritage value or interest. This is limited to the existing dwellings at 546 Lancaster Street West and 544 Lancaster Street West (described in this report as structures "A", and "B"). The rear additions of 546 Lancaster Street West (Sections "Ai", "Aii", and "Aiii") are proposed for demolition (See Figure 86 below). Figure 86: Aerial photo noting the approximate location of built features at 544-546 Lancaster Street West (not to scale) (Source City of Kitchener Interactive Maps, Accessed July 2019) The re -location of the buildings of cultural heritage value or interest will permit the redevelopment of the site into a high density mixed use complex (See Figure 87). May, 2022 MHBC 167 Page 83 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 87: Site plan for proposed development at 544-550 Lancaster Street West (Source: Cusimano Architect, 2022) The proposed development includes the re -location of the heritage buildings and the removal of all remaining buildings and features to permit a comprehensive mixed-use development comprised of five new buildings (A, B, C, D, and E). The buildings are 10 (A), 12 (B), 30 (C), 30 (D), and 18 (E) storeys in height with a combined total of 1,281 suites and 924 vehicle parking spaces. A copy of the proposed site plan for the redevelopment of the subject lands is attached in Appendix B. May, 2022 M H BC 168 Page 84 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener The heritage buildings of CHVI are proposed to be re -located approximately 90 metres along Lancaster Street West and Bridge Street West north-west, to 26 Bridge Street West (See Figure 88 below). Figure 88: Aerial photograph of the City of Kitchener. Approximate location of subject property noted with red star. Proposed relocation destination noted with yellow star (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Map, accessed 2022) The rear additions to 546 Lancaster Street West are not of significant cultural heritage value or interest and are proposed for removal (See Figure 89). May, 2022 MHBC 169 Page 85 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener proposed for removal outlined in red. (Source: MHBC, 2019) All other built featuocated o�n tsu he bject lands which are not of cultural heritage value or interest are proposed f moval. This includes the existing trees, vegetation, and contemporary concrete patios and walkways. In orderforthe buildings to be re -located, the existing stone and brick foundations will be removed (See Figures 90 & 91). New foundations for the buildings will be provided at the receiving site. May, 2022 MHBC 170 Page 86 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figures 90 & 91: (left) View of the rear elevation of 546 and 544 Lancaster Street West noting portions of the foundation and rear addition proposed for removal, (right) View of front elev n of 546 and 544 Lancaster Street West, noting portions of foundation for removal. (Source: MHBC, 2019) The property located at 26 Bridge Street can be described as roughl32 acre deep rectangular shaped lot with approximately 20 metres of frontage. The property is currently vacant. A portion of I, the south-east corner of the lot is located within the Grand River Conservation Area Floodplain. The property changes considerably in grade from the front lot' line to the rear lot line. These issues related to grading have been considered in the proposed site plan (See Figure 92). W The proposed relocation plan inclu es that the buildings be retained together, facing east towards the Grand River. The plan includes driveway access at Bridge Street West, at the south-west corner of the lot and provides access to five surface parking spaces along the east lot line. May, 2022 MHBC 171 Page 87 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener F $ rv1EA.:: F1 S ryt} . ■ 3,43U T16.193 F Exisly■rc ■ ■ Ah1En■IY AWA IImo,... W .. N - SNOW i sioruvc r, , O ■ - 4- y 2..- CU . m� - � RT ■ _. I O L LL ■ PAL']P€]SE-09Bm FEn�f ■ ulvc I-nvusr: t'=t Iis ,..,_. •'t w _ - '-?jir-a I .. i ` t ■ t l� i 7■L Irr 14n II1■'' w Figure 92: Site plan for proposed re -located dwellings (currently at 544 Lancaster Street West and 546 Lancaster Street West) at 26 Bridge Street. (Source: MHBC, 2022) A number of site plan alternatives for the receiving site at 26 Bridge Street were considered which accommodate the houses. These alternatives are restrained due to a number of factors, including (but not limited to), the GRCA floodplain, grading, and the size and shape of the lot. A copy of the proposed site plan for the re -located houses at 26 Bridgeport Road West is provided in Appendix B. May, 2022 MHBC 172 Page 88 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 8.01mpact Analysis 8.1 Introduction This section of the report will review impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed development on the identified cultural heritage resources located on the property at 544-546 Lancaster Street West. The following analysis of impacts of the proposed development is guided by the Heritage Toolkit of the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries as follows: • Destruction: of any, or part of any significant heritage attributes or features; • Alteration: that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance: • Shadows: created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; • Isolation: of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • Direct or Indirect Obstruction: of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; • A change in land use: such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; • Land disturbances: such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. 8.2 Impact Analysis 8.2.1 Alteration of Buildings & Relocation to 26 Bridge Street West The following provides an analysis of anticipated impacts for the proposed re -location of the existing dwellings ("A", and "B") to the vacant property at 26 Bridge Street. Overall, the proposed re- location of the buildings is considered a minor adverse impact given that a) the proposed re- location does not include the demolition of any features of cultural heritage value or interest, and May, 2022 MHBC 173 Page 89 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener b) the existing buildings do not have an important relationship with their surroundings and the site is not considered a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape. Removal of Rear Additions at 546 Lancaster Street West: The rear additions to 546 Lancaster Street West are not of significant cultural heritage value or interest and are proposed for removal. The removal of the rear additions is considered a neutral impact given that a) these portions of the building are not visible from the public realm, and b) are not indicative of any architectural style which have design/physical value. The removal of this portion of the building will expose a door opening in the building which will be addressed in a Relocation and Conservation Plan. Removal of Foundations: The existing foundation(s) for the buildings are comprised of both stone and brick. Given that there is a considerable change in grade towards the rear lot line of the property, the rear foundation is exposed. The removal of the existing stone foundation of both buildings is considered a minor adverse impact, provided that it is completed safely and under the direction of building re -location professionals. Additional details regarding the conservation of the building on a new foundation will also be provided in the Relocation and Conservation Plan. Impacts Related to Removal from the Existing Setting: This report has demonstrated tit the property iI f cultural heritage value or interest for the two residential buildings (identified in this report as' tructures "A" and "B". The property does not demonstrate significant contextual value and the existing buildings do not have an important visual, functional, phycal or historical relationship with their immediate surroundings. Therefore, the removal of the existing buildings from their setting is considered a neutral impact. However, the buildings have a significant spatial relationship due to their proximity to each other and visibility from the public realm. The close proximity of the buildings to each -other should be retained in any alternative new location and should remain visible from the public realm. Removal of Remaining Built and Natural Features: All other built features located on the subject lands which are not of cultural heritage value or interest are proposed for removal. This includes the existing trees, vegetation, and contemporary concrete patios and walkways. The removal of these features constitutes a neutral impact. Potential Adverse Impacts: May, 2022 M H BC 174 Page 90 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener The proposed development may result in other potential impacts as a result of the physical act of re -location and undertaking necessary repairs/alterations to the building while ensuring it is conserved over the long-term. These alterations are proposed to be explored in an addendum to this HIA once a suitable location off-site to receive the buildings has been confirmed. 