Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2023-01-03Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, January 3, 2023, 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 People interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation(a)kitchener.ca. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. The meeting live -stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. *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.* Chair - TBD Vice -Chair - TBD Pages 1. Commencement 2. In Camera Meeting Authorization Note: Any member of the Committee may question the appropriateness of a listed in -camera item. This may occur during the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting or at the beginning of the in -camera session. Members are being requested to enact the following resolution to authorize an in -camera meeting: "That an in -camera meeting be held immediately prior to the public meeting of the Heritage Kitchener Committee this date for members of the Heritage Kitchener Committee to receive education and training as authorized by Section 239 (3.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001." Following their education and training session, the Committee will reconvene the public meeting at 4:00 p.m. to consider the Heritage Permit Applications and Impact Assessments listed on the agenda. 3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www. kitchener. ca/conflict to submit your written form. 4. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. 5. Discussion Items 5.1 Election of Chair & Vice Chair 15 m 5.2 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 58-60 15 m Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East, DSD -2023-002 5.3 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022 V-030, 15 m 93 Lancaster Street East, Roof Replacement with Material Change, DSD -2023-016 5.4 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022 V-033, 15 m 1246 Doon Village Road, Demolition and Replacement of Front Sunroom, DSD -2023- 017 5.5 Sub -Committee Updates 15 m 5.6 Status Updates - Heritage Best Practices 5 m Update and 2023 Priorities, Heritage Impact Assessment Follow-ups 6. Information Items 6.1 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 7. Adjournment Mariah Blake Committee Administrator 3 174 W91-13 09191 Page 2 of 230 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: January 3, 2023 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 10 DATE OF REPORT: November 22, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-002 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East RECOMMENDATION: For Information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated August 2022, prepared by Archaeological Research Associated Ltd. regarding a proposal to redevelop the existing building at the subject property municipally addressed as 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East (Attachment A). The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) and is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject property is also located within the Civic Centre Neighborhood Cultural Heritage Landscape. The existing building at the subject property has been classified under the Group `A' buildings — which means it is of high significance. The subject property is an irregularly shaped lot, and all the facades of the house are highly visible from the public realm. According to the draft HIA, the house was initially designed with a Greek Floor Plan and has undergone many modifications throughout the years. The house was originally a single detached dwelling (one dwelling units) but has been converted to a multi -unit residence since originally built. The redevelopment of the existing building includes a number of alterations as well as a two -and -a -half storey addition located at the rear. The intent of the redevelopment is to increase the number of units from eight (8) units to twelve (12) units. *** 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 230 Alterations to the existing building The proposed alterations to the existing building include: • Removing and replacing certain windows and doors; • Removal of decorative shingles at the gable ends; • Removal of certain existing porches; • Infilling certain window and door opening; and • Introducing stone walls on some facades of the existing building. Figure 1: Existing Front Fapade facing the Five Points Intersection (Source: Draft HIA submitted by ARA Ltd.) New decorative wood trim New d— F.." asph to be reptai Existfirst p—d. — 80'-10" Exisr . po rnede e ePt to h 90'3" New deoor New wood 0'-Q' new asphalt shingle roof new prellntshad cement board "shakes" vestroughs around roof rnaw tnm to pseunatsc of "lows inllll exist. door opening wtC brick to match 9"-0" t.o., nevr 2nd floor wst. brkk masawy, to be pairttetl main door - datum 29` to._exist, hasement -7'-9" Lo., rvew hasemertt i i i i I exist. �ubhle toundalion wall-mour�Led heat -pump unit Arrisasft at stone wall Figure 2: Proposed Front Fapade (source: Architectural package submitted John McDonald Architects) Page 4 of 230 MGM"- "WW. Figure 3: Existing East Elevation facing Lancaster Street East (Source: Draft HIA submitted by ARA Ltd.) new deoo,.t wood Ifi— New—I roof new Idea. Irl MW PfO,ni9ned—nt E rd "aNekes" \ rno New shed domwr'm to esisting f N s r.pia� ax�sr aspnmr mingles wan naw 44 '{.'. Cerrer nim m aA IneNe end oul5itle mmen New rnndaxrs 20'10" I.v_B%iRL 3M PoOOY New Prefinished cemenE boaN"shakes Isl. Mick nWrh beP Wdi e 91d II�r N en wmeM hoa ng ard di lgl x nduw w;m e e Mick o maEch --- 1B'-5" 1. _ xisl, 2nd Poaor P - v-0^ t a r18w znd Povvr new trim under tool eav � _ _ Nw aa -Me woof caveat exlsl. rubble muntlauon -` _ I '.` naw vmoa cowmn � - new ds save wood base 0'-0" t :. b'-0" I _ xisl_.Ooor L rewm_floor-datum Wfi[- ( slmfiar)guerdto d PaPoo areas, oamted blaax �' 1� �� basement I � _--- 1 i .. k 'r 1 a• � Ir a� �I r• � FLn r � � �� � � 1 i FoaMarion wMh—dashed -7'-9" Lo _new basement Figure 4: Proposed East Elevation (source: Architectural package submitted John McDonald Architects) Page 5 of 230 Figure 5: Existing Rear Elevation (Source: Draft HIA submitted by ARA Ltd.) Frew aWp an WiNtee New Y shlpdepped siding 18'-U 4 Lo- new 9M Boor ew trFm arerlrM comers and under eaves of new siding welts 9'-0" f.o. new 2M Fbor new window cram G'-0" B.a; new mam Boor - datum board a batten skirt -T2t.o. new 6asemem Newd.—t— To. New vertical sleet s' dino E-1. fire eseapa to remain, ,—Ida new 9'mishes 20'-10° to. exist, -2j (bar New eaveshoaghs around mal Fro—'W woad bekmny shown dashed New wood gaard, Palmed 10'-S" LO-__BxFSI, ZrA 1I09r New decoranva wood columns, painted E-, bmk masonry, naw paint finish o'-0" 1.o._e w...maln tri_oor - datum Guard 8 halon akin poundalbn wolfs shown dashed ' - � 7'9" l o. exist. 6asemem ------------------------------------------------ Figure 6: Proposed Rear Elevation (source: Architectural package submitted John McDonald Architects) Page 6 of 230 new de¢ ,.- crew vedica ate avestroug mune win. on new siding w new cemem nai t Figure 1: Existing West Elevation facing Ellen Street East (Source: Draft HIA submitted by ARA Ltd.) Exista'a esape to roman. pr d newguard, paint R.-- N— eplaceaxialNew cement board °snakes" New aephaft shingles Naw demmtPua wnbd Prleze, paintetl New windows. typical Exist. dick mawnry, naw paint dnsn New wootl guard, painted qMr New wwd porch whams, paroled New windows. lypica New Sage entry door ¢hv transom, Moloy exist. msamry tp suite 0'-9" f.o. ezisC, main goor-tlalum Faentlation waAs shpwn tlasned -7'-9" lo._exist,,basem¢nt Figure 2: Proposed West Elevation (source: Architectural package submitted John McDonald Architects) Proposed Rear Addition A new two -and -a -half storey addition has also been proposed on the rear facade of the existing building. Due to the location of the subject property, the proposed addition will be visible from the public realm. Staff have been working with the applicants to inform some of the changes proposed. The applicants and the architect will attend the January 3, 2023, meeting of Heritage Kitchener to answer any questions Committee may have. Heritage Planning staff are in the process of reviewing the HIA and are seeking the committee's input and comments which Page 7 of 230 will be taken into consideration as part of the staff's review of the HIA and processing of related Planning Act applications. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the January meeting. A copy of the HIA and the architectural package (Attachment B) for the proposed development is attached to the 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 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager of Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 58-60 Ellen St E & 115 Lancaster St E Attachment B - Architectural Design Package for the proposed development Page 8 of 230 AW%S1MMWFARA ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE I OUTREACH I EDUCATION Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East City of Kitchener Region of Waterloo Lot 3, German Company Tract Geographic Township of Waterloo Former Waterloo County Prepared for Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. — 001 c/o John MacDonald Architect Inc. 141 Whitney Place, Suite 101 Kitchener, ON N2H 2X8 Tel: (519) 579-1700 Email: matthew(a�iohnmacdonaldarchitect.ca By Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 219-900 Guelph Street Kitchener, ON N2H 5Z6 Tel: (519) 804-2291 Fax: (519) 286-0493 www. arch -research. com Project # 2021-0338 11/08/2022 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under a contract awarded in December 2021 by Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. — 001 c/o John MacDonald Architect Inc., Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. completed a Heritage Impact Assessment for 58-60 Ellen Street & 115 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener. The Heritage Impact assessment is being prepared as part of the site plan approval and minor variance applications. The proposed development includes three property addresses under 58 and 60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East (the subject property). The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) in the City of Kitchener which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject property is not individually designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act but is noted in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District as a "fine or very fine example of defined architectural styles" (Stantec 2007:27). The CCNHCD identifies properties within the HCD as Group A or Group B (fine or very fine examples). It should be noted that there is some inconsistency within the CCNHCD regarding the subject property's grouping as the property includes multiple municipal addresses. Appendix B of the CCNHCD has identified 60 Ellen Street East as Class B and 115 Lancaster Street East as Group A, however an overview map of the Civic Centre neighbourhood identifies the entire building as Group A. As part of the Pre -Consultation meeting with the City of Kitchener on May 11, 2021, the City determined that a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment should be completed as part of a minor variance and site plan application. The subject property was historically located within the boundaries of Lot 3 of the German Company Tract in the former Town of Berlin, currently the City of Kitchener, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The scoped Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference outlined by the City of Kitchener includes the following required components: • Present owner; • Detailed site history; • Description of buildings and cultural heritage value and heritage attributes; • Documentation of subject property including photographs; • Outline of the proposed development or site alteration and impacts and any adjacent properties; • Options for conservation and mitigation methods; • Summary of heritage conservation principles and their use; • Explanation and Justification of Proposed Alterations; • Recommendations; • Qualifications and background of authors/personnel; • Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations; and • Identification and justification for the preferred option. The Ontario Regulation 9/06 evaluation confirms that 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East have Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and have met criteria for physical and design value, historical/associative value and contextual value. The proposed development includes the construction of a new two -and -a -half storey addition which will be the same height as the existing building. The proposed development also includes August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2R6_08 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East alterations to the existing building including removing and replacing windows, doors, roof materials, cedar shingles, porches, and the addition of dormers, new porches, windows, and fencing as well as the infill of windows and doorways. Potential negative impacts to 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East may result from the proposed development including: • Impact 1 —The proposed development involves the removal of the original wooden sash windows which are heritage attributes of the existing building • Impact 2 — The conversion of some of the wooden sash windows into doorways and some windows being closed in, both are heritage attributes. • Impact 3 — The potential for accidental damage to heritage attributes during the construction process and/or as part of the removal or alteration of openings. • Impact 4 — The proposed development includes multiple alterations to all elevations which do not directly impact heritage attributes but result in the loss of historic materials. • Impact 5 —The location of the in -ground garbage bin and recycling bins along Ellen Street East streetscape parallel to the streetscape has potential to detract from the character of the streetscape. Throughout the process a variety of design options and refinements were applied. The proposed development was refined to include the retention and restoration of the prominent facade upper storey and attic windows. Mitigation measures to address the identified impacts have been outlined. The following mitigation measures are recommended: • Material salvage and reuse is strongly encouraged. Materials from the building should be salvaged by a salvage company or salvaged and reused within the property (i.e., landscaping elements, reuse of doors within proposed design, outbuilding). • Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation has been completed as part of this report. It should be confirmed that the existing documentation within this report has been completed to the satisfaction of City staff and should additional photographic documentation be requested, it should be completed as part of the Conservation Plan. • To protect the adjacent properties from accidental damage during the construction period, construction fencing is recommended. • Any masonry repointing should be carried out by a tradesperson who has experience working with heritage buildings. • It is recommended that the Conservation Plan provide guidance on items proposed for removal in a manner which does not cause additional unintended damage to the building. Furthermore, the Conservation Plan should provide short-, medium- and long-term recommendations to ensure the ongoing viability of the heritage resource. • It is recommended that the landscape plan which incorporated vegetative screening to reduce the visual impact of the garbage and recycling units on Ellen Street East is followed. • It is recommended that final colours to be used in the design be selected from a heritage palette and/or be in keeping with the neighbourhood. • It is recommended that City of Kitchener Staff determine if the proposed development warrants vibration monitoring and provide specific direction on how to carry this out. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2RbOf of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 1 2.0 LEGISLATION AND POLICY REVIEW 4 2.1 Federal Guidelines 4 2.2 Provincial Policies and Guidelines 5 2.2.1 The Planning Act 5 2.2.2 The Provincial Policy Statement (2020) 5 2.2.3 Ontario Heritage Act 6 2.3 Municipal Policies 7 2.3.1 Region of Waterloo Official Plan 7 2.3.2 City of Kitchener Official Plan 8 2.3.3 City of Kitchener Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District Plan (CCNHCD) 9 2.4 Policy Summary 12 3.0 KEY CONCEPTS 12 4.0 CONSULTATION 14 5.0 SITE HISTORY 15 5.1 Settlement History 15 5.1.1 Post -Contact 15 5.2 German Company Tract 16 5.3 Berlin 17 5.4 Subject Property 17 6.0 FIELD SURVEY 21 7.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 21 7.1 Contextual Surrounding 21 7.2 Arrangement of Buildings and Structures 21 7.3 Residence Exterior 22 7.4 Residence Interior 24 7.4.1 58 Ellen Street East 25 7.4.2 60 Ellen Street East 25 7.4.3 115 Lancaster Street East 25 7.4.4 Basement 25 8.0 HERITAGE ASSESSMENT 25 8.1 Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study 25 8.2 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan 27 8.3 Evaluation of 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East According to Ontario Regulation 9/06 29 8.3.1 Summary of Evaluation 30 8.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 31 8.4.1 Introduction and Description of Property 31 8.4.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value/Statement of Significance 31 9.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 33 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2R6_01 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East iv 9.1 Planning Rationale 35 10.0 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS 49 11.0 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS AND CONSIDERATIONS 54 11.1 Alternative: Do Nothing 54 11.2 Alternative: Remove and Replace all Windows 54 11.3 Alternative: Refined Design Elements 54 11.4 Summary of Alternative Design Considerations 54 12.0 MITIGATIVE MEASURES 55 12.1 Reuse and Salvage of Materials (Impact 1, 2 and 4) 55 12.2 Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (Impact 1, 2, 3, and 4) 56 12.3 Construction Fencing (Impact 3) 56 12.4 Masonry Repointing and Painting (Impact 3) 56 12.5 Conservation Plan (Impact 3) 57 12.6 Vegetative Screening (Impact 5) 57 12.7 Design Considerations (General) 57 12.8 Vibration Monitoring (General) 57 13.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 57 14.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 59 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Maps and Figures 63 Appendix B: Subject Property Images 71 Appendix C: Key Team Member Two -Page Curriculum Vitae 121 LIST OF IMAGES Image 1: Context — View Showing Subject Property from Five Points Intersection 73 Image 2: Context — Five Point Intersection, View of Streetscape 73 Image 3: Context — View of Lancaster Streetscape, Subject Property at Centre 74 Image 4: Context — Lancaster Street East Streetscape 74 Image 5: Context — Ellen Street East Streetscape 75 Image 6: Context — View of Subject Property from Five Points Intersection 75 Image 7: Subject Property — Fagade 76 Image 8: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable End/Multipaned Queen -Anne Style Attic Window 76 Image 9: Subject Property — Multi -Paned Queen Anne Style Window on Second Storey with Decorative Woodwork 77 Image 10: Subject Property — Unpainted Brick Area Revealing Buff Brick Construction 77 Image 11: Subject Property — Infilled Window Opening 78 Image 12: Subject Property —Addition on East Corner 78 Image 13: Subject Property — Stone Foundation and Cinder Block Foundation Under One -Storey Addition on East Corner 79 Image 14: Subject Property — East Elevation 79 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2R6_01 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East v Image 15: Subject Property — Northeast Elevation 80 Image 16: Subject Property — Modified Openings on Second Storey 80 Image 17: Subject Property — Molded Wooden Cornice 81 Image 18: Subject Property — Molded Wooden Cornice Showing Area Clad with Aluminium Flashing 81 Image 19: Subject Property — Decorative Shingle Work on Gable End 82 Image 20: Subject Property — Stone Foundation with Coursed Mortar Parging 82 Image 21: Subject Property — Brick Detail Showing Red Glazing and Beaded Mortar Profile 83 Image 22: Subject Property — Paired Window Openings with Segmental Arches 83 Image 23: Subject Property — Running Cracks Visible in Masonry 84 Image 24: Subject Property — Painted Wooden Sills 84 Image 25: Subject Property — Interior and Storm Windows of Varying Conditions 85 Image 26: Subject Property — Basement Door Showing Modified Opening 85 Image 27: Subject Property —Addition on North Corner 86 Image 28: Subject Property — Window Opening Inside North Addition 86 Image 29: Subject Building — Running Cracks in Masonry and Fallen Arch 87 Image 30: Subject Property — Northwest Elevation 87 Image 31: Subject Property — Six -Paned Fixed Window on Northwest Elevation of One - Storey Addition 88 Image 32: Subject Property — Brick Discolouration Showing Water Shedding Issues 88 Image 33: Subject Property — Outside Brick Chimney 89 Image 34: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable Ends 89 Image 35: Subject Property — Two -Storey Addition on West Corner 90 Image 36: Subject Property — Brick and Mortar Deterioration/Replacement 90 Image 37: Subject Property — Connection between Initial Residence Design with Two - Storey Addition on West Corner 91 Image 38: Subject Property — Single Masonry Course Laid in Header Pattern on Foundation 91 Image 39: Subject Property — Segmental Arch on Basement Opening 92 Image 40: Subject Property — Flat Arched Basement Opening on Two -Storey Addition on West Corner 92 Image 41: Subject Property — Southwest Elevation 93 Image 42: Subject Property —Attic Storey Dormer and Fire Escape 93 Image 43: Subject Property — Balcony on Second Storey of Two -Storey Addition on West Corner 94 Image 44: Subject Property — First Storey Porch 94 Image 45: Subject Property — Large Window Opening with Flat Arch 95 Image 46: Subject Property — 58 Ellen Street East Entrance 95 Image 47: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable End 96 Image 48: Subject Property — Paired Window Openings with Segmental Arches 96 Image 49: Subject Property — Stone Foundation with Deteriorated Mortar 97 Image 50: Subject Property — Closet Addition on Second Floor 97 Image 51: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Enclosed Entrance 98 Image 52: Subject Property — One -over -one Wooden Sash Window with Segmental Arch 98 Image 53: Subject Property — One -over -one Wooden Sash Window with a Segmental Arch and New or Restored Wooden Fixed Storm Window 99 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-OR of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East vi Image 54: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Entrance Door with Decorative Woodwork 99 Image 55: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Porch with Beadboard Wooden Ceiling 100 Image 56: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible 100 Image 57: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Window with Transom 101 Image 58: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible 101 Image 59: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible 102 Image 60: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Modified Interior 102 Image 61: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Wooden Trim 103 Image 62: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring 103 Image 63: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wood Panel Door and Wooden Trim 104 Image 64: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wood Panel Door 104 Image 65: 58 Ellen Street East Interior —Addition Interior 105 Image 66: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim 105 Image 67: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring and Wooden Sash Windows with Trim 106 Image 68: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Wooden Sash Windows with Trim 106 Image 69: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Trim Profile 107 Image 70: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Fireplace Mantle with Tile Hearth 107 Image 71: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Wooden Sash Window with Trim and Hardwood Flooring 108 Image 72: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Operable Sash Windows 108 Image 73: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Modified Interiors 109 Image 74: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Door Leading to Addition on East Corner 109 Image 75: 60 Ellen Street East Interior —Addition Interior Area 110 Image 76: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Modified Kitchen Area 110 Image 77: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring, Wooden Sash Windows, Interior Trim, Four Panel Wooden Door 111 Image 78: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Room with Historic Wooden Sash Windows 111 Image 79: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Coloured Glass Panes 112 Image 80: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim 112 Image 81: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim 113 Image 82: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows 113 Image 83: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom 114 Image 84: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom 114 Image 85: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim 115 Image 86: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows 115 Image 87: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom, Four -Panel Wooden Door 116 Image 88: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Coloured Glass Panes 116 Image 89: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring 117 Image 90: Basement — Former Barbershop Space 117 Image 91: Basement —Wooden Paneled Door 118 Image 92: Basement — Unfinished Areas 118 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2R6_09 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East vii Image 93: Basement — Some Basement Windows Remaining 119 Image 94: Basement — Former Washroom 119 Image 95: Basement — Storm Windows for First and Second Storey Openings in Storage 120 LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener, ON 2 Map 2: Aerial Photo of the Subject Property 3 Map 3: Subject Property on Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West 24 Table 4: (1861) 63 Map 4: Subject Property on Historic Maps from 1853-54, 1875, 1879, 1892 64 Map 5: Subject Property on H. Parsell & Co.'s Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Development — North Elevation Waterloo (1881) 65 Map 6: Subject Property on a Topographic Map from 1916 66 Map 7: 1945 and 1955 Aerial Photos of Subject Property 67 Map 8: Photo Location Map Overview — Subject Property and Surrounding Context 71 Map 9: Photo Location Map Detail — Subject Property 72 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Post -Contact Settlement History 15 Table 2: Summary of Land Transactions for 60 Ellen Street East 20 Table 3: Characteristics of Queen Anne Residential Buildings 24 Table 4: Evaluation of the Subject Property Using O. Reg. 9/06 29 Table 5: Impact Assessment for Proposed Development 49 Table 6: Policies Considered from Section 3.3.2. Additions and Alterations to Existing Development — North Elevation Buildings in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan 50 Table 7: Recommended Practices and Guidelines Considered from Section 6.4 West Elevation 41 Alterations of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan 51 Table 8: Guidelines Considered from Section 6.9.3. Area Specific — Ellen Street East of 42 Figure 7: the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan 52 Table 9: Guidelines Considered from Section 6.5.1 Additions of the Civic Centre Figure 8: Proposed Neighbourhood HCD Plan 53 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Proposed Development — Proposed Site Plan 37 Figure 2: Proposed Development — South Elevation (Facade) 38 Figure 3: Proposed Development — East Elevation 39 Figure 4: Proposed Development — North Elevation 40 Figure 5: Proposed Development — West Elevation 41 Figure 6: Proposed Development — Basement Key Plan 42 Figure 7: Proposed Development— 1St Floor Key Plan 43 Figure 8: Proposed Development — 2nd Floor Key Plan 44 Figure 9: Proposed Development — 31d Floor Key Plan 45 Figure 10: Proposed Development — 3D Rendering 46 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2R6_06 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East viii Figure 11: Proposed Development — Exterior Finishes 47 Figure 12: Proposed Development — Landscape Plan 48 Figure 12: Subject Property in 1897 titled Residence of Peter Saugel 68 Figure 13: Portrait of Anna Rothaermel Cairnes 68 Figure 14: 1911 Advertisement for Mrs. W Cairnes (Anna Cairnes) Art Studio 69 Figure 15: 1918 Advertisement for A. Cairnes Art Studio 69 Figure 16: Lord Kitchener of Khartoum — Painted by Anna Cairnes 70 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ARA —Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. BHR — Built Heritage Resource CCNHCD — Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District CHVI — Cultural Heritage Value or Interest CHL — Cultural Heritage Landscape GCT — German Company Tract HMRC — Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada JMA —John MacDonald Architect Inc. MTCS — Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport OHA —Ontario Heritage Act OHT — Ontario Heritage Trust O. Reg. — Ontario Regulation OP — Official Plan PPS — Provincial Policy Statement RSCHR — Regional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources ROP — Regional Official Plan ZOI —Zone of Influence PERSONNEL Heritage Operations Manager: K. Jonas Galvin, MA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP Project Manager: A. Barnes, MA, CAHP Field Surveys: A. Barnes, A. Bousfield-Bastedo, BA, Dip. Heritage Conservation, C. Williamson, MA Historical Research: A. Bousfield-Bastedo, S. Clarke, BA, CAHP Cartographers: A. Bailey (GIS), K. Brightwell (GIS) Technical Writers: A. Bousfield-Bastedo Editor: V. Cafik, BA, CAHP Two-page Curriculum Vitae (CV) for key team members that demonstrate the qualifications and expertise necessary to perform cultural heritage work in Ontario are provided in August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-O f of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East CITY OF KITCHENER MINIMUM REPORT REQUIREMENTS CHART ix City of Kitchener Minimum Requirements Relevant ARA Section HIA ToR Present owner 1.0 Project Context Detailed site history 5.0 Site History 4.0 Consultation Description of buildings and cultural heritage 6.0 Field Survey value and heritage attributes 7.0 Property Description 8.0 Heritage Assessment Documentation of subject property including Appendix A: Maps and Figures photographs Appendix B: Subject Property Images Outline of the proposed development or site 9.0 Proposed Development alteration and impacts 10.0 Analysis of Potential Impacts Options for conservation and mitigation 11. Alternative Designs and Considerations methods 12.0 Mitigation Measures Summary of heritage conservation principles 2.0 Policy and their use 11.0 Alternative Designs and Considerations Summary Statement and Conservation 12.