8.2.2 Analysis of Potential Receiving Site at 26 Bridge Street The following provides an analysis of whether or not the proposed accepting site of the re -located heritage buildings is considered acceptable. Setting & Site Plan: The proposed receiving site at 26 Bridge Street West retains the important features of the buildings which have been identified in this HIA. This includesthe 1�tmain portions of the dwellings, their close proximity to each other, and the ability for these lings to be visible from the public realm. The site plan proposes that the larger of the two buildings vA$Obe located closer to the rear lot line in order to maximize views of both dwellings. The receiving site is currently vacant, and requires landscaping and grading in order to accept the two dwellings and build a new foundation. The proposed site may require a retaining wall along portions of the north and west lot lines. If any retaining walls are required, and are taller than the proposed new building foundations, it is recommended that a landscape plan be provided in order to provide options for screening large sections of a blank masonry retaining wall. The receiving site proposes parking east of the front elevations of the building. While parking would be preferable to the rear, this is not possible due to the size/shape of the'vide as well as the location of the floodplain. It is recommended that a landscape plan also options for landscaping which may help to screen the parking area, but maximize views ofwellings from the street. Views Analysis: The views analysis renderings are provided in Appendix D of this report. These renderings demonstrate that the proposed site plan is acceptable, given that the proposed buildings to be re- located a) retain their spatial relationship to each other, and b) are visible from the public realm along Bridge Street. Views of the front elevations of both buildings will be available from the roundabout at the intersection of Lancaster Street West and Bridge Street West, to the subject property (See Figure 93 — 95 below as well as Appendix Q. May, 2022 MHBC 175 Page 91 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Figure 93: Views analysis of re -located h ild Bridge Street, (Source: MHBC, 2022) s Bridge Street, looking north-west from south side of Figures 94 & 95: (left) View of subject property at Bridge Street looking north-west towards front elevation of re- located houses from roundabout at Lancaster Street West and Bridge Street East (right) View of re -located houses (rear elevations) looking north-east near the intersection of Bridge Street West and Woolwich Street, (Source: MHBC, 2022) May, 2022 MHBC 176 Page 92 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener The front elevation of the building is visible, either in whole or in part, looking north-west along Bridge Street. Views along Bridge Street to the west beginning at Woolwich Street do not provide views of the buildings, either because the views are blocked by the adjacent apartment building, or provide views of the rear/side of the buildings. Some views may be partially obstructed during the spring and summer months due to mature trees and vegetation, however views of the building are already obstructed for these reasons in their original location at Lancaster Street West. 8.2.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts on Lands Adjacent to 544-540 Lancaster Street West As noted in Section 2.2 of this report, the subject property is lo5ated adjacent to the Grand River which is identified as a Canadian Heritage River. The Grand Iver Corridor is also identified in the City of Kitchener CHL Study document as a potential Cul Heritage Landscape which follows the meandering route of the Grand River through W oo Township from Kiwanis Park to the north and Fountain Road South. The CHL report id fies t Character Defining Features of this potential CHL as follows: • Bowstring bridge at Bridgeport c.1934 • Remnant bridge pier in the middle of the river south, of Bridgeport; • View along river through forested area; • View along valley towards Bridgeport crossing. The proposed development of the property at 544-550 Lancaster Street West is not likely to result in adverse impacts to the identified features of the CHL listed above. The proposed development will not result in alterations to featu11es, such as the bridge or pier and views of the river through forested areas and along the valley towards (and from) the Bridgeport crossing will remain available. Ir No other properties of potent Cultural Heritage Value or Interest which have been identified by the City of Kitchener are located adjacent (contiguous) to the subject property. Therefore, no additional cultural heritage analysis is required. May, 2022 MHBC 177 Page 93 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 9. 0 Consideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Recommendations 9.1 Alternative Development Approaches The following have been identified as a range of development alternatives that may be considered as part of the heritage planning process. They have been listed in Wider from least to greatest impact on cultural heritage resources. 9.1.1 Do nothing This option would likely result in the continued use of the buildings at 544-546 Lancaster Street West for residential/apartment use. This option would result in less adverse impacts to cultural heritage resources over the short-term provided that they remain in use. Should the residential use of the buildings be discontinued at some point in the future and/or become vacant, this has the potential to result in adverse impacts related to the condition of the buildings if they are not sufficiently mothballed. 9.1.2 Develop the site while retaining buildings and integrating them into the development concept This option would result in retaining the buildings in their existing location in-situ while developing the remainder of the site. This option could result in challenges developing the remainder of the lot as the addition of any new buildings fronting Lancaster Street West would result in obstructing views of the building from Lancaster Street West, which is not considered ideal. Mitigation recommendations would be required as it relates to the spatial relationships of proposed new buildings, obstruction, and the potential loss of views from Lancaster Street West. 9.1.3 Develop the site while retaining buildings at an alternate location on the subject property This option would result in re -locating the buildings to an alternative location on-site. This option is a viable alternative given that this HIA has demonstrated that a) the property is not a significant May, 2022 MHBC 178 Page 94 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape, and b) the existing front yard setback is not considered a significant heritage attribute. The option to retain the existing buildings at an alternative location on-site would result in a range of impacts requiring mitigation recommendations. This includes the requirement of a Relocation and Conservation Plan to determine how the buildings could be safely re -located and conserved over the long-term. 9.1.4 Demolition of all Buildings and Features The demolition of the two existing dwellings at 546 Lancaster Street West and 544 Lancaster Street West is considered an adverse impact as it includes the permanent removal of cultural heritage resources. Should the demolition of these two buildings be identified as the preferred option going forward, a range of mitigation recommendations would be required related to a) documentation, b) commemoration, and c) salvage. This option would resu#n the greatest overall impact to the identified cultural heritage resources located on-site. 9.2 Mitigation and Conservation Recommendations d The proposed re -location of the two existing buildings at 544-546 Lancaster Street West to an alternative location off-site is considered a minor adverse impact. The impact of re -locating off-site is considered minor in nature as the buildings do not have a significant contextual relationship with their existing location in-situ and the property is not identified as a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape. Should the propose<ratilono hetwo (2) buildings of cultural heritage value or interest be approved, the following mitigation and conservation measures are recommended: • That a Re -location and Conservation plan be drafted which provides details on how the buildings will a) be prepared for re -location, stabilized, and re -located to their new location and b) be repaired, altered, and