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendation Recommendations Qualifications and background of Appendix C: Key Team Member's CVs authors/personnel August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2R6-06 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT Under a contract awarded in December 2021 by John MacDonald Architect Inc. (JMA), Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) completed a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East in the City of Kitchener. The HIA is required as part of a minor variance and site plan approval for a proposed development. The current owners are proposing the renovation of the existing six -unit dwelling and new construction of a two -and -a -half storey addition containing an additional four units to create a twelve -unit multiple dwelling building. The location of the proposed development is municipally known as 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East (henceforth subject property) and located on one property parcel lot (see Map 1—Map 2). The subject property was historically located within the boundaries of Lot 3 of the German Company Tract in the former Town of Berlin, currently the City of Kitchener, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The CCNHCD identifies properties within the HCD as Group A or Group B (fine or very fine examples). It should be noted that there is some inconsistency within the CCNHCD regarding the subject property's grouping as the property includes multiple municipal addresses. Appendix B of the CCNHCD has identified 60 Ellen Street East as Class B and 115 Lancaster Street East as Group A, however an overview map of the Civic Centre neighbourhood identifies the entire property as Group A. The neighbourhood was also included in the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study. As part of the Pre -Consultation meeting with the City of Kitchener (henceforth the City) on May 11, 2021, the City determined that a Scoped HIA would be required as part of the minor variance and site plan application. The HIA will be prepared in accordance with the scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — Terms of Reference provided by the City. Based on the Heritage Impact Assessment — Terms of Reference (City of Kitchener, 2021) the following components were waived by the City of Kitchener Planner- Heritage: • Section 2.3: Statement addressing the value and significance of adjacent protected heritage properties • Section 3.0: Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations for adjacent heritage properties • Section 4:0: All Mandatory Recommendations The proposed development is being completed by: Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. - 001 c/o Mark Benjamins 26 River Valley Dr. Kitchener, ON N2C 2V6 Tel: (519) 580-8541 email: mark(a)beniaminsrealty.com The purpose of the scoped HIA is to identify any existing built or cultural heritage resources on the subject property, identify any impacts of the proposed development, and provide mitigative measures. This assessment was conducted in accordance with the aims of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, Provincial Policy Statement (2020), Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18, the City of Kitchener Official Plan (2018), and the City of Kitchener, Heritage Impact Assessment — Terms of Reference. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3§ Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 2 Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener, ON (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS@ software by Esri, @ Esri) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2,09 0 1 3,2 Page -26 of 230 5tiakedaa .... ....... V Kith—, Nh--- -7- 4 ro-, 0 25 km 41 IN W twm Id V v. % M-1 60 Ellen St Kitchener Subject Property Heritage Impact Assessment 60 Ellen Street City of Kitchener N Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1 12,500 Lot 3, German Company Tract mmmmmmmmmmmr:::::::= Geographic Township of Waterloo D 250 Scam Former Waterloo County ma mrormanPnrrersxd,,d,,1h,0p,, G ... r .... i U ... —0,1-, se -P E- HERE G—, I-- P — ­nt P Corp.. 1E.. 11-. .. NPS. ECAN G -B— - K--- — —, — Japan. —1 — Ch— H -g K-) (,j O ­St --p — I —dbw--d t. GIS UCommuplly Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener, ON (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS@ software by Esri, @ Esri) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2,09 0 1 3,2 Page -26 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Map 2: Aerial Photo of the Subject Property (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri; Region of Waterloo 2020) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3q Of 230 V � - s 5l- •tea -! _ � i „ Z Cf m z t m -i ST M Ln r f• Subject Property &W%wARA N 1:365 p 0 5 10m information licensed under the Open G overnmeni. license - Ontario Bas -p -- Region ofLVaRM1oo (2620) Map 2: Aerial Photo of the Subject Property (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri; Region of Waterloo 2020) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3q Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 2.0 LEGISLATION AND POLICY REVIEW 0 The framework for this assessment is provided by federal guidelines, provincial planning legislation and policies as well as regional and local municipal Official Plans and guidelines. 2.1 Federal Guidelines At the national level, The Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada 2010) provides guidance for the preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of historic places, including cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs) and built heritage resources (BHRs). Such guidance includes the planning and implementation of heritage conservation activities. Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada outlines "General Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration," and provides an explanation on how to fulfill these standards in alignment with principles supported by The Canadian Association for Conservation (CAC) and the Canadian Association of Professional Conservators (CAPC). These guidelines include the following: 1. Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact or repairable character defining elements. Do not move a part of an historic place if its current location is a character -defining element. 2. Conserve changes to an historic place that, over time, have become character -defining elements in their own right. 3. Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. 4. Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Do not create a false sense of historical development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties, or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted. 5. Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character -defining elements. 6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize an historic place until any subsequent intervention is undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential for disturbing archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss of information. 7. Evaluate the existing condition of character -defining elements to determine the appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. 8. Maintain character -defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character -defining elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character -defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes. 9. Make any intervention needed to preserve character -defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place and identifiable on close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference (Parks Canada 2010:22). August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gWM Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 2.2 Provincial Policies and Guidelines 2.2.1 The Planning Act In Ontario, the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 2018b) is the primary document used by provincial and municipal governments in land use planning decisions. The purpose of the Planning Act is outlined in Section 1.1 of the Act, which states: 1.1 The purposes of this Act are, (a) to promote sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment within the policy and by the means provided under this Act; (b) to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy; (c) to integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions; (d) to provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient; (e) to encourage co-operation and co-ordination among various interests; (f) to recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning. 1994, c. 23, s. 4. Part I Provincial Administration, Section 2 states: "The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under the 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". 1990: Part 1 (2. d) Part I Provincial Administration, Section 3, 5 Policy statements and provincial plans states: A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Tribunal, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, (a) shall be consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date of the decision; and (b) shall conform with the provincial plans that are in effect on that date, or shall not conflict with them, as the case may be. 2006, c. 23, s. 5; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 5, s. 80. The current Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), issued under section 3 of the Planning Act, came into effect May 1St, 2020. 2.2.2 The Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020) contains a combined statement of the province's land use planning policies. It provides the provincial government's policies on a range of land use planning issues, including cultural heritage, outlined in Section 1.7 c) which states: "Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being depend on conserving biodiversity, protecting the health of the Great Lakes, and protecting natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits" (MMAH 2020:24). The PPS 2020 promotes the conservation of cultural heritage resources through detailed polices in Section 2.6, such as "2.6.1 Significant August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3 Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved" and "2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved" (MMAH 2020:31). 2.2.3 Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.018 (OHA) is the guiding piece of provincial legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. The OHA gives provincial and municipal governments the authority and power to conserve Ontario's heritage. The Act has policies which address individual properties (Part IV), heritage districts (Part IV), and allows municipalities to create a register of non -designated properties which may have cultural heritage value or interest (Section 27). In order to objectively identify cultural heritage resources, O. Reg. 9/06 made under the OHA sets out three principal criteria with nine sub -criteria for determining CHVI (MTCS 2006a:20-27). The criteria set out in the regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation under the OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O. Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. In the absence of specific Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) evaluation criteria, O. Reg 9/06 is also applied to consider the built and natural features and the property as a whole. The O. Reg. 9/06 criteria includes: design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value. 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). The OHA provides three key tools for the conservation of built heritage resources (BHRs) and cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs). It allows for protection as: 1. A single property (i.e., farmstead, park, garden, estate, cemetery), a municipality can designate BHRs and CHLs as individual properties under Part IV of the OHA. 2. Multiple properties or a specific grouping of properties may be considered a CHL, as such, a municipality can designate the area as a Heritage Conservation District (HCD) under Part V of the OHA. 3. Lastly, a municipality has the authority to add an individual or grouping of non-OHA designated property(ies) of heritage value or interest on their Municipal Heritage Register. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3 Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East An OHA designation provides the strongest heritage protection available for conserving cultural heritage resources. 2.3 Municipal Policies 2.3.1 Region of Waterloo Official Plan The Regional Official Plan - 2031 (ROP) Chapter 3 contains policies that address cultural heritage resources, such as Policy 3.G.1 indicating that: "The Region and Area Municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved" (Region of Waterloo 2015:48). There are additional policies that are for the identification and protection of Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources. The ROP policy information below is also outlined in the "Regional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources (RSCHR)" (2018:9). 3. G.2 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources. In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, this guideline will outline the criteria and processes the Region will follow to identify and conserve cultural heritage resources of Regional interest including regional roads that have cultural heritage value or interest. 3. G.3 Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Area Municipalities will include on their register properties designated under Part IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, and will consider including, but not be limited to, the following additional cultural heritage resources of cultural heritage value or interest: a) properties that have heritage conservation easements or covenants registered against title; b) cultural heritage resources of Regional interest; and c) cultural heritage resources identified by the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Federal or Provincial governments. 3.G.4 The Region will coordinate and maintain a region -wide inventory of cultural heritage resources that are: a) listed on registers established and maintained by Area Municipalities; b) identified by the Federal or Provincial governments, and the Grand River Conservation Authority; c) identified through research by the Region, Area Municipalities, post -secondary institutions or local historical societies; d) of Regional interest; or e) owned by the Region (Region of Waterloo 2015:48-49). The ROP includes policies related to potential impacts to cultural heritage resources within the region. Policy 3.G.13 states: "Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property or includes a non -designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register' (ROP August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3g Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 2015:51). Where a cultural heritage resource is of Regional interest there are policies that address the circulation and the contents of a CHIA and mitigative recommendations to conserve the resource, where feasible (ROP 2015:51-52). The subject property is not a resource of regional significance. 2.3.2 City of Kitchener Official Plan The City of Kitchener Official Plan outlines goals of the OP which includes providing: ...a framework for the creation and maintenance of a safe and healthy urban environment within which opportunities are provided for people to satisfy their social, economic, cultural and physical needs and for maintaining and conserving the integrity of the natural and cultural heritage (City of Kitchener 2014:2-4). Section 12 of City of Kitchener Official Plan contains policies addressing cultural heritage resources. Within this section there are objectives for the conservation of cultural heritage resources including: 12. C. 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. C.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. (2014:12-1). The City of Kitchener's OP supports identifying and addressing potential impacts to cultural heritage resources through Policy 12.C.1.23 which states: The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed.- a) roposed.a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; (2014:12-5). As outlined in the OP, Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) are to have the following contents: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; 0 implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations (2014:12-6). Additionally, the OP states: 12. C. 1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act (2014:12-6). August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3g Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East The protection of CHLs is outlined in policies 12.C.1.8.—12.C.1.12. which provide for inventorying and listing of CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, their mapping and their conservation through legislation and along the Grand River (2014:12-2 - 12-3). Beyond these policies the OP contains cultural heritage policies within Section 12 that address Heritage Conservation Districts; archaeology; conservation measures for cultural heritage resources; Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans; Heritage Permit application process; the demolition/damage of cultural heritage resources; public infrastructure; incentives; the role and resources of Kitchener including leading by example with the care and management of City - owned cultural heritage resources; and the design and integration of cultural heritage resources in the City. 2.3.3 City of Kitchener Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District Plan (CCNHCD) The following policies found within the Civic Centre HCD Plan have been considered as part of the assessment. Section 3:0 Heritage District Objectives, Principles and Policies, provides a framework for the conservation of the "Civic Centre Neighbourhood's unique heritage attributes over the long term, and are integral to the conservation plan and associated guidelines" (2007:3.1). Section 3.3 includes several policies which address specific issues. Specific to the proposed alteration is Section 3.3.2. Additions and Alterations to Existing Buildings and the associated policies. Section 3.3.2 states: It is inevitable that dwellings will be altered and additions will be made, as it is unreasonable to expect that they can be remain static in the face of contemporary living arrangements and the evolution of a community. However, it is important that additions and alterations do not detract from the overall heritage character of the neighbourhood and that they do not result in the loss of key heritage attributes. At present, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan includes policies and zoning regulations that restrict the extent of alterations and additions to any properties within the Low Rise Residential Preservation and Office Residential Conversion designations. These policies, where they pertain to additions and alterations, are also included in this Plan to reinforce their continued relevance. Policies: (a) Minor exterior alterations and additions to single detached dwellings shall be permitted provided such alterations are not within any front or side yard (Section 13.1.2.1 of the Municipal Plan). (b) Structural alterations to the exterior of buildings are not permitted in the event of residential conversions. Any exterior stairs or fire escapes are to be enclosed and kept away from the fagade of the structure (Section 13.1.2.1 of the Municipal Plan). (c) Major structural alterations to the exterior of buildings are not permitted for conversions in the Office -Residential Conversion designation (Section 13.1.2.7 of the Municipal Plan). Additional policies regarding alterations and additions that are to apply to all areas of the District are provided below: (d) Additions shall be subordinate to the original structure to allow the original heritage features and built form to take visual precedence on the street. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3� Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 10 (e) Design guidelines provided in Sections 6.4 and 6.5 of this Plan will be used to review and evaluate applications for additions and alterations to ensure that the proposed changes are compatible with the existing dwelling and do not result in the irreversible loss of heritage attributes (2007:3.6-3.7). Section 6.0 Architectural Design Guidelines notes that one of the goals of the HCD is "to preserve an adequate stock of the heritage features that define the character of the area to preserve the cohesive nature of the district' (2007:6.1). Section 6.2, Key Elements, provides an understanding of the unique and specific architectural elements which contribute to the overall cultural heritage value of the HCD. The key elements contribute to the guidelines, and the polices associated with alterations and additions, will be evaluated. Section 6.2 states Architectural elements contribute to the heritage character of a building, the streetscape grouping of buildings, and the district. The elements are listed in order from the items of large scale and dramatic impact to the items of small scale and subtle impact on the surrounding built form. As in all discussions of artistic pursuits and emotional responses, there are differences in personal interpretation and relative values. However, the purpose of this study is to acknowledge both the individual key elements contributing to the heritage character, and the cumulative effect of those elements (2007: 6.2). Section 6.4, Alterations, outlines the recommended practices and design guidelines associated with alterations to a property. This section states: Alterations to the facade of buildings visible from the public realm (typically the front of the house or front and side of the house on corner lots) have the potential to dramatically affect the appearance of not only the building itself, but the entire streetscape. In a heritage conservation district, it is very important to ensure that alterations preserve the essential character of the house, and are complementary to adjacent dwellings (2007:6.1.2). Section 6.4 outlines multiple recommended practices and design guidelines when considering an alteration. These guidelines have been evaluated in Table 7 of this report. The guidelines include: • Research the original style and appearance of the building to determine "authentic limits" of restoration or alteration so that the appropriate style is maintained. • In the absence of historical data, use forensic evidence available from the building itself to suggest appropriate restoration or alteration. • Seek similar properties (same age, same design, and same builder) for evidence of details that may still exist as samples for reconstruction. • Avoid "new "materials and methods of construction if the original is still available. • Retain and restore heritage attributes wherever possible rather than replacing them, particularly for features such as windows, doors, porches and decorative trim. • Where replacement of features (e.g. — doors, windows, trim) is unavoidable, the replacement components should be of the same general style, size, proportions and material whenever possible. • Incorporate similar building forms, materials, scale and design elements in the alteration that exist on the original building. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3§ Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 11 Avoid concealing or irreversibly altering original heritage attributes of buildings, such as entrances, windows, doors and decorative details when undertaking alterations. If in doubt, use discretion and avoid irreversible changes to the basic structure. Keep accurate photos and other records, and samples of original elements that have been replaced. (2007:6.1.2) Section 6.5, Additions, outlines the polices and guidelines associated when there is a proposed addition. The section states: Additions to dwellings are typically undertaken by homeowners to provide more space and/or to increase the functionality of their dwellings. Similar to alterations, additions can also have a major impact on both the dwelling itself and streetscape. Care must be taken in heritage conservation districts to ensure that additions respect the surrounding context, particularly with respect to scale and form, and are complementary to the dwelling itself (2007:6.17). Section 6.5.1 outlines multiple recommended practices and design guidelines when considering an addition. These guidelines have been evaluated in Table 9 of this report. The guidelines include: • Additions should be located away from principal fagade(s) of heritage properties, preferably at the rear of the building, to reduce the visual impact on the street(s). • Form and details of the addition should be complementary to the original construction, with respect to style, scale, and materials but still distinguishable to reflect the historical construction periods of the building. • The height of any addition should be similar to the existing building and/or adjacent buildings to ensure that the addition does not dominate the original building, neighbouring buildings or the streetscape. • Additions should not obscure or remove important architectural features of the existing building. • Additions should not negatively impact the symmetry and proportions of the building or create a visually unbalance ed facade. • New doors and windows should be of similar style, orientation and proportion as on the existing building. Where possible, consider the use of appropriate reclaimed materials. • New construction should avoid irreversible changes to original construction (2007:6.18). Section 6.9.3, Ellen Street East, includes street specific design guidelines. These guidelines were reviewed; and included: • The original appearance and character of the existing buildings should be maintained or integrated into any redevelopment proposals. • Building facades at the street level should in corporate consistent roof lines and step backs if required to establish a cohesive streetscape. • New development shall have entrances oriented to the street. • To better reflect the historic development pattern and address potential issues relating to privacy and access to sunlight in the event of any redevelopment, any redevelopment greater than 3 storeys is encouraged to maintain a rear yard setback greater than 7.5 metres where feasible. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3§ Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 12 • Locate loading, garbage and other service elements (HVAC, meters, etc.) away from the front fagade (2007:6.1.3) Section 8, Conservation Guidelines, provides a wide variety of information and guidelines to help understand the best practices and approach to maintaining, modifying, preserving, restoring and/or protecting a heritage property. Subsections 8.3 to 8.9 provides an in depth understanding of specific architectural features. 2.4 Policy Summary Provincial legislation and guidelines and municipal policies of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan and the City of Kitchener Official Plan call for the consideration of identified cultural heritage resources, the retention and promotion of heritage resources and provide policies related to potential development impacts to cultural heritage resources. Through careful analysis of the heritage values and attributes of identified resources and landscapes, coupled with an analysis of project impacts and an outline of potential mitigation measures, the requirements of the PPS, these Official Plans, the CCNHCD and their guidelines can be met. 3.0 KEY CONCEPTS The following concepts require clear definition in advance of the methodological overview and proper understanding is fundamental for any discussion pertaining to cultural heritage resources: • Built Heritage Resource (BHR) can be defined in the PPS as: "a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial and/or federal and/or international registers" (MMAH 2020:41). • Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) is defined in the PPS as: "a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms." (MMAH 2020:42). • Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI), also referred to as Heritage Value, is identified if a property meets one of the criteria outlined in O. Reg. 9/06 namely historic or associate value, design or physical value and/or contextual value. Provincial significance is defined under Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) O. Reg. 10/06. • 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 conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by relevant planning authority and/or decision -makers. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments" (MMAH 2020:41). • Heritage Attributes are defined in the PPS as: "the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property's cultural heritage value or interest, and may August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3M Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 13 include the property's built constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g., significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property)" (MMAH 2020:44-45). Protected heritage property is defined as "property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites" (MMAH 2020:49). Significant in reference to cultural heritage is defined as: "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" (MMAH 2020:51). Key heritage definitions from the Region of Waterloo Official Plan are as follows: • Built heritage resources are defined as "one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to the community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local, regional, provincial or federal jurisdictions" (2015:G-4). • Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment is detailed as "a study to determine if cultural heritage resources will be negatively impacted by a proposed development or site alteration. It can also demonstrate how the cultural heritage resource will be conserved in the context of redevelopment or site alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development approaches may also be recommended" (2015:G-5). • Cultural heritage landscape is "a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts" (2015:G-5). • Cultural heritage resources are "the physical remains and the intangible cultural traditions of past human activities. These include, but are not limited to: ■ buildings (residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and agricultural); ■ cultural heritage landscapes (designed, organic/evolved); ■ structures (water tower; bridge, fence and dam); ■ monuments (cenotaph, statue and cairn); ■ archaeological resources; ■ cemeteries; ■ scenic roads; ■ vistas/viewsheds; ■ culturally significant natural features (tree and landform); ■ movable objects (archival records and artifacts); and ■ cultural traditions (language, stories, music, dance, food, celebrations, art and crafts") (2015:G-6). Conserve/conserved (for the purposes of Chapter 3) means "the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment" (2015:G-4). August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3q Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 14 Key heritage definitions from the City of Kitchener Official Plan are as follows: Cultural Heritage Resources "includes buildings, structures and properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, properties on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement." (2014:A-5). Heritage Impact Assessment is defined as "a document comprising text and graphic material including plans, drawings, photographs that contains the results of historical research, field work, survey, analysis, and description(s) of cultural heritage resources together with a description of the process and procedures in deriving potential effects and mitigation measures as required by official plan policies and any other applicable or pertinent guidelines. A heritage impact assessment may include an archaeological assessment where appropriate" (2014:A-11). 