conserved over the long-term (including recommendations for maintenance and monitoring); • An interpretive plaque be drafted and installed at the proposed new location which interprets the history of the buildings, as well as their original location; and • That this report and its attachments be accepted as a historic and photographic record of the buildings in their existing locations in-situ. That a Landscape plan be provided which identifies how any retaining walls which are higher than the new building foundations will screen any blank masonry retaining walls and and parking areas May, 2022 MHBC 179 Page 95 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener while maximizing views of the dwellings. Also, provide additional new vegetation to provide a complementary setting. May, 2022 M H BC 180 Page 96 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 10.0 Recommendations and Conclusions In conclusion, the proposed re -location of the two buildings of CHVI will result in a range of impacts. The removal of the concrete patios, walkways, and the rear additions to 546 Lancaster Street West is considered a neutral impact. The removal of the stone foundation of both buildings is considered a minor adverse impact as it will result in the removal of an original foundation. The placement of the buildings on a new foundation will allow for the buildings to be adaptively re -used and conserved over the long-term. The removal of the buildings from their existing location to an alternative location off-site is considered a minor adverse impact as the buildings do not have a significant contextual relationship with their existing location in-situ. However, the buildings have a significant spatial to each other. The proposed new location allows the buildings to retain their close proximity to each other, and remain visible from the public realm within the community of Bridgeport. A structural assessment has been undertaken and confirms that the buildings could withstand the physical act of relocation. Additional work would be required in order to ensure that re -location would be undertaken safely to avoid any potential adverse impacts. The following provides conclusions and recommendations regarding the proposal. Conclusions and Reconfen ns It should be noted that a range of alternative development options were considered as it relates to the proposed development and the identified cultural heritage resources. This includes retaining the buildings in-situ and incorporating into the proposed development, as well as demolition. While retaining the buildings on-site may result in less impacts, the proposed re -location off-site is a viable development alternative and the identified impacts to cultural heritage resources can be considered provided that the following mitigation recommendations are undertaken: • That a Re -location and Conservation plan be drafted which provides details on how the buildings will a) be prepared for re -location, stabilized, and re -located to their new location and b) be repaired, altered, and conserved over the long-term (including recommendations for maintenance and monitoring); • An interpretive plaque be drafted and installed at the proposed new location which interprets the history of the buildings, as well as their original location; and • That this report and its attachments be accepted as a historic and photographic record of the buildings in their existing locations in-situ. May, 2022 MHBC 181 Page 97 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener 11.0 Sources Bloomfield, Elizabeth and Linda Foster. Waterloo County Councillors: A Collective Biography. Caribout Imprints, 1995. Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1874 to the Present. Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990. City of Kitchener. Village of Bridgeport Fonds. Accessed online at www.archeion.ca/village-of- bridaeport-fonds Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History ofEarlySettlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1978. English, John and Kennedth McLaughlin. Kitchener. -An Illustrated History. Robin Brass Studio, 1996. Featherston, C. A History of Bridgeport. Twenty -Seventh Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society. Waterloo Historical Society, 1939. Government of Canada. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 2010. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. Heritage Resources Centre. On torio Arch itecturol Style Guide. University of Waterloo, 2009. McLaughlin, Kenneth and Sharon Jaeger. Waterloo: An Illustrated History. City of Waterloo, 2007. Mills, Rych. Kitchener (Berlin) 1880-1960. Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries. InfoSheet#S Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, 2006 Moyer, Bill. Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited, An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd., 1979. n/a. Busy Berlin, J ubilee Souvenir. 1897. May, 2022 MHBC 182 Page 98 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Ontario Ministry of Culture. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #2, Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Queens Printer for Ontario, 2006. Region of Waterloo. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Archaeological Facilities Master Plan, 1989. Seiling, Ken. Early Buildings in the Bridgeport, Ontario Area,1969. Paper retrieved from the Central Grace Schmidt Room of Local History, City of Kitchener Public Library. Uttley, W.V. (Ben), A History of Kitchener, Ontario. The Chronicle Press: Kitchener, 1937. W. V. Uttley and Gerald Noonan. A History of Kitchener., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975. Zimmerman, Idessa. Tweedsmuir History of the Village of Bridgeport, n.d. Accessed in the Microfilm room of the University of Waterloo Dana Porter Library May, 2022 M MHBC 183 Page 99 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Appendix A Location Map (next page) a May, 2022 M H BC 184 Page 100 of 154 44 1 Af low a k�,� Y r • � �-'... rte,., 2411 a PLANNING URBAN DESIGN MH BC ARCHITDECTURE 200-540 BINGEMANS ON, 4& 3X9 P: 519.576.3650 F:519.576.Oi21 I WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Appendix B Site Plan & Relocation Plan(next page) a May, 2022 M H BC 185 Page 102 of 154 > ©~^. ------LOT wvw �°— � RE®�®®�����`.. \ TO =j{5: z/u \! z=f _ ƒ±<U, - �=Ka<[ �� U{ + x) \ r o- ^� Ho 00 kPI&MEM / CIO / / / / / / SN0lilGN00 JNIlSIX3 £ ZZ 96 L : ON loafad H3N3HC)ll)l 'AA 1S H31SVC)NVI bbS OZb0 ZZOZ cr A a 00 co 00 N Lo 0 Lo O r 0) m 0— "111 — "1uo pale, ",ill, io apew suolsl�ap'o �lnsai a se Rlied piiyl Rue Rq paiajjns 'Rue JI 'sa6ewep ioj Rliligisuodsoi ou sida»e luellnsuoo ay1 'sal,ied pily, ,ns jo Rliligisuodsoi aqI — way, uo paseq ,,sq aq o, suolsl,,ap io uo a,ueyai Rue io 'quawn.op a1110 -11.Z. pil 41 a yolynn asn RuV ' uoljeiedaid jo owll ay>>e al,ellene uoljewioJul ay1 Jo 14611 ul Juawa6pnf Iseq sluellnsuo� ayj s1. jej ulaiay pauleluoo leuajew ay1 'uolsslwiad ua11m Ino y�un pallglyoid sl sjuawn.op ala y� jo uolpnpoidai io/pue 'uoyeoylpow 'asn pezuoylneuN 'Rlddeiry jo lgiadoid ayj urewou sluawnoop IIV 'Hiom Rue yjlnn 6ulpaaooid aiojaq Rlddeiry of salouedanslp Rue uodai pue suolsuawlp Ile Duan pue Noago jsnw sioueiryoo's6ulnneip aleos fou o0 SN0lilGN00 JNIlSIX3 £ ZZ 96 L : ON loafad H3N3H011)l 'M 1S H31SVONVI bbS OZ VO ZZOZ NV�d 210M -d NIVN a `� Lo 0 O r 0) M 0— "111 — "1uo pale, ",ill, io apew suolsl�ap'o �lnsai a se Rlied piiyl Rue Rq paiajjns 'Rue JI 'sa6ewep ioj Rliligisuodsoi ou sida»e luellnsuoo ay1 'sal,ied pily, ,ns jo Rliligisuodsoi aqI — way, uo paseq apew aq o, suolsl,,ap io uo a,ueyai Rue io 'quawn.op a1110 -11.Z. pil 41 a yolynn asn RuV ' uoljeiedaid jo owll ay>>e al,ellene uoljewioJul ay1 Jo 14611 ul Juawa6pnf Iseq sluellnsuo� ayj s1. jej ulaiay pauleluoo leuajew ay1 'uolsslwiad ua11 m Ino y�lnn pallglyoid sl sjuawn.op asay� jo uolpnpoidai io/pue 'uoyeoylpow 'asn pezuoylneuN'Rlddeiry jo lgiadoid ayj urewou sluawnoop IIV 'Hiom Rue yjlnn 6ulpaaooid aiojaq Rlddeiry of salouedanslp Rue uodai pue suolsuawlp Ile Duan pue Noago jsnw sioueiryoo's6ulnneip aleos fou o0 SN01i1GN00 JNIlSIX3 £ ZZ 96 L : ON loafad y — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — �c, J J I U Z_ W N OX Y ° // 7-1 J '4 LL y 00 00 H3N3HC)ll)l 'AA 1S H31SVC)NVI bbS OZ bO ZZOZ N NV�d 21001d GN003S i i II II I I / I I I I I I / j� — - ❑ r W FL m Lo 0 plO r 0) M 0— ,lull—'"I uo pale, suoi»e io apew suols leap �o �lnsai a se Rlied piiyl Rue Rq paiajjns 'Rue JI 'sa6ewep ioj Rliligisuodsoi ou sida»e luellnsuoo ay1 'sal,ied pily,, yens jo Rliligisuodsoi ayl aie way, uo paseq apew aq o, suolsl,,ap io uo a,ueyai Rue io 'quawn.op a1110 -11.Z. pil y1 a yolynn asn RuV ' uoljeiedaid jo owll ay>>e al,ellene uoljewioJul ay1 Jo 14611 ul Juawa6pnf Iseq sluellnsuo� ayj s1. jej ulaiay poureluoo leuajew ay1 'uolsslwiad ua11 m Ino y�lnn pallglyoid sl sjuawn.op ala y� jo uolpnpoidai