4.0 CONSULTATION BHRs and CHLs are broadly referred to as cultural heritage resources. A variety of types of recognition exist to commemorate and/or protect cultural heritage resources in Ontario. As part of consultation ARA reviews relevant online sources and databases to determine if the subject property is recognized. The Minister of the Environment, on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC), makes recommendations to declare a site, event or person of national significance. The National Historic Sites program commemorates important sites that had a nationally significant effect on, or illustrates a nationally important aspect of, the history of Canada. A National Historic Event is a recognized event that evokes a moment, episode, movement or experience in the history of Canada. National Historic People are people who are recognized as those who through their words or actions, have made a unique and enduring contribution to the history of Canada. The Parks Canada's online Directory of Federal Heritage Designations captures these national commemorations as well as lists Heritage Railway Stations, Federal Heritage Buildings and Heritage Lighthouses. The subject property does not appear on these lists. Another form of recognition at the federal level is the Canadian Heritage Rivers System program. It is a federal program to recognize and conserve rivers with outstanding natural, cultural and recreational heritage. It is important to note that federal commemoration programs do not offer protection from alteration or destruction. Additionally, there is the Canadian Register of Historic Places which contains properties recognized by federal, provincial and territorial governments. As noted above, recognition in the Register does not offer protection from alteration/destruction but these properties may have other government designations/protections that do offer protections. The subject property does not appear on the register. The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) operates the Provincial Plaque Program that has over 1,250 provincial plaques recognizing key people, places and events that shaped the province. Additionally, properties owned by the province may be recognized as a "provincial heritage property" (MTCS 2010). The OHT plaque database and the Federal Canadian Heritage Database were searched. The subject property is not commemorated with an OHT plaque, nor is it recognized as a National Historic Site (OHT 2021; Parks Canada 2021). It does not appear that the subject property is subject to an OHT or municipal easement. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3M Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 15 Under Section 27 of the OHA, a municipality must keep a Municipal Heritage Register. A Municipal Heritage Register lists designated properties as well as other properties of cultural heritage value or interest in the municipality. Properties on this Register that are not formally designated are commonly referred to as "listed." Listed properties are flagged for planning purposes and are afforded a 60 -day delay in demolition if a demolition request is received. The City of Kitchener Heritage Register was consulted, and it was confirmed that the subject property at is not listed. Protected properties are those protected by Part IV (individual properties) or Part V (Heritage Conservation District) designation under the OHA. Once designated, a property cannot be altered or demolished without the permission of the local council. The subject property is not recognized under Part IV of the OHA. MTCS's current list of Heritage Conservation Districts was consulted. It was confirmed that the subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) designated under Part V of the OHA through By -Law 2008-39 (MTCS 2021). The list of properties designated by the MTCS under Section 34.5 of the OHA was consulted and the property is not included in this list. At project commencement, ARA contacted the City of Kitchener Heritage Planner to inquire about the site-specific scope of work required for the HIA and to gather any information which warrants consideration. Since a Conservation Plan is required for this project, the current Terms of Reference for Conservation Plans was provided. 5.0 SITE HISTORY The site history of the subject property was constructed using background information obtained from aerial photographs, historical maps (i.e., illustrated atlases), archival sources (i.e., historical publications, census records, land registry records), and published secondary sources (online and print). Given the limited timeframe for the production of this HIA report and the current Covid- 19 restricted access to research materials, there is always the possibility that additional historical information exists, but may not have been identified. 5.1 Settlement History The City of Kitchener and Waterloo County have a long history of settlement including pre -contact and post -contact Indigenous campsites and villages. The cultural heritage resources are tied to the early 20th century history of the Town of Berlin (City of Kitchener today). Accordingly, this historical context section spans the Euro -Canadian settlement history to present. 5.1.1 Post -Contact The arrival of the European explorers and traders at the beginning of the 17th century triggered widespread shifts in Indigenous lifeways and set the stage for the ensuing Euro -Canadian settlement process. Documentation for this period is abundant, ranging from the first sketches of Upper Canada and the written accounts of early explorers to detailed township maps and lengthy histories. The early history of the study area can be effectively discussed in terms of major historical events. The principal characteristics associated with these events are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Post -Contact Settlement History (Smith 1846; Coyne 1895; Lajeunesse 1960; Janusas 1988; Ellis and Ferris 1990; Surtees 1994; Bloomfield 2006; AO 2015) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3 Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 16 Historical Event Timeframe Characteristics Brute explores southern Ontario in 1610; Champlain travels through in Early Exploration Early 17' 1613 and 1615/1616, encountering a variety of Indigenous groups century (including both Iroquoian -speakers and Algonquian -speakers); European goods begin to replace traditional tools Conflicts between various First Nations during the Beaver Wars result in Increased Contact Mid- to late numerous population shifts; European explorers continue to document and Conflict 17th century the area, and many Indigenous groups trade directly with the French and 'The English; Great Peace of Montreal' treaty established between roughly 39 different First Nations and New France in 1701 Growth and spread of the fur trade; Peace between the French and Fur Trade Early to mid- English with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713; Ethnogenesis of the Metis; Development 18th century Hostilities between French and British lead to the Seven Years' War in 1754; French surrender in 1760 Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognizes the title of the First Nations to the British Control Mid -18th century land; Numerous treaties arranged by the Crown; First acquisition is the Seneca surrender of the west side of the Niagara River in August 1764 United Empire Loyalist influx after the American Revolutionary War Late 18th (1775-1783); British develop interior communication routes and acquire Loyalist Influx century additional lands; 'Between the Lakes Purchase' orchestrated by Haldimand in 1784 to obtain lands for Six Nations (the Haldimand Tract); Constitutional Act of 1791 creates Upper and Lower Canada Became part of York County's 'West Riding' in 1792; Additional lands Late 18th to acquired in the second 'Between the Lakes Purchase' in 1792; Brant Countysurrenders early 19th Blocks 1-6 of the Haldimand Tract to the Crown in 1798; Development century Became part of Gore District and Halton County in 1816; Wellington District and Waterloo County created in 1840; Waterloo County independent after the abolition of the districts stem in 1849 Waterloo was originally Block 2 of the Haldimand Tract; Block 2 sold to United Empire Loyalist Richard Beasley and his partners in 1798; Nearly Township Early 19th 5,750 ha sold to Pennsylvania Mennonites and non -Mennonites in 1800; Formation century German Company formed to facilitate the bulk sale of 24,281 ha in 1805, represented by Daniel Erb and Samuel Bricker; Lots drawn by shareholders in Pennsylvania; Steady and rapid stream of settlers ensued, disrupted only by the Napoleonic Wars and War of 1812 Twenty sawmills and eight grist mills in operation by 1846; Population was 4,424 at that time; the arrival of the Grand Trunk Railway, the Galt & Township Mid -19th to early Guelph Railway and the Preston & Berlin Railway in the 1850s ushered Development 20th century in a golden era; Prominent communities existed at Berlin, Breslau, Shantz, Williamsburg, New Aberdeen, Strasburg, German Mills, Freeport, Oregon (Upper Doon), Doon, Blair, Preston and Hespeler in 1881 5.2 German Company Tract The German Company Tract (GCT) was formed as a land holding group composed of wealthy Mennonites who immigrated to Upper Canada from Pennsylvania. The GCT encompassed 60,000 acres which was bought from Richard Beasley in the year 1805 (WHS 1934:110). The acreage was divided into 160 Lots and offered for distribution between the GCT's members. Lots 1-128 were composed of 448 acres each with the remaining lots composed of 83 acres (WHS 1934:92). Daniel and Jacob Erb served at Trustees for the GCT company and began distributing lots on July 20th, 1805 (WHS 1934:110). August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�10� Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 5.3 Berlin 17 Berlin developed along the Great Road between Preston and Waterloo (later King Street) on a sandy and swampy site that was of little value to the Mennonite farmers. As late as 1816, the swamp was the only landmark in the area (Cumming 1972:7). Due to the conditions, it was relatively easy for non -Mennonites to buy or rent small lots from the first settlers, including Benjamin Eby, Abraham Weber and Joseph Schneider. Schneider, for example, allowed a man known locally as Phineas Varnum to establish a smithy and tavern along the Great Road in the early 1820s, and sold this lot to Frederick Gaukel for an inn in 1833. Benjamin Eby also allowed a few stores on his land fronting the Great Road, including John Hoffman's cabinet shop in the later 1820s and Jacob Hailer's chair and spinning wheel shop (Bloomfield 2006:81). John Hoffman is credited with building at least 50 houses within the village prior to 1857 (Cumming 1972:7). The resulting settlement was known as Ebytown, Ben Eby's and Sandhills. Three Miller brothers bought land from Benjamin Eby for a store in 1832, and the legal transaction included the first use of the name `Berlin'. Samuel Herner bought 5 acres from Abraham Weber in 1833, and the settlement contained a wide variety of businesses and 25 houses by 1835. The first postmaster was appointed in 1842, and Berlin quickly became a market centre. The lack of waterpower was offset by the introduction of steam power, first documented at John Hoffman's furniture factory in 1845 (Bloomfield 2006:81-83). The Court House and county buildings were established on a ridge running parallel to King Street (which was in a valley) and lead to the beginning of a residential area. The first homes were mostly wood frame, although the emergence of local brickyards ca. 1846 resulted in the construction of many brick homes (English and McLaughlin 1983) . The population of Berlin reached 400 in 1846, 782 in 1850 and over 1,000 by 1855. The street system was well-developed in the early 1850s, and the streets were formally surveyed in 1855. Berlin was incorporated as a village in 1854 (Bloomfield 2006 83). The arrival of the Grand Trunk Railway in the mid -1850s resulted in increased growth and prosperity (Cumming 1972:7). The arrival of three brickmakers in the late 1850s and the danger of fire resulted in ever-increasing brick construction, and wooden buildings were forbidden in 1872. Henry Bowman built a 3 -storey brick mercantile block in 1858, which was the first major commercial building of its kind (English and McLaughlin 1983). The population of Berlin was approximately 5,000 by 1881 (Cumming 1972). The town changed its name to Kitchener during the First World War due to hostile feelings towards the Kaiser and the war (Janusas 1988:179). 5.4 Subject Property In an attempt to reconstruct the historic land use of the subject property and its context, ARA examined six historical maps documenting past residents, structures (e.g., homes, businesses and public buildings) and features during the 19th century and early 20th century, a topographic map from the early 20th century and two aerial images from the mid -20th century. Specifically, the following resources were consulted: • M.C. Schofield's Map of Part of the Town of Berlin, Capital of the County of Waterloo (1853-54) (UW 2022) • G.R. and G.M. Tremaine's Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West (1861) (OHCMP 2022); • Herman Brosius' Map of Berlin, Waterloo Co., Ontario (1875) (UW 2022) • G. M. Hopkins Map of the Town of Berlin, Waterloo Co., Ontario (1879) (UW 2022) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3g Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 18 • H. Parsell & Co.'s Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ont. (1881) (McGill University 2001); • The Town of Berlin, Canada (ca. 1892) (WRG 2020a); • Topographic map from 1916 (OCUL 2021); • Aerial photos from 1945, 1955 (UW 2016) Further, ARA completed a Summary of Land Transactions for the subject property at 60 Ellen Street East (see Table 2). The Crown Patent for Lot 3, German Company Tract, was a part of Block No. 2 in the County of Waterloo comprising 94,012 acres and was granted to Richard Beasley, James Wilson and John B. Rousseau in February of 1793 (see Table 2). Richard Beasley provided a Deed of Bargain or Sale for Part of Block No.2 to Daniel and Jacob Erb, who are recorded as trustees for the German Company Tract. Daniel and Jacob Erb divided portions of the tract into lots and Lot 3 was granted to Jacob Hershey on July 25, 1805. Jacob Hershey retained ownership of various parcels within Lot 3, until July 8, 1818, when a portion of the lot was sold to Samuel Eby. The Eby family has purchased numerous lots in the GCT, often buying speculatively in order to provide land for their descendants (WHS. 1934:113). Samuel Eby owned the portion of Lot 3 for over two decades, however Samuel Eby is noted for residing on Lot 1 of the GCT, suggesting he did not reside on Lot 3 (WRG 2022b). In 1841, Samuel Eby sold portions of Lot 3 to Frederich Gaukel, an innkeeper and businessman (WRG 2022c). Gaukel was a German immigrant who travelled to Philadelphia before moving to Upper Canada and settling in Waterloo County. Between 1841 and 1846, Gaukel took an interest in municipal development and acquired masses of land to subdivide, including the triangular area of land bounded by the current streets of Ellen, Mansion and Lancaster Street (WRG 2022c). The property is located at the intersection of Ellen Street East, Lancaster Street East and Frederick Street, an area that is referenced in historical writings as the `five points intersection" or simply `five points' (WRG 1930:199). Maps from 1853, 1861, 1875 and 1879 indicate that this distinctive street patterns was intact, though no structures are indicated as being constructed on the subject property at this time (see, Map 3 and Map 4). Early maps of the area display the area now known as Ellen Street East as Pine Street. The street was renamed at an unknown time. The 1879 Map of Berlin provides the first indication of development on the subject lands and reflects the land survey undertaken by Frederich Gaukel (see Map 4). The land bound by Ellen, Lancaster and Mansion is divided into three sections, numbered 30, 31 and 32. H.E. Eby is listed on the map as being the owner of property number 31 and 32, however transactions regarding this ownership could not be located in land registry records (see Table 2). An 1881 map of the area depicts the subject property as being part of the developed lands within the town of Berlin (see Map 5). In 1887 Louis J. Breithaupt, a politician and leather goods manufacturer who was also serving as Mayor of Berlin at the time, filed a survey that further subdivided Part Lots 31 and 32 from Gaukels Survey (WRG 2022d). The subject property lot was sold to Peter Saugel in 1888 (see Table 2). Peter Saugel worked as a contractor/carpenter in the City of Berlin (AO 1880, WRG 2022e). It is during Saugel's ownership that the first depiction of the two -and -a -half storey brick residence is found. An 1892 birds -eye map of the Town of Berlin clearly displays a residential structure facing the five -points intersection (see Map 4). A photograph of the building was also published in 1897 as part of a Berlin jubilee souvenir published by the Berlin News Record (see Figure 13). The photograph is captioned "Residence of Peter Saugel". August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3g Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 19 Saugel sold the property the following year to Wilhelmina Steubing in June 1898 (see Table 2). Wilhelmina (or Mina, Minna) Steubing (nee Schneider) was married to Louis Steubing, a stationary engineer and later commercial traveler (WRG 2022f, LAC 1901). The property transferred ownership in 1900 to William Schneider and was then transferred back to Wilhelmina Steubing in 1901. Any relation between William Schneider and Wilhelmina Stuebing (nee Schneider) could not be determined. In 1905, Wilhelmina and Louis Steubing sold the property parcel to Anna Cairnes (see Table 2). Anna Cairnes (nee Rothaermel) was born in 1866 in South Easthope Township, Perth County (WRG 2022g). Cairnes (see Figure 14) was married twice in her life, first to Hugh Cuthbertson, who passed away in 1887 and was later married to William Cairnes at the age of 28 in Berlin (WRG 2022g). The Kitchener -Waterloo Record published an obituary for Cairnes upon her death in 1932: An esteemed Kitchener citizen passed away at her home, 60 Ellen Street East at seven o'clock last night in the person of Mrs. Anna Cairns well-known local artist. The deceased was in usual good health until last Tuesday when she suffered a slight heart attack which eventually resulted in her death. She was born in South Easthope 67 years ago but lived practically all her life in Kitchener. During all her residence here Mrs. Cairns has painted china extensively and some years ago painted the portrait of Lord Kitchener which now hangs in the City Hall. She was a member of the New Jerusalem Church, corner of King and Water Streets. She was twice married and is survived by 2 sons, Mr. Hugh Cuthbertson and Mr. Vernon Cairns both of Lethbridge, Alta (WRG 2022g). As noted in her obituary, Caines was a well-known artist. Advertisements for her Art Studio services were noted in the Berlin Record (later the Kitchener -Waterloo Record) throughout the early 20th century. A 1911 advertisement notes her studio was located at 96 King Street West (see Figure 15), however later advertisements such as a 1918 advertisement lists her studio as located at the subject property, 60 Ellen Street East (see Figure 16). The Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum holds a collection of Cairne's hand -painted china (Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum Online Collections Database 2022). The portrait of Lord Kitchener mentioned in her obituary was painted in 1916 and is currently a part of the Kitchener -Waterloo Art Gallery's Collection (Kitchener -Waterloo Art Gallery 2022) (see Figure 17). Cairnes owned the property until her death and in 1935 the property transferred to Leo Martin, who owned the property until 1965 (see Table 2). In 1965 the property ownership was transferred to Leighton and Lorraine Steinhoff. Leighton's obituary provides an overview of the Steinhoff's history on the subject property: "Steinhoff, Leighton, 83, Naval Veteran and the community anchor of the 5 Points in Kitchener where he was well known as "Leo the Barber" for 50 years, passed away peacefully in his home on Thursday, August 16 ... Lee married Lorraine in 1948. Together they built a business centered around the home on the 5 Points. With a barbershop in the basement and 6 rental units on the property, Lee, in addition to being a barber, was a self-taught jack of all trades, a handyman that enjoyed being a part of his kid's lives as they grew up. Lee retired to Heather Ave where he was the anchor of the neighborhood and handyman for his dear neighbors" (Henry Walser Funeral Home 2007). August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3O Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East OW Following the Steinhoff's ownership of the property, the subject property and multi unit residence changed hands several times up until the present day (see Table 2). Table 2: Summary of Land Transactions for 60 Ellen Street East LRO #58 Instrument Date Instrument Grantor Grantee Comments Richard Beasley, Block No. 2 in - 5 -Feb -1793 Patent Crown (in Trust) James Wilson, John the Grand River Baptist Rousseau Tract 24 -July- Deed of Daniel Erb and Part of Block 1805 Bargain and Richard Beasley Jacob Erb No. 2 conjoining Sale with the G.C.T 25 -July- Bargain and Daniel Erb and Jacob Jacob Hershey Lot 3 of G.C.T. 1805 Sale Erb 8 -July- Bargain and Jacob Hershey Samuel Eby Part of Lot 3 1818 Sale 27 -Oct- Bargain and Samuel Eby Frederich Gaukel Part of Lot 3 1841 Sale 29 -Dec- Will Frederich Gaukel Levi Gaukel and Part of Lots 2 & 1853 HenryStroh 3 Lots 31 & 32 1543 12 -Feb- Bargain and Exec. Of Frederich Henry Rothaermel (Gaukel's 1861 Sale Gaukel Survey — Section 1 Lots 31 & 32 1542 12 -Feb- Bargain and Henry Rothaermel Henry Stroh (Gaukel's 1861 Sale Survey — Section 1 Transactions between HenryStroh and Louis J. Breithau t could not be located 7860 19 -May- Bargain and Louis J. Breithaupt Peter Saugel Lot 3 1888 Sale 13742 28 -June- Mortgage Peter Saugel Wilhelmina Lot et al 1898 Steubin 14887 7 -Nov- Bargain and Wilhelmina Stuebing William Schneider Lot et al 1900 Sale 15404 31 -July- Bargain and William Schneider— Wilhelmina 1901 Sale widower Stuebin 19558 20 -Nov- Bargain and Wilhelmina and Louis Anna Cairnes Part Lot 1905 Sale Steubin 64290 1 -Mar -1930 Mortgage Anna Cairnes Waterloo Mutual Part Lot Fire Insurance Co. 71574 11 -Oct- Grant Waterloo Mutual Fire Leo Martin Part Lot 1935 Insurance Co. 307087 1 -Sept- Grant Leo Martin Leighton and Part Lot 1965 Lorraine Steinhoff Part Lot re: 1273756 31 -Oct- Transfer Leighton and Lorraine 1143171 Ontario 307087 except 1995 Steinhoff Ltd. part for road widening WR400 12 -Nov- Transfer 1143171 Ontario Ltd. James Kritz, Part Lot 2003 Amanda Killi s 17 -June- James Kritz, Amanda Brian Bee, WR13287 2005 Transfer Killips Antoinette Part Lot Rodi hiero WR1086413 15 -Dec- Transfer Brian Bee, Antoinette Benjamins Real Part Lot 2017 Rodi hiero I Estate Holdings Inc. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�10� Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 6.0 FIELD SURVEY 21 The field survey component of the project involves the collection of primary data through systematic photographic documentation of all potential cultural heritage resources within the study area, as identified through historical research and consultation. Additional cultural heritage resources may also be identified during the survey itself. Photographs of the subject property are taken, as are general views of the surrounding landscape. The field survey also assists in confirming the location of each potential cultural heritage resource and helps to determine the relationship between resources. A field survey was conducted on December 20th, 2021, to photograph and document the exterior of the subject property and to record any local features that could enhance ARA's understanding of their setting in the landscape and contribute to the cultural heritage evaluation process. Legal permission to enter to conduct all necessary fieldwork activities on the subject property at 60 Ellen Street East was granted by the property owner. Photographic documentation of the subject property illustrates the location and direction of each exterior photograph taken (see Image 1—Image 55, Map 8 and Map 9) interior photographs are illustrated in Image 56—Image 95. The maps and photos can be found in Appendix B. 7.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The subject property is an irregular shaped lot and contains a two -and -a -half storey multi -unit residential structure. The structure appears to have initially had a Greek cross floor plan; however the building has been added to over the years which has created an irregular roofline and floorplan. 7.1 Contextual Surrounding The subject property is bounded to the north by the residential properties at 54 Ellen Street East and 111 Lancaster Street East and to the east by Lancaster Street East (see Image 1 and Image 2). The southern boundary is the five -point intersection of Ellen Street East, Lancaster Street East and Frederick Street and the western boundary is delineated by Ellen Street East. The streetscapes in the immediate vicinity to the north, east and south contain buildings of varying ages and uses including residential structures with large lots, a small number of commercial businesses operating out of former single-family residences and several medium density residential structures. Existing civic buildings and the performing arts centre, Centre in the Square, are located to the immediate west of the property (see Image 3 — Image 5). The five points intersection represents a wide variety of newer building of varying heights, styles and uses. Ellen Street is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD), a historic residential neighbourhood that can be linked to several key periods in the development of the City of Kitchener. Within the CCNHCD two-thirds of the existing houses were built between 1880 and 1917 and constructed in Queen Anne, Georgian and Italianate architectural style. 7.2 Arrangement of Buildings and Structures The residence is situated on a triangularly shaped lot with a facade facing the Five Points intersection to the south (see Image 6). The building was initially designed with a Greek cross floor plan, though additions to the initial design have created an irregular roofline and partially obscured this plan. While the building's original facade faces south, modifications to the building's August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3§ Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 22 internal layout have resulted in no entrances accessed from the facade. The former single-family residence has been converted to a multi -unit residence with entrances along the building's side elevations fronting Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East. The paved parking area is located along the west elevation. The remainder of the property is covered in grass with some gardens placed around the residence. There are pedestrian sidewalks on both the east and west sides of the property along Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East. 7.3 Residence Exterior The multi -unit residence is a three -bay, two -and -a -half storey structure built circa 1888. The structure rests on a stone foundation, has an intersecting gable roof clad in asphalt shingles and is constructed of brick that has been painted (see Image 7). The building's Greek cross floor plan creates a projecting wing on each elevation that has a front facing gable. The facade gable is decorated with angled wooden siding and diamond shaped shingles. The 1897 photo of the property, though lacking definition, suggests that this angled wooden siding and diamond shaped shingles is the original gable end design. The attic storey in the gable end contains two window openings with wooden sash windows designed in a Queen Anne style with four small panes of multi -coloured glass located along the top of the upper sash (see Image 8). The residence features a large wooden cornice with a large, molded frieze (see Image 8). The front window opening on the second -storey of the facade also features two Queen Anne style wooden sash windows (see Image 9). These windows are characterized by small coloured panes of glass that frame the exterior of the upper and lower sash. The window openings on the subject residence also contain decorative woodwork located above the sash windows and highlights the opening's segmental arch. An 1897 photo of the property appears to depict the same window as the one currently extant (see Figure 13). A portion of the brick on the residence's facade is currently unpainted and reveals that the building is constructed of buff brick masonry (see Image 10). The shape of the unpainted section of brick also suggests that the facade formerly featured a porch structure with a bell -cast roof (see Image 11). The 1897 photo of the property, while partially obstructed, further corroborates this as stairs are visible leading up the facade (see Figure 13). Further, a concrete pedestrian pathway that currently terminates in the centre of the grassed area in front of the structure delineates where the porch stairs would have landed. The first -storey window opening on the facade has been partially infilled and altered from its initial shape and may reflect a former door opening (see Image 11). A one -storey addition has been added to the eastern corner of the residence (see Image 12). While the construction date of this addition is unknown, the addition is built upon a cinder -block foundation, suggesting it was constructed as a later addition and not as part of the residence's initial design (see Image 13). The addition has a flat roof and features a sunroom with a bank of windows along the northeast elevation (see Image 14). The northeast elevation contains similarities to the facade with a central projecting wing as part of a Greek cross floor plan (see Image 15). The northeast elevation would have originally been symmetrical, however additions to the first storey and the addition of new openings on the second storey have been introduced. These new openings are distinguished by flat or jack arches, whereas the original openings feature a segmental arch opening (see Image 16). The wooden cornice with molded wooden frieze continues along this elevation (see Image 17) with a portion that appears to have been covered with aluminum flashing (see Image 18). The gable end on the northeast elevation has been clad in alternating octagonal and rectangular shingles (see Image 19). The attic storey windows on this elevation have been replaced with vinyl sash windows. A portion of unpainted brick on this elevation suggests that the residence may have had dichromatic brick detailing, as August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gR6 Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 23 bricks with red glazing were visible alongside buff bricks (see Image 20 and Image 21). Inspection of the brick masonry also reveals a beaded mortar profile (see Image 21). The projecting wing on the northeast elevation contains two paired window openings with segmental arches on both the first and second storey (see Image 22). There are signs of deterioration along this elevation, ranging from cosmetic deterioration such as peeling and uneven paint finishes as well as masonry deterioration in the form of running cracks and masonry repointing using inappropriate mortars (see Image 23). The window openings have wooden painted sills of varying conditions (see