io/pue'uoyeoylpow 'asn pezuoylneuN 'Rlddeiry jo lgiadoid ayj urewou sluawnoop IIV 'Hiom Rue yjlnn 6ulpaaooid aiojaq Rlddeiry of salouedanslp Rue uodai pue suolsuawlp Ile Duan pue Noago jsnw sioueiryoo's6ulnneip ales fou o0 00 Cl) 00 1q- � (B � N Q 0 O d LL o U N LL Q (B � C-9 8� Q i i II II I I / I I I I I I / j� — - ❑ r W FL m Lo 0 plO r 0) M 0— ,lull—'"I uo pale, suoi»e io apew suols leap �o �lnsai a se Rlied piiyl Rue Rq paiajjns 'Rue JI 'sa6ewep ioj Rliligisuodsoi ou sida»e luellnsuoo ay1 'sal,ied pily,, yens jo Rliligisuodsoi ayl aie way, uo paseq apew aq o, suolsl,,ap io uo a,ueyai Rue io 'quawn.op a1110 -11.Z. pil y1 a yolynn asn RuV ' uoljeiedaid jo owll ay>>e al,ellene uoljewioJul ay1 Jo 14611 ul Juawa6pnf Iseq sluellnsuo� ayj s1. jej ulaiay poureluoo leuajew ay1 'uolsslwiad ua11 m Ino y�lnn pallglyoid sl sjuawn.op ala y� jo uolpnpoidai io/pue'uoyeoylpow 'asn pezuoylneuN 'Rlddeiry jo lgiadoid ayj urewou sluawnoop IIV 'Hiom Rue yjlnn 6ulpaaooid aiojaq Rlddeiry of salouedanslp Rue uodai pue suolsuawlp Ile Duan pue Noago jsnw sioueiryoo's6ulnneip ales fou o0 Lu J m Q SNOWGN00 0NUSIX3 £ZZ 96L ON loafad 3l13V!D H3N3H011)1 'AA 1S H31SVC)NVI bbS OZ VO ZZOZ NV�d d0021 I � II _ aw C r I L M 7 II — LU 3l8`dCJ Lu J m. Q Lo 0 CID0 (D 0) M 0- ,lull—'"I ,luaw—p"I uo pale, suoi»e io apew suolS-,'o �lnsai a se Rlied piiyl Rue Rq paiajjns 'Rue J1 'sa6ewep ioj Rliligisuodsai ou sida»e luellnsuoo ay1 'sal,ied pity,, yens jo Rliligisuodsai aqI — way, uo paseq apew aq o, suolsl,,ap io uo a,uellai Rue io 'quawn.op a1110 -11.Z. pit 41 a yolynn asn RuV 'uoij—daid jo owil ay>>e algellene uoljewioJul ay1 Jo 14611 u1 Juawa6pnf Iseq sluellnsuo� ayj s1. jej ulaiay pouleluoo leliajew ay1 'uolsslwiad ua11 m Ino y71M pallglyoid sl sjuawn.op asay� jo uolpnpoidai io/pue'uoyeoylpow 'asn pezuoylneuN'Rlddejry jo lgiadoid ayj ulewou sluawnoop 11V 'Hiom Rue y71M 6ulpaaooid aiojaq Rlddeiry of salouedanslp Rue uodai pue suolsuaw!p Ile Duan pue Noago jsnw sioueiryoo's6ulnneip ales fou o0 SN0lilGN00 JNIlSIX3 £ ZZ 96 L : ON loafad N-1 Iii 9-9 H3N3HC)ll)l 'M 1S H31SVC)NVI bbS OZ VO ZZOZ N o 0 o � 0 0� �� C)o �o o zo z� 's�ua wn�op "111 pale, ",ill, io apew suolsl�ap �o �lnsai a se Rlied piiyl Rue Rq paiajjns 'Rue JI 'sa6ewep ioj Rliligisuodsoi ou sida»e luellnsuoo ay1 'sal,ied pily, ,ns jo Rliligisuodsoi aqI — way, uo paseq apew aq o, suolsl,,ap io uo a,ueyai Rue io 'quawn.op a1110 -11.Z. pil 41 a yolynn asn RuV ' uoljeiedaid jo owll ay>>e al,ellene uoljewioJul ay1 Jo 14611 ul Juawa6pnf Iseq sluellnsuo� ayj s1. jej ulaiay pauleluoo leuajew ay1 'uolsslwiad ua11 m Ino y�lnn pallglyoid sl sjuawn.op ala y� jo uolpnpoidai io/pue 'uoyeoylpow 'asn pezuoylneuN 'Rlddeiry jo lgiadoid ayj urewou sluawnoop IIV 'Hiom Rue yjlnn 6ulpaaooid aiojaq Rlddeiry of salouedanslp Rue uodai pue suolsuawlp Ile Duan pue Noago jsnw sioueiryoo's6ulnneip aleos fou o0 SN0Il14N00 JNIlSIX3 £ ZZ 96 L : ON loafad H3N3HC)ll)l 'AA 1S H31SVC)NVI bbS OZ VO ZZOZ N N Lo l— O O W CD /ecu I— 0 Z ZO Z H 's�ua wn�op aye uo paseq suol»e io apew suolsl�ap �o �lnsai a se Rlied piiyl Rue Rq paiajjns 'Rue JI 'sa6ewep ioj Rliligisuodsoi ou sida»e luellnsuoo ay1 'sal,ied pily, ,ns jo Rliligisuodsoi aqI — way, uo paseq apew aq o, suolsl,,ap io uo a,ueyai Rue io 'quawn.op a1110 -11. Z. pil 41 a yolynn asn RuV ' uoljeiedaid jo owll ay>>e algellene uoljewioJul ay1 Jo 14611 ul Juawa6pnf Iseq sluellnsuo� ayj s1. jej ulaiay pauleluoo leuajew ay1 'uolsslwiad ua11 m Ino y�lnn pallglyoid sl sjuawn.op asa y� jo uolpnpoidai io/pue 'uoyeoylpow 'asn pezuoylneuN 'Rlddeiry jo lgiadoid ayj urewou sluawnoop IIV 'Hiom Rue yjlnn 6ulpaaooid aiojaq Rlddeiry of salouedanslp Rue uodai pue suolsuawlp Ile Duan pue Noago jsnw sioueiryoo's6ulnneip aleos fou o0 SN0lilGN00 JNIlSIX3 £ ZZ 96 L : ON loafad H3N3HC)ll)l 'AA 1S H31SVC)NVI bbS OZ VO ZZOZ 00 0 � 0 Li 0 0 Li 0 0 i Z O i i Z a i i i 's�ua wn�op aye uo paseq suol»e io apew suolsl�ap �o �lnsai a se Rlied piiyl Rue Rq paiajjns 'Rue JI 'sa6ewep ioj Rliligisuodsoi ou sida»e luellnsuoo ay1 'sal,ied pily, ,ns jo Rliligisuodsoi aqI — way, uo paseq apew aq o, suolsl,,ap io uo a,ueyai Rue io 'quawn.op a1110 -11. Z. pil 41 a yolynn asn RuV ' uoljeiedaid jo owll ay>>e algellene uoljewioJul ay1 Jo 14611 ul Juawa6pnf Iseq sluellnsuo� ayj s1. jej ulaiay pauleluoo leuajew ay1 'uolsslwiad ua11 m Ino y�lnn pallglyoid sl sjuawn.op asa y� jo uolpnpoidai io/pue 'uoyeoylpow 'asn pezuoylneuN 'Rlddeiry jo lgiadoid ayj urewou sluawnoop IIV 'Hiom Rue yjlnn 6ulpaaooid aiojaq Rlddeiry of salouedanslp Rue uodai pue suolsuawlp Ile Duan pue Noago jsnw sioueiryoo's6ulnneip aleos fou o0 SN0IlI4N00 JNIlSIX3 £ ZZ 96 L : ON loafad H3N3HC)ll)l 'AA 1S H31SVC)NVI bbS OZ VO ZZOZ N O I lVA/ D3 1-� 3D 00 0� o C)� C)o �o o zo z� 's�ua wn�op aye uo paseq suol»e io apew suolsl�ap �o �lnsai a se Rlied piiyl Rue Rq paiajjns 'Rue JI 'sa6ewep ioj Rliligisuodsoi ou sida»e luellnsuoo ay1 'sal,ied pily, ,ns jo Rliligisuodsoi aqI — way, uo paseq apew aq o, suolsl,,ap io uo a,ueyai Rue io 'quawn.op a1110 -11. Z. pil 41 a yolynn asn RuV ' uoljeiedaid jo owll ay>>e algellene uoljewioJul ay1 Jo 14611 ul Juawa6pnf Iseq sluellnsuo� ayj s1. jej ulaiay pauleluoo leuajew ay1 'uolsslwiad ua11 m Ino y�lnn pallglyoid sl sjuawn.op asa y� jo uolpnpoidai io/pue 'uoyeoylpow 'asn pezuoylneuN 'Rlddeiry jo lgiadoid ayj urewou sluawnoop IIV 'Hiom Rue yjlnn 6ulpaaooid aiojaq Rlddeiry of salouedanslp Rue uodai pue suolsuawlp Ile Duan pue Noago jsnw sioueiryoo's6ulnneip aleos fou o0 SN0IlIGN00 JNIlSIX3 £ ZZ 96 L : ON loafad H3N3HC)ll)l 'AA 1S H31SVC)NVI bbS OZ VO ZZOZ NOUVNW 10-�NI 311S S1N 4- 0 r r M 0— U) EL Q tr C.5 p Lu 0 p =m z El X❑X X❑❑❑ XX X❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑ © tr D O H J p Q 0 tr C) X X❑ X X XX XX XXX XXXXX nqz — p Lu �... U)o o C)-1 ❑ XXXX X ❑❑ ErmX ❑❑X ❑XXXX v LLU Lu U) U°C z Lu Ir p0X z p Z 0 z = Ov IrLu z C oC O w U G z __ ¢ ''�' Ir IL z zU H m w w z J z OU U O U _ z oC Q ¢ = z w ¢_ LD � p z U = w X Dz z w d w ¢ Lu Z _ � O Z W w (j O � u u O w LD J Ld Z p W � U W U Y �¢ zm w0 0 �— Q ¢z— pCq oC W C'1 Q �U cq oC Qz �zcgz0 w LuY w w wzIrI JIrU zUC) zz W z Lu IL IL CD0¢ J0 T U�� C) Ir LU ��wwwJ �cn m=�wm zLL.P Lu �OwU)co U)OU¢� � ULu U = w Ir C/) m E a = w ¢ �w z ,lull—'"I uo pale, suoi»e io apew suoisi�ap'o �insai a se Rlied piigl Rue Rq paiajjns 'Rue JI 'sa6ewep ioj Rliligisuodsoi ou sldaooe luelinsuoo aq1 'sailied piigl gins jo Rliligisuodsoi eqj — wagj uo poseq spew aq of suoisioap io uo a3uegai Rue io 'quawn.op a1110 -11.Z. pii 41 a golgnn asn RuV 'uoij—daid jo owil eqj le algellene uoilewiojui eqj jo jg6ll ui juawa6pnf Iseq sluelinsuoo eqj s»aijai uiaiag pouieluoo ieuajew aq1 'uoissiwied ua»linn Inogjlnn paligigoid sl sluawnoop asagl jo uoipnpoidai io/pue'uogeogipow 'asn pezuoglneun'RiddeiN jo lgiadoid eqj uiewou sluawnoop IIV 'Hiom Rue gjim 6uipaaooid aiojaq RiddeiN of saiouedansip Rue uodai pue suoisuawip lie Duan pue Hoag Isnw sioueiryoo's6ulnneip aie- fou o0 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Appendix C Views Analysis (next page) May, 2022 M H BC 186 Page 114 of 154 ^•: .. l ���� ✓ .tri - jp����jjf : ♦ l l Ar rg la '. lk vt AU;l Pat �q Ji Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Appendix D Structural Analysis (next page) a May, 2022 MHBC 187 Page 121 of 154 I ■IIS%,,,q I J Vive Development 1020 King Street East Kitchener, ON Attn: Mark Hoculik Dear Mr. Hoculik: V=Boxmeer & Stranges 1108 Dundas St., Suite 104 London, Ontario N5W 3A7 P: (519) 433-4661 vbands@vbands.com 4802 Portage Rd, Unit 1 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2A 6E3 P: (905) 357-2030 al@vbands.com Re: 544 & 546 Lancaster — Feasibility to Move Structures April 26, 2022 VB&S Project: 22158 VanBoxmeer & Strangles Ltd. (VB&S) was asked to investigate the structural condition of the buildings located at 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West in Kitchener, Ontario to determine if relocating the buildings is a feasible option. VB&S performed a visual inspection of the exterior brick walls to look for significant cracking, settlement, bowing, and deterioration. VB&S performed a visual inspection of the basements to look for cracking and/or settlement of the foundation walls. t VB&S performed a visual inspection of the finished floors to look for cracking of the plaster walls. It is recommended that a contractor with the expertise of moving heritage buildings also be engaged to provide input on the feasibility of moving these buildings. 