Image 24). Wooden fixed storm windows have been affixed to the majority of the openings (see Image 25). A concrete staircase leads downward to a basement doorway on this elevation (see Image 26). This egress is supported by concrete retaining walls. A porch and enclosed addition on the north corner of the residence provides access to the Lancaster Street East units. The addition contains an additional doorway opening as well as an opening with a fiberglass window (see Image 27). A first -storey window opening and second door access to the basement has been encased within this addition (see Image 28). The masonry in this portion shows sign of deterioration through running cracks and a fallen arch above the basement door (see Image 29). The rear (northwest) elevation contains fewer openings than the facade and side elevations (see Image 30). The one -storey addition on the north corner contains one window opening on this elevation and contains a six -paned fixed wooden window (see Image 31). Brick discoloration on the residence's north corner and lumber deterioration on the one -storey addition suggest water is not being adequately shed (see Image 32). The northwest elevation contains an outside chimney placed at the centre of the gable end (see Image 33). The gable end on this elevation is clad in rectangular shingles and the two attic window openings contain vinyl sash windows (see Image 34). The wooden soffit and molded frieze have been clad in aluminum flashing on this elevation. The two-storey addition on the west corner of the residence is distinguished by a change in the roofline as well as some discolouration at the intersection of the addition and residence masonry (see Image 35). A portion of the brick masonry has been replaced and repointed along this intersecting line (see Image 36). The addition appears to use similar construction methods as the initial residence, with brick laid in a stretcher pattern and built on a stone foundation (see Image 37). A single header course laid on the stone foundation is seen on both the two-storey addition and the residence (see Image 38). A key difference between the finishes on the two-storey addition and the residence is the framing of the openings, with segmental arches framing the residence's openings and flat or jack arches framing the openings on the two storey addition (see Image 39 and Image 40). The southwest elevation provides the access to units from Ellen Street East (see Image 41). The attic storey features a dormer with a shed roof that connects to an exterior fire escape (see Image 42). There is a balcony and porch on the southwest elevation that spans the width of the two- storey addition on the west corner (see Image 43 and Image 44). A large rectangular window with transom is located on the first storey of the brick addition with a flat arch and wooden sill (see Image 45). The entrance to 58 Ellen Street East has a segmental arch and is located on the first storey porch (see Image 46). The gable end on this elevation is clad in decorative shingles arranged in octagon, rectangular and diamond patterns (see Image 47). The gable end also contains a doorway connecting to an exterior fire escape. The southwest elevation contains paired window openings with segmental arches in the same style as those viewed on the northeast elevation (see Image 48). Portions of the foundation visible from this elevation display deteriorated or missing mortar (see Image 49). A one storey porch with a shed roof is located on the southern half of the southwest elevation (see Image 50). A small addition with a shed roof and wooden siding is located on the second storey. The first storey porch contains an enclosed August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3q Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 24 entrance that features decorative wooden elements applied to the exterior (see Image 51). Window openings along this portion of the southwest elevation are of varying condition, with some showing cosmetic and sill deterioration and without storm windows whereas some appear to have been recently restored or reconstructed with storms (see Image 52 and Image 53). The porch on the southern half of the southwest elevation contains an entrance to the 60 Ellen Street East unit and the porch is finished with a beadboard wooden ceiling (see Image 54 and Image 55). While the building on the subject property has undergone numerous changes, its architectural style is representative of a vernacular design with decorative Queen Anne elements. This vernacular style is identified in the CCNHCD Plan as "Berlin or Kitchener Vernacular". This influence is demonstrated through its decorative gable ends, wooden cornice with molded frieze, tall window openings and multipaned windows with coloured glass panes. Based on property history, the main residential structure is presumed to have been constructed in the late 19th century, within this architectural style's height of popularity and the identified period of architectural significance in the CCNHCD. Table 3: Characteristics of Queen Anne Residential Buildings Characteristics Characteristics of 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East Two -and -a -half stores plus Yes Multiple rooflines and gables Yes Steep roof Yes Decorative gable ends Yes Tall, top-heavy chimney No chimneys protruding above roofline Tall windows Yes Bay window No Variable sized and shape windows Yes Multi -paned window with coloured glass Yes Asymmetrical massing Yes Palladian window No Decorative wooden cornice Yes Colourful No Tower/turret No Key -hole motif No Panelled door Yes Verandah No — evidence of one removed 7.4 Residence Interior The residence is divided into three street addresses: 58 and 60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East. 58 and 60 Ellen Street East are each composed of one residential unit. 115 Lancaster Street East is divided into four residential units between the second and attic floor. Interior aspects of the entire structure, including layout and finishes have been substantially modified and adapted over time, with minimal historical aspects remaining on the interior. Recognizing that the interior of the dwelling does not reflect the historical design or finishes of the residence, this section has been scoped to include information of specific interior elements which may increase the understanding and discussions regarding alternative options, impacts and mitigation measures. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3� Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 25 7.4.1 58 Ellen Street East Remaining historical design or finishes of note within this unit include hardwood flooring, wooden doors, wooden sash windows, fireplace tile hearth and mantle and wooden interior trim (see Image 56—Image 64). 7.4.2 60 Ellen Street East Remaining historical design or finishes of note within this unit include hardwood flooring, wooden doors, wooden sash windows and corresponding wooden trim around historic door and window material (see Image 70—Image 77). 7.4.3 115 Lancaster Street East 115 Lancaster Street is divided into four units; two on the second storey and two on the attic storey. Remaining historical design or finishes of note within the attic units include: wooden sash windows designed in Queen Anne style with small panes of coloured glass (see Image 78 and Image 79). Remaining historical design or finishes of note within the second storey units include: historic wooden trim, wooden sash windows, interior doorway transoms, hardwood flooring and wooden sash windows with decorative coloured glass panes (see Image 80—Image 89). 7.4.4 Basement The basement of the multi -unit residence is partially finished, having been used as a barbershop previously. There are no historical designs or finishes of note within the basement. Some basement windows remain and wooden storm windows for openings on the first and second storey are currently being stored in this space (see Image 90—Image 95). 8.0 HERITAGE ASSESSMENT 8.1 Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study In 2014, the City of Kitchener released the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study which resulted in the identification of 55 CHLs throughout the city. The goal of the study was to expand the understanding beyond individual properties to identify and protect significant cultural heritage landscapes throughout the City of Kitchener. The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD, CHL (L-NBR-2) and has the following historical themes "Early/Significant Residential Neighbourhood, Industry and Commerce". The CHL Inventory sheet describes the neighbourhood as: The Civic Centre Neighbourhood's heritage attributes are found within its residential architecture, streetscapes, historical associations and its association with important business and community leaders during a crucial era of urban development in the City. The physical manifestation of this in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood is a wealth of well maintained, finely detailed homes from the late 1880s to the early 1900s that remain largely intact, a number of unique buildings, including churches and commercial buildings, which provide distinctive landmarks within and at the edges of the neighbourhood and a significant range of recognizable architectural styles and features including attic gabled roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, porches and other details, associated with the era in which they were developed. The Queen Anne style of domestic architecture August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3 Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East was popular in a number of urban areas being developed at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. In Kitchener, a unique form of Queen Anne style houses was developed and constructed extensively, now called the Berlin Vernacular. The District has more than a dozen examples of this style with slight variations distributed throughout the neighbourhood. The fine and very fine examples of other defined architectural styles such as Italianate and Attic Gable, account for 172 out of the 366 properties, or almost half. Of the remaining 194 properties, 147 have attributes that contribute value to the heritage character of the district. There are other splendid examples of unique historic properties, some of modest design and proportion, such as 67-69 Ahrens Street West, and others that are grandiose and elaborate such as the three major churches. The presence of an attractive and consistent streetscape linked by mature trees, grassed boulevards and laneways contributes significantly to the overall character. Hibner Park, is one of Kitchener's oldest city parks and is the green jewel in the centre of the neighbourhood. Although small, it is elegant, offers a link to the past and an historic reminder of one of the mayors of Kitchener. With streets framed by mature trees creating a beautiful shaded canopy throughout most of the neighbourhood, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood offers a comfortable and friendly pedestrian environment in the interior of the community. The number of mature trees is remarkable and emphasizes the strong heritage character of the neighbourhood. With linear streets, generally consistent building setbacks, and combined effect of public and private trees along the boulevards, there is a strong rhythm to most of the streetscapes. Laneways threading through the area reflect more traditional patterns of movement and development, and, in Hermie Place, create a unique ambiance where houses front directly onto the lane much like a small cottage community. Yards are well maintained with gardens and foundation plantings, shrubs and trees. Other landscape features include fences, hedges and pillars to delineate private space. Overall, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood is rich with historical, architectural and landscape treasures that contribute to the heritage character of the community. (2014: L -N BR -2) The CHL Data Sheet outlines the following values and character defining elements: Historical integrity: Continuous residential use since the late 18006 original period architecture and landscape features; and mature urban forest. Has direct associations with historically significant people. Cultural Value: The buildings and landscape reflect a key era in the development of Kitchener with many buildings associated with important business people and community leaders. Despite the incursion of redevelopment in some areas, there is a significant concentration of original homes in a variety of architectural styles Community Value: In tandem with the designated Victoria Park Neighbourhood, Civic Centre helps to tell the story of Kitchener's phenomenal growth at the turn of the 19th Century. Character Defining Features: Contains the majority of the original buildings to the area. Many well maintained finely detailed buildings from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. There are a number of unique landmark buildings in this area, including churches and commercial buildings. 0 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3 Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 27 8.2 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan The Heritage character statement outlined in the 2007 CCNHCD Plan considers the historical, architectural and contextual values associated with the neighbourhood. The statement reads: Historic Context The proposed Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District is an important historic residential neighbourhood that can be linked to several key periods in the development of the City of Kitchener. In tandem with the recently designated Victoria Park neighbourhood, Civic Centre helps to tell the story of Kitchener's phenomenal growth at the turn of the 19th century and of the development of its extensive industrial sector. Almost two-thirds of the existing houses were built between 1880 and 1917 and in most cases were occupied by owners, managers or workers for some of the key industries that defined the community at the turn of the century. The Lang and Breithaupt families for example, whose enterprises and extensive public service did so much to promote and develop the city, are represented by surviving homes in the district. Other businessmen, industrialists and public servants including the village's first reeve, Dr. Scott, Mayors Eden and Greb, and Engineer and County Clerk Herbert Bowman also came to the neighbourhood. Surrounding a central area of larger homes is a large number of well-preserved storey -and -a -half houses built by tradesmen and skilled workers from the factories in the core and along the west side of Victoria opposite the district. As well, three of the oldest congregations are represented by well-preserved, landmark buildings in the neighbourhood. Importantly the district remained an attractive place to live right into the present. Well-designed Neo-classical and Tudor revivals can be found throughout the district as well as a 1930s apartment on Weber and several highrises from the 1960s and later. While a significant portion of the former Centre Ward's late 19 th century residences between Queen and Frederick have been lost to the expansion of public services and the building of Centre in the Square, most of what made the area a desirable place to live both in the 19th century and today remains. Architectural Character The Civic Centre neighbourhood is one of Kitchener's older neighbourhoods and retains a large number of original buildings that are well crafted and maintained. Architectural styles and influences are consistent with the more popular styles of the period in which they were constructed, including Queen Anne, Georgian and Italianate styles. Of particular note in the neighbourhood are a substantial number of dwellings termed `Berlin or Kitchener Vernacular' which reflected a local