544 Lancaster Summary: The brick was in good condition with minimal deterioration. Visible repairs and replacement of brick was observed over the entire fagade including infilling of window openings. Step cracks in the brick mortar joints were observed above and below window and door openings which is typical of houses this age. There was visible bowing of the brick wall along the east wall between the top of foundation wall and underside of ground floor windows. The chimney was constructed integral with the south brick wall and projected out of the roof. The brick for the chimney projection appeared to be of newer material, however the mortar joints and bricks showed significant deterioration. No significant cracking or settlement of the foundation walls was observed. No significant cracking of the interior plaster walls was observed. Based on the visual observations, it is VB&S' opinion that the building at 544 Lancaster appears to have sufficient structural integrity to consider relocation feasible. It is recommended that the chimney projection be braced and/or repaired prior to moving to avoid any further damage. As mentioned above, it is recommended that a contractor with the expertise of moving heritage buildings also be engaged to provide input on the feasibility of moving these buildings. 22158 L01 2022-04-26 - 544 546 Lancaster - Feasibility to Move Structures.docx Page 1 of 2 Page 122 of 154 IIS\� i®IIS \STRUCTURAL ENGINE -E 546 Lancaster Summary: 22158 544 & 546 Lancaster Kitchener, Ontario A one storey addition was observed at the northeast corner of the building. This addition showed significant deterioration of the brick along the south wall. This addition was constructed above a series of cistern/tanks. It is recommended that this portion of the building not be part of the feasibility study and be removed prior to any attempts at moving the primary building. The brick of the primary building was in good condition with minimal deterioration. Visible repairs and replacement of brick was observed over the entire fagade including infilling of window openings. Step cracks in the brick mortar joints were observed above and below window and door openings which is typical of houses this age. A vertical crack was observed in north wall extending from the top of the foundation wall to the roof. The chimney was constructed exterior of the building along the height of the south wall. The brick appeared to be of a different material than the primary structure suggesting it was added later. The chimney was constructed on top of a concrete slab at grade. No significant cracking or settlement of the foundation walls was observed. Localized cracking of interior plaster walls was observed above one window location and at a few interior walls suggesting some movement of the building had occurred. Based on the visual observations, it is VB&S' opinion that the primary building at 546 Lancaster appears to have sufficient structural integrity to consider relocation feasible. It is recommended that the chimney be braced and supported at its base during moving or removed altogether as it does not appear to be constructed integral with the south wall. As mentioned above, it is recommended that a contractor with the expertise of moving heritage buildings also be engaged to provide input on the feasibility of moving these buildings. Regards, VanBoxmeer & Strangles Engineering Ltd. Andrew Fisher, P. Eng. Structural Engineer AWF/awf 22158 L01 2022-04-26 - 544 546 Lancaster - Feasibility to Move Structures.docx Page 2 of 2 Page 123 of 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Appendix E Photo Map (next page) May, 2022 M H BC 188 Page 124 of 154 m a N 7 _� L.L co m a u Heritage Impact Assessment 544-550 Lancaster Street West, City of Kitchener Appendix F Title Search (next page) a May, 2022 MHBC 189 Page 130 of 154 m IL � 0 CL� w c § f■ 0 Z § zi �« kk 00 _ in C-4 m N o Cl) LU [ § § § k § $ § § a 2 G 0 o & $ 0 ■ $ d 2 A � con 2 ■ R ca w 2 a(D �■ 2 a 2 D 0 2 e■ 4) k o k 02 C4 § a: $ a z m S © w § ■ LU 3 2 2CL m 3 § w U. z A ° § w ■ m m 2 k 3 « C CO ui z c ■ § 2 2 c CO) w w E ■ 2 ) ; c 2 S ■ CL w ■ o J i m w 2 00 _ in C-4 m N o Cl) LU [ § § § k § $ § § a 2 G 0 o & $ 0 ■ $ d 2 A � con 2 ■ R . w ■ a(D 2 a 2 D 0 2 ' 4) k o k C4 a o cl 2 a 0 In 3 2CL cc w U. CL i:. ■ { f k 2 CO w § V k k0 . a\ c k \ § k 0 a u ■ o ■ _ - w 0 00 _ in C-4 m N o Cl) LU [ § § § k § $ § § a 2 G 0 o & $ 0 ■ $ d 2 A � con 2 ■ R 0 CL �2■ 4 / °13 <3o E � § k k k § / IV co � � IT » 7 / n . ■ a(D 2 a 2 D 0 2 ' o k o a o cl 2 a 0 CL �2■ 4 / °13 <3o E � § k k k § / IV co � � IT » 7 / n A W W a J W ui Lu Q 3 F = = O V oc90 m a ti ¢ a C7 N m m m a � m O w a m w w « LU c d' 8 O m E O Y a U) = _ o >- W a 3 a' d 0~C `C V ` U d � V 4 m a m U m � I!1 J w w m w 0 Q r r r N 0 O r O O W O r O m U C O (a G�.QJG O. Z w r P SD � M r r m 0 N r IT LD 0 (N (o N 0) m n 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE August 4, 2022 Deeksha Choudhry Heritage Planner City of Kitchener PO Box 1 1 19 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Deeksha.choud h ry@kitchener.ca Dear Deeksha, KITCHENER WOODBRIDGE LONDON KINGSTON BARRIE BURLINGTON RE: Addendum to Heritage Impact Assessment for 544-550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street — Assessment of Impacts to 20 Bridge Street OUR FILE: "15213 S" MHBC prepared a Heritage Impact Assessment for the property located at 544-550 Lancaster Street West, which was submitted to City staff in 2021. The HIA was requested by City staff given that the subject property is of potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The HIA determined that the only resources of CHVI was the two existing brick dwellings. The first draft of the HIA considered a range of options for the development of the site. This included options for retaining the existing buildings within the development site, re -location, and demolition. Staff provided comments on the report and requested revisions and further information. The HIA was updated and re -submitted to Staff in 2022 to address impacts on the preferred option going forward, which is to re -locate the two brick dwellings to 26 Bridge Street. Staff requested that there be an assessment of potential impacts on the property at 20 Bridge Street as a result of the proposed re -location. The property located 20 Bridge Street is not included on the City's Heritage Register, but is of historical interest to City staff. Page 134 of 154 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE / KITCHENER / ONTARIO / N2B 3X9 / T 519 576 3650 / F 519 576 0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM The purpose of this addendum is to identify whether or not the re -location of the two heritage dwellings to 26 Bridge Street will result in adverse impacts on the property at 20 Bridge Street. The criteria for conducting an assessment of adverse impacts is consistent with Provincial guidance as well as the City of Kitchener Terms of Reference, which sources the potential sources of adverse impacts listed in the Ontario heritage Toolkit. As per the requested review by staff, the following provides an assessment of potential adverse impacts as per the Ontario Heritage Toolkit, which is the guiding document to the Ontario Heritage Act. 20 Bridge Street re -location of the buildings at 544-550 Lancaster Street West to the receiving site at 26 Bridge Street does not include the destruction of any, or part of any significant heritage attributes at 20 Bridge No. The re -location of the buildings to 26 Bridge Street does not propose the alteration of any features of the property at 20 Bridge Street. No. Any new shadows as a result of the buildings relocated to 26 Bridge Street will be negligible given that a) the height of the re -located buildings are 1.5 storeys, and b) given that the buildings will be located west of the property at 20 bridge street, little to no shadowing is expected and any potential shadows would be limited to those in the late afternoon. Any shadows that do fall on the property are not expected to negatively impact heritage attributes. No. The proposed re -located buildings will not result in isolating the building at 20 Bridge Street from its context. The context of the building at 20 Bridge Street is such that it has frontage on, and access to Bridge Street. The property is also directly adjacent to Laurel Creek, to the east. The proposed relocation of the 26 Bridge Street will not isolate the 2 Page 135 of 154 dwelling at 20 Bridge Street or have any impact on its relationship to Bridge Street or Laurel Creek. No. The primary (front) elevation of the dwelling at 20 Bridge Street will continue to be visible along Bridge Street. The views analysis provided in the Heritage Impact Assessment confirm that oblique views of the west elevation will continue to be visible along Bridge Street. No. The proposed re -location of the dwellings will not result in a change in land use for the property at 20 Bridge Street. The property at 26 Bridge Street will be used for residential use. No. No grading or soil -moving activities will occur on the property at 20 Bridge Street. The property at 26 Bridge Street will require a grading and drainage plan which demonstrates that no soil erosion or drainage will occur on the property at 20 Bridge Street. Further, given the nature of the proposed development at 26 Bridge Street (i.e. providing new concrete foundations for two single detached dwellings), no negative impacts related to vibrations from construction activities are anticipated. In conclusion, using the criteria under the TOR and Toolkit, there are no anticipated impacts on cultural heritage resources located on the property at 20 Bridge Street as a result of the proposed development at 26 Bridge Street. Given that none of the properties related to the proposed development are listed or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, we understand that approval by way of the Heritage Permit Application process is not required. I trust this information is sufficient and that staff will forward this item to the next available Heritage Kitchener agenda. 3 Page 136 of 154 If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Vanessa Hicks, MHBC cc. Dan Currie, MHBC cc. Pierre Chauvin, MHBC cc. Garett Stevenson, City of Kitchener 4 Page 137 of 154 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: September 6, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Planning Director, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: August 12, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-396 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-021 139 Queen Street North Demolition and Replacement of Front Portico RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-021 to permit the demolition and replacement of the front portico on the property municipally addressed as 139 Queen Street North, BE APPROVED in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: 1. That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to present the proposal of the demolition and construction of a new front portico on the property municipally addressed as 139 Queen Street North, as detailed in Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-021 and in Attachment A and Attachment B • The key finding of this report is that the proposed work will not negatively impact the cultural heritage value or interest of the property, as it is in keeping with the architectural style and character of the subject property and complies with the policies and guidelines of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included posting this report and associated agenda in advance of the meeting and consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 138 of 154 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-021 proposes the removal of an existing portico and construction of a new portico on the front elevation of the dwelling on the property municipally addressed as 139 Queen Street North. The building has been designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD). It has been identified as being a District Significance A building. In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning Staff note that the proposed work meets the policies and guidelines of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, reinstate a design more reflective of the originally constructed portico, and that it will not adversely impact the heritage attributes or character of the subject property or surrounding area. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2022-V-021, which seeks permission to demolish an existing front portico and construct a new front portico on the property municipally addresses as 139 Queen Street North, located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. Fh'sr� REPORT: S_ t PtisT cm COMM ERCEL e Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property The subject property is located on the northeast corner of the Queen Street North and Ellen Street East intersection. It is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is classified as a District Significance A building within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. The subject property is described within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (CCNHCD) as being a two-storey Georgian cottage, built c. 1852. The original coral -coloured bricks may have been sourced from a yard behind 139 Queen Street. The home was constructed for Nicholas Zieger, who was the owner of a local brick yard. It was later owned by John Dauberger, who also built 132 Queen Street across the road in 1876. Page 139 of 154 Figure 2: Front Elevation of Subject Property Proposed Work Removal of Existing Portico There is an existing portico on the front of the subject dwelling which measures 1 foot by 4 feet in size (Figure 3). According to information provided by the property owners, the posts of the existing portico date back to approximately 1912, though the rest of the structure is not original, and its shape and size have been altered from this time -period. The demolition policies of the CCNHCD Plan mostly references the demolition of entire structures, though it does make note that the demolition or replacement of heritage attributes or distinctive architectural features is not encouraged. Where demolition is proposed, supporting documentation demonstrating appropriate reasoning is required. Demolition of the portico is proposed as it is in disrepair and no longer structurally stable. The supporting posts are not properly attached to the main dwelling and have shifted from their resting place (Figure 4 and 5). The applicants propose to use a reciprocating saw with an appropriate blade to cut through the lag bolts that attach the portico to the existing dwelling in order to remove it. Page 140 of 154 W r --- Figure 3: Existing Portico Figure 4: Deterioration on Portico Construction of New Portico Figure 5: Deterioration on Portico There is policy direction within the CCNHCD Plan which pertains to alterations to homes, and specifically work to porches and verandahs. The CCNHCD Plan recognizes porches as being significant features to the appearance of the heritage district that possess both functional and decorative value. Application HPA-2022-V-021 seeks permission to construct a new portico in place of the old. The new portico is proposed to be 5 feet by 7 feet in size, with a roof that extends to 9 feet (Figure 6). As exhibited by Figure 8, this proposed increase Page 141 of 154 in size is reflective of the scale of the original portico. The base of the portico will consist of 2 6x6 posts, with 2x4 trusses attaching to the roof structure. The roof structure will have an underside composed of 3/4 inch beadboard, stained a natural walnut colour. Plywood will be attached to the top of the beadboard to provide a base for roof shingles, which will be GAF Timberline in a natural charcoal colour to match the existing roof of the house. The roof flashing will be standard coil in white and black. Though a flat roof is typical for porticos on Georgian Style homes the roof of the proposed portico will be peaked. There is precedent for this shape within the CCNHCD, as seen on 68 Queen Street North and 78 Weber Street West. Both aforementioned addresses are done in the Georgian architectural style and are classified as District Significance A. The posts of the structure will be capped with 8 -inch round tapered permacast columns, which will then be painted white. The existing porch light will be replaced with an ornamental lantern reflective of the heritage charact of the existing home and surrounding area. Though the existing posts date back to approximately 1912, the way they were retrofitted to the current portico has comprised their load-bearing capabilities. Further, they have in the past been cut and notched out in such a manner that they are now a shorter height than the existing doorway. As such they are unable to be reincorporated into the new proposed portico. The homeowners intend to preserve and store the existing posts, so that they may be reutilized for other decorative purposes. Figure 6: Architectural Drawings of New Portico Figure 7: Proposed Style of Light Figure 8: Photo of the Subject Property c. 1912 Figure 9: Proposed Style of Post Page 142 of 154 LEFT SIDE FRONT ELEVATION RIONT SLOE ELEVATION ELEVATION Figure 6: Architectural Drawings of New Portico Figure 7: Proposed Style of Light Figure 8: Photo of the Subject Property c. 1912 Figure 9: Proposed Style of Post Page 142 of 154 Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, heritage planning staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addresses as 139 Queen Street North is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District, and is classified as a District Significance A building; • The proposal is for the removal of an existing portico and construction of a new portico on the front of the subject dwelling; • The proposed work is in compliance with the following CCNHCD Plan policies; o Research the original style and appearance of the building to determine "authentic limits" of restoration or alteration so that the appropriate style is maintained. ■ Photographs in which the presumed original portico are visible were obtained by the property owners and provided as part of the submitted application, for heritage staff's review. The photograph demonstrates that the original portico was greater in size than what currently exists. o Retain and restore heritage attributes wherever possible rather than replacing them, particularly for features such as windows, doors, porches and decorative trim. ■ While the original scale of the portico is being reinstated, the posts which date back to approximately 1912 can not be retained as they no longer have the appropriate load bearing capabilities to support the roof of the portico. o Incorporate similar building forms, materials, scale and design elements in the alteration that exist on the original building. ■ The proposed new portico will be of a similar scale to the original portico. Wood material is proposed to be used and is appropriate for the project and heritage property. The roof shingles will be the same as what presently exists on the house. o When restoring a porch that is either intact or completely demolished, some research should be undertaken to determine the original design which may have been much different from its current condition and decide whether to restore the original. ■ While this project proposes to reinstate the original scale of the portico, the existing posts are proposed to be replaced with a style more suitable for a Georgian architectural style home. The round shape of the posts is maintained, but there will be less decorative accents along its length. o For decorative elements such as gingerbread fretwork and other trim, wood is still the best choice to recreate the original appearance but using improved technology such as waterproof glues and biscuit joiners and liquid preservatives and best quality paints to protect the finished product. ■ Wood will be the primary material used in the construction of this proposed project. The base of the portico will be comprised of 2 6x6 posts, with 2x4 trusses attaching to the roof structure. The roof structure will have an underside composed of % inch beadboard. • The proposed work will not adversely impact the heritage attributes or character of either the subject property, adjacent properties, or surrounding area. Page 143 of 154 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 Council / Committee meeting. CONSULT — The Heritage Kitchener Committee will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act • Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation Plan APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-021 Form Attachment B — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-021 Supporting Documents Attachment C - Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-021 Drawings Page 144 of 154 2022 HERITAGE E PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS UIREMENT Pla vi ng Division — 2 D King Street West. 61 Floor P.O. Box 1116, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planning kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Page 7 of 10 Gate Received': '.cce ted A. nation Nuuter HPA-2621- PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. PlA.TURE OF APPLIF-ATIO" ® Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ® Nevi Construction ❑ AIteri.tian ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Mu n ici pal Address: 1 H Quern St N Ki—.chener ON "2H21HS Legal Description (if know"'.- Building;Structure Type: El Residlential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage wig nation'. ❑ Part IV (I ndiwidua I) ® Part V (Heritage Conservation Di:stdct) Is the prop" subject to a H eri#age Easement or Ag reement? El Yes 2 Pio 3, PROPERTY OWNER Name: A-,_1 ress: City,"Province?Postal Code: Kitchener ON N2H2H8 Phan Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Corina ny: address: CitylProvinc +'Po!=1 C ode: Ptmne: Emil: Wurking L36cthq!r * Gruwin6 7,huug LFully + Bu ldr'ng crimmunity 21022 Page 0 of Ic 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Provide a written description of the proj act including any conserviafiDn roethods proposed. Prowide such deWl as materials to be used, measurements. paint colours, decorative detaft, whether any original buildirig fabric is to, be ren °ed or replaced. etc. Use additional pages as required. Pkv refer to the City of Kites Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. Please see attached EXHIBIT A under the file °139 ween Heritage application SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS7 6. REVIEW OF CITE' OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed -th-or k.- Please see attached EXH I BIT B under the fi le ° 139 Queen Heritage Appli cation S UP PG FTI N G DOCUMENTS' Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating ley -favi or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Please see atta-c hed EXHIBIT ' Describe hg,ri :he proposal is consistent wrilh Parks Canada:s Sb.odar-dds and GukWines for b�e Conservan c.� of Historic Pfaces err G�2nada Lw ww.historicplaces.. calen gesJstanwdards-rwormes_aspx�: Please see attached EXHIBIT G' 7. PROPOSED 11 OP KS a) Expected start date: September or Oc ber 2022 Expected cmpletion date: b+ Deicemeber, 20 h) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff's - If yes; who did you speak to? c) Have you discuses this work with Building Division Staff - If yam, who did you speak to? Unknow d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? e) Other related Building or Planning applications: ❑ Yes 0 No 13 Yes ❑ No E] Yes 2 N o oication nurnber W-arkIrig together & Qrowing thoughtfuPly -D 5011-01 Ing commmnlity 202 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of N The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in document!:� 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 - Punning vision does not guarantee it tD be a 'complete' appli cation. The undersigned acknowledges that. the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the irrFormat on submitted forms a compilete application.. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide add itional information artdfor 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 Heriitage Kitchener committee and Council meeting_ Subrnission of this application constitutes consent for authcK¢ed mwriicipal staff to. eater 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 acct on behalf of tide owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and unde rst.ands that the approval of this appl ic,,3tion under the Ontario Herftage Act shall not be a waive of any of the provisions of any bye-Iaruw of the City of Kitchener or legislation) including but not limited to the requi reme nt.s of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges ttrat in the event this application is approved, any deparbure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the C ity 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 Herr€age Act - Date. rner� Date.O7f-77f 2022 M 28 2022 Signature of Owner Agent: .�: ; �:. Date: `� bl , 9. AUTHCIIFI: ZATION If this app4cation is being made by an agent on behalf of the propeti owner, the following authonize ion must be completed: I d we, , owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Signature of c7wnerdAgent: Daae: Sigrk"ftre of OwnerdAgerrt: Date: to act on my f our behalf in this regard. The personal intom6bn on this forme is caHecte d under Me Lagal ar rity o.f Section 33(2), Section 42(2), arra! See 42(2.2) of No Ontario Herflage Act. The JnNnwateon wN bxe used for purposes of adminesteang tine Heritage Pernnit Appixabura and ergs .apprganate sendbe of rxrbce of receipt urder ,Sects 33(3) aruf Section 42(3) of b�e Ont.araca Heritage Act tf you have any questions aboLd ftus coftectun of personal inforrrr A n, please contacl fly Manager of Corporate Reds, Legisiaterd SeMces Division, Cit} of rherfr (519-74 1-2 769). Warkins tagelhe-r + Growing lth-oughttully + Building earn munity 2022 Application N umber: AppVcation Received: Application Complete:. Flake of Receipt: Nc4ice of Decision: 904D ay Expiry Cate: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Winning staff ❑ Heritage Ffrtener; ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Worklms togoh-tr +Growing thoughtfully o ls1pil,ding community pa,:;=_ 10 Y. 10 139 Queen St N Kitchener ON Heritage Permit Application SUPPORT MATERIALS EXHIBIT A Written Description of Project We aim to demolish the existing portico (measuring 1' x 4') and replace it with a new portico measuring 5' x 7. The demolition of the existing structure will be fairly simple, as most of the posts supporting the structure are not properly attached to the main building at the moment (see Fig. 1 for image of existing portico). We are fairly confident that with careful support of the structure we can use a reciprocating saw with the appropriate blade to cut through any lag bolts attaching the portico to the structure. psrw Fig. 1 Existing Portico George, my co -applicant and co-owner of the property is a skilled tradesman, who will be completing both the demolition and construction himself, with the help of Matt Schoenemann, Page 149 of 154 a contractor and carpenter with Schoe Contracting. Additionally, we enlisted the services of Orchard Design Studio Inc., who worked with us to develop construction & elevation plans that convey our vision, while keeping us in line with the responsibility we have to honour the original home. You will find their construction drawings under the file labelled "Construction & Elevation Plans". It is worth noting that the roof will extend to 9', but support posts will be set at 7' apart. As far as materials for construction go, the base of the structure will consist of 2 6 x 6 posts, with 2 x 4 trusses attaching to the roof structure, whose underside will consist of W bead board, which I would love to stain a natural walnut colour. On the top side of the beadboard, we will attach sheets of plywood which will provide the base for our roof shingles. We will be using GAF Timberline charcoal coloured roofing shingles to match the existing roof on the main house. Roof will be flashed using a standard flashing coil in white/black. We will cap the posts with 8' Round tapered permacast columns. The columns will be white in colour (see Fig. 2 for reference). Fig.2 8" Round tapered columns We will replace the existing porch light with an ornamental lantern light, which ties in nicely to the heritage attributes of the home, see Fig. 3 for an example. Fig. 3. Ornamental Porch Lantern Light Otherwise, we would like to keep the project fairly simple. The house itself is a simple Georgian Style cottage, and we are aiming to keep it that way. EXHIBIT B Why is it necessary to undertake the proposed work, and how is it consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada: Page 150 of 154 We believe it's necessary to remove and replace the existing portico for several reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, it is in disrepair. Most of the columns have been shifted from their resting place and they are no longer structurally sound. Secondly, we find the portico to be lacking in true representation of what a Georgian Style portico would look like. That is a major factor in why we'd like to replace it, rather than repair it. Unfortunately, the most important heritage elements of this home were not cared for, let alone reserved. However, we are committed to the beautification of the property to honour its heritage and allow our community to enjoy its unique beauty for generations to come. There is an incredible amount of potential for this home to have a great impact on the Civic Centre heritage district- the very image of the home emerging through the street lined trees as you approach Queen St from Ellen St gives a sense of stateliness, even for a modest Georgian Cottage. It's central placement within the district is appropriate for its contribution to this city's heritage, and we would like to make simple but effective improvements to outdoor elements that serve to enhance the profile of the home, rather than take away or lessen its beauty (as the current broken portico does). EXHIBIT C: How is this consistent with Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: We are passionate about going beyond the call of returning our property to its "former glory" - and rather bringing the building into a new season of glory altogether, while respecting and paying tribute to the characteristics of bygone years. You can see from the attached photo Fig.4, that once upon a time a portico of our proposed size and structure existed with the home. This photo dates back to 1912 (approx.), so it is likely not an original porch, but we do think that a structure like the one pictured is far more consistent with the heritage conservation than the one that currently exists. Page 151 of 154 Fig. 4 139 Queen St N. in 1912 with portico in the background We find it compelling, and worth noting, that the posts for the above pictured porch are in tact today, though the standing structure is quite different (see Fig. 1). Though most porticos associated with Georgian Style homes are flat roofed, we would like to break up the lines of architecture by building a portico with a peak. We would like to reinstate the dimensions of the portico from 1912 (spanning from window to window), while introducing elements that integrate well with Georgian Style architecture (such as rounded, more robust columns in the below photo (Fig. 5) : Fig 5. Example of rounded columns We will take it upon ourselves to preserve and store the existing columns, so that any future owners of the home may have access to them if they wish to undertake the reconstruction of the structure seen in the 1912 photo. Furthermore, I think our commitment to honouring the buildings specific history, whilst also drawing attention to its Georgian Architectural elements, show a great respect for the Guidelines for Conserving a Historic Place in Canada. Page 152 of 154 -NdUM JHl HIM JNIUJJJUdd JdUJJH NJISJU UdVHJdU Ul SJIJNVdJd'JSIU ANV 1d UdJd -UJ IVJS Jd Ul ION JdV SUNIMVdU "t° 0"N91530 JNl -613 'Pa�b!5 NOUVAIll U) C]NVHDNO :NIM,A3d I9npixpul 1N0211 dlSOd021d 31ll1 ,L 949BZ :NI°a —1 ,a6awo/sacxaP ala,dm d, zzaz Alnr 31VOO OINVINO OOINIIVM 'N IS uaanO 6£ l lOVi AH NMO gof9ZGf a4l u! 'pauD me a. !, a41 puo •PeIp.INnb Po° 6u!pllna a41 w (b'Z'f) S I+9d ° uoisup ,pun puaW.bu peWOE,osul °I°°'= o6j'� aaUapisall ilsousoS m o .0-,1=.91/f 717J5 Vid ZLL BZ-La-ZZOZ -03l101d °°°"�° a4l +^V o. N O I l l d d b/ N O I lbAO N l N ANtlNIVVll3dd Sn1,,S P 119 M 1 puo rice+ ;ngap,-pVe� I 133rOdd N W O, a O 98 O O a§ �Q E — a WW xNJ� �uj 111 X X W �2 W Q X �2- .ZA b-.L .Z-.I .I-.9 W z DO ---� U) F- LU W J w W �2 za�� ati 0 z O a LU J W FE]...... Fbfl 'z ........ ........ . . . . . . . . .. .............. .................... O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .... .... .. ............. ................ z ... . =�wf w .............. .... .... . ................. ............ .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ........................... .. ................ 0 0 i i ................ o 0 .................. .... .. .... Ell--- z E o o ffi oho wz p O_ ---� w W A J J ..... ......... ...................... W XXXX :d3010J 6xp'N IS uaan0 6fl 31IJ ° n 3 yin a o° ° S a ` Y 3 m .N m 0 4 m a O al y c a c0 w 3 m e a) m 1) ° com w w O C 3 O O° N° c_ p ca Y 01 O y C a) CL N= N O N O °- C O m U r c y a Y Y m a ._ 3 3°0 U m c x o c m 3° c 0 N .0 '`-' ° cu O a c m o o > 3 0 N o a c o ami o m a �° ° m a) c L a) ° L '3 o ° o m O —�° o f o c° o, a-0 c 2 o p a m`o m � o 3 m v, Y °° .c m c° o °� 3> m � -O o � o O m O y a `o O � °7 c mo o T a ¢, � C 0 5 m e - ,U C .O m cu E 3 m C :9 O C c >' O� N a°i CCU C N N N N N ° _° m CU al m �% m O m Y �Vy •'� m ° -° .Fu CL `' a c a 3 0 3 a ..., `o w e a� p a) a) y �+ O `� 0 cu �' a) U U N 'O -O m N Y L in 'x a7 E N Y° O N N O) L c c O E .� Y p ° n c C 01 = N N c O U^ m `p C m -0 3 E p (� U o C o m fUn CO m -° 0 p' 2 c m Y o 3 3 a) in 3 -O u "0 m o °- 7 L L N c IE O) e C� '~ m N N "cl m "0 O O. m 'U m c Ncu 'Q °° 0 O) N O L m-0 C a c m c X a) m c 0 c O C M N y a d 0 c 4 � c O` c 0 C c N O w m Y o a o o '(D o •` a °° o m aa) CU° °$ N °` .X 2 O 3 a) O 2° a3 a d V c N U U d N y E N m y0 0 E m c ° U w 0 E a U O y y c c p ` N n c n m aa) C 2°° C` o a) w o>° m� a) c c o .N m U- a N N m0_ m U -O a N Y Y m °- y c o O U m c w o -o O U o E m p N 0 .� c� N ` N Od C� N ••0- (D a) W Od a) 0 0 `� a) O N U E m O E � U2 y cu 0� � (n - y � m a U y m ° 0 1111 1 g U ILI A O =i N N N N N N N N N N N N ld N N N N d F�I y T T T T T T lbA lbw T m z�y 0 0 00 0 0 0000 occcccc o E E EE E E EEEE .c .c U c c HQ6 0 cu cu cu 0 cu 0cucu 0 u a a a a a a s a a U `m (`a `m (`a `m `m `m `m `m `m y N N N N N N N N N N N N T N N T N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y ° 6l c C c -0 a a a a a s cn cn q M M r n N N N N N 01 (O d u N r 00 N co N N 7 M (OM W d f'y O O O (O O (O co (O M N M N (O N N M N M M M M M M M 0) M 0) M (V'1 siu O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 'O w ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ y ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ rA _ o Q6 u N 0 N o 'Id U„ A b d d y N � a 'm > > z z Q z o w a a a m > n (n in Q a in a ° (n (n b c # . c c a ° y m o c (� Y m a> e ` ami °� m aNi -po -°°` _°°� y 21 2 o 2 o o a) CY C7 r n (A � 0 r T -Pi M N m N (O (n N M O (n N� O O c M M (O (O r N M n F( °O ❑ N Maa 7aa LO O O aa0 O>a O N>a ONa Na M O0 0 0O 0 OO O0 0 C? O>a O O Oa O O O OO0 ONa O C > >>> > >N > >a > > N N N N NN N N N N N N N>Ns N O N O N O N O N O O O O N O N O N O N O O N O O O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O NNN N NN NNNN N NNN N NNNN N s s a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x r N M V 1.1 (O f-- 1 00 07 O N M (q (D f� 00 07 ON N M (q (D Oi Oi O N N N N N N N- N N N M M