interpretation incorporating traces of decorative Queen Anne elements in the wood trim, gables, eaves and fascias. A variant on this style, referred to as the Attic Gable style, is also a local interpretation frequently found in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood which boasts a highly articulated and decorative triple gable roof line. Throughout the neighbourhood, there is a visual consistency to the architecture, delivered through the repetition of such features as front porches including some very fine two storey examples, decorative gables, projecting bays, and recurring window forms and details. In addition to the residential building stock, there are August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3A Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East a number of other prominent and well- preserved buildings including three churches and two early commercial buildings. While the majority of the neighbourhood was constructed for, and remains as residential, conversions to commercial and office uses have occurred but with little negative impact on the quality of the streetscape. Despite some redevelopment and associated loss of original structures, overall the Civic Centre Neighbourhood presents a high quality cross-section of architecture from the late 19 th and early 20 th century with many buildings associated with key business and community leaders of the time. Streetscape Heritage Character With streets framed by mature trees creating a beautiful, shaded canopy throughout most of the neighbourhood, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood offers a comfortable and friendly pedestrian environment in the interior of the community. The number of mature trees is remarkable and conveys very strongly the heritage character of the neighbourhood. With linear streets, generally consistent building setbacks, and combined effect of public and private trees along the boulevards, there is a strong rhythm to most of the streetscapes. Laneways threading through the area reflect more traditional patterns of movement and development, and, in Hermie Place, create a unique ambiance where houses front directly onto the lane much like a small cottage community. Yards are well maintained with gardens and foundation plantings, trees and other landscape features including fences, hedges and pillars to delineate private space. Hibner Park Kitchener's second oldest park is also situated in the Civic Centre neighbourhood. Although small, it is an elegant and historic reminder of one of the mayors of Kitchener and offers a link to the past. Overall, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood is rich with historical, architectural and landscape treasures that contribute to the heritage character of the community. Changes to built form and the resulting streetscape have occurred in more recent years, resulting in the loss of some heritage resources. The demand for future change is likely to accelerate given the area's proximity to downtown and initiatives in the immediate vicinity. By designating the area as the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District, valuable heritage resources can be both preserved and interpreted while still allowing for the necessary and appropriate evolution of the neighbourhood in a manner that links the past, present and future (2007:2.3-2.6). The CCNHCD Plan lists the following key attributes: • Its association with important business and community leaders during a key era of development in Kitchener; • A wealth of well maintained, finely detailed buildings from the late 1800s and early 1900 that are largely intact; • A number of unique buildings, including churches and commercial buildings, which provide distinctive landmarks within and at the edges of the District; • A significant range of recognizable architectural styles and features including attic gable roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, porches and other details, associated with the era in which they were developed - 0M, August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3g Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East • The presence of an attractive and consistent streetscape linked by mature trees, grassed boulevards and laneways; • Hibner Park, Kitchener's second oldest city park, as a green jewel in the centre of the District. (2007: 2.7-2.8) R 8.3 Evaluation of 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East According to Ontario Regulation 9/06 Using the information provided in the CHL Study, the CCNHCD, field survey and additional historical and contextual research, an evaluation of the subject property according to O. Reg. 9/06, can be found below in Table 4. Table 4: Evaluation of the Subject Property Using O. Reg. 9/06 Evaluation of Property Criteria Description ✓ Value Statement(s) Built circa 1888, the subject property is a representative example of late 19th century residence designed in the locally recognized "Berlin or Kitchener vernacular style" which integrates Queen Anne elements. The subject property was identified as a `Group A' property by the CCNHCD. This classification indicates the residence as a Is a rare, unique, representative or "fine or very fine example of Berlin or early example of a style, type, ✓ Kitchener vernacular architecture" expression, material or construction method The `Berlin or Kitchener Vernacular' is distinguished by projecting wings on the Design or fagade, northeast and southwest Physical elevation that feature large, paired Value window openings with segmental arches. The Queen Anne influence is displayed through the steep intersecting gable roofline with decorative gable ends, wooden sash windows with small panes of coloured glass, deep eaves with a molded wooden fascia. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Displays a high degree of Lancaster Street East does not display a craftsmanship or artistic value high degree of craftsmanship or artistic value. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East does not display a Displays a high degree of technical or high level of technical or scientific scientific achievement achievement. It was built using common method and techniques of the construction period. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1ggM Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 30 Evaluation of Property Criteria Description ✓ Value Statement(s) The subject property is associated with Anna Rothaermel Cairnes, a locally Has direct associations with a theme, known artist who operated a studio out of event, belief, person, activity, the Ellen Street residence (then, 60 Ellen organization or institution that is ✓ Street). A collection of Cairnes work is significant to a community located in the Ken Selling Waterloo Region Museum and her portrait of Lord Historical Kitchener is a part of the Kitchener - or Waterloo Art Gallery collection. Associative Yields or has the potential to yield 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Value information that contributes to the Lancaster Street East does not yield or understanding of a community or have the potential to yield information that culture contributes to the understanding of a community or culture. Demonstrates or reflects the work or The builder of 58-60 Ellen Street East ideas of an architect, builder, artist, and 115 Lancaster Street East is designer or theorist who is significant unknown. to a community The subject property is important in supporting and maintaining the late 19th and early 20th century character of the area and the development of the town of Is important in defining, maintaining or ✓ Berlin, now the City of Kitchener supporting the character of an area It's located on the triangular shaped lot at the five points and plays an important role in defining the Civic Centre nei hborhood. The subject property is visually and functionally linked to its surrounding as Contextual being the terminus for two streets and for Value its prominent location at "five points". The significance is reinforced through the Berlin/Kitchener vernacular architectural Is physically, functionally, visually or style of the structure. historically linked to its surroundings The subject property is historically linked to its surroundings as being part of a larger residential neighbourhood which was associated with important businesses and community leaders and associated with several key periods of urban growth and development. Is a landmark 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East is not a landmark. 8.3.1 Summary of Evaluation The O. Reg 9/06 evaluation confirms that the subject property possesses CHVI and has design/physical value, historical/associative value and contextual value. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3§ Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 8.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 31 A statement of CHVI and the identification of heritage attributes has been informed by the evaluation. The identified heritage attributes form the basis for the impact evaluation and suggested mitigation measures outlined in additional sections of the report. 8.4.1 Introduction and Description of Property The subject property, municipally known as 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East, is situated on a triangular shaped lot. The lot contains a two -and -a -half storey, painted brick residential house in Berlin or Kitchener vernacular architectural style that features decorative elements influenced by Queen Anne residential architecture. 8.4.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value/Statement of Significance 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has design or physical value as a representative example of a late 19th century Berlin or Kitchener vernacular residence with Queen Anne design elements. Constructed circa 1888, the building is distinguished by projecting wings on the facade, northeast and southwest elevation that feature large, paired window openings with segmental arches. The Queen Anne influence is displayed through the steep intersecting gable roofline with decorative gable ends, wooden sash windows with small panes of coloured glass, deep eaves with a molded wooden fascia. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has historical or associative value for its associations with the local artist Anna Rothaermel Cairnes. Anna Rothaermel Cairnes, is a notable Berlin/Kitchener artist who resided and operated an art studio out of the residence. Her work is featured in the Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum and the Kitchener - Waterloo Art Gallery collection. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has contextual value as it supports and maintains the late 19th and early 20th century character of the Civic Centre neighbourhood and the development of the Town of Berlin. Positioned at the approximate centre of a triangular shaped lot, the property is placed alongside a cluster of historic homes within the Civic Centre neighbourhood. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East contributes to the late 19th and early 20th century character of the area which is recognized as playing an important and prominent role in the development of the town of Berlin, now the City of Kitchener. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has contextual value as it is visually and historically linked to the Civic Centre neighbourhood which is an important residential neighbourhood directly associated with several key periods of growth and development. The property is visually and functionally linked to its surrounding as being the terminus for two streets and for its prominent location at "five points". The significance is reinforced through the Berlin/Kitchener vernacular architectural style of the structure. Constructed circa 1888, the subject property is historically linked to the surrounding as being part of a larger residential neighbourhood which was associated with important businesses and community leaders and associated with several key periods of urban growth and development August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3§ Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 32 Cultural Heritage Attributes: 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has design or physical value as a representative example of a late 19th century Berlin or Kitchener vernacular residence with Queen Anne design influence. The subject property contains the following attributes which reflect this value: • Brick exterior • Two -and -a -half storey height; • Projecting wings on facade and side elevations; • Original and paired wooden sash windows with segmental arches and brick voussoirs; • Queen Anne style wooden sash windows on second and attic storey facade with multiple coloured glass panes; • Intersecting gable roof; • Decorative gable ends with wooden shingles; • Deep eaves; and • Molded wooden frieze 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has historical or associative value for its associations with local artist Anna Rothaermel Cairnes. The subject property contains the following attributes which reflect this value: • Location facing south on corner of Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East at the Five Point intersection. • Location on the boundary edge of the Civic Centre neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has contextual value as it supports and maintains the late 19th and early 20th century character of the Civic Centre neighbourhood and the development of the Town of Berlin. The subject property contains the following attributes which reflect this value: • Location facing south on the corner of Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East at the Five Point intersection. • Location on the boundary edge of the Civic Centre neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. • Brick exterior • Two -and -a -half storey height; • Projecting wings on facade and side elevations; • Original and paired wooden sash windows with segmental arches and brick voussoirs; • Queen Anne style wooden sash windows on second and attic storey facade with multiple coloured glass panes; • Intersecting gable roof; • Decorative shingles on gable end; • Deep eaves; and • Molded wooden frieze August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1g936 Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 33 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has contextual value as it is visually and historically linked to the Civic Centre neighbourhood which is important residential neighbourhood and is directly associated with several key periods of growth and development. The subject property contains the following attributes which reflect this value: • Location facing south on the corner of Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East at the Five Point intersection. • Location on the boundary edge of the Civic Centre neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District • Brick exterior • Two -and -a -half storey height; • Projecting wings on facade and side elevations; • Original and paired wooden sash windows with segmental arches and brick voussoirs; • Queen Anne style wooden sash windows on second and attic storey facade with multiple coloured glass panes; • Intersecting gable roof; • Decorative shingles on gable end; • Deep eaves; and • Molded wooden frieze 9.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development includes the construction of an addition which is of the same height as the existing building. The existing building is described as a two -and -a -half storey building, while the proponent and architectural drawings refer to the building as 3 storeys, it is important to note that the existing and proposed buildings share the same roofline and elevation heights. The proposed development includes the renovation of the existing six -unit multiple dwelling and new construction of a two -and -a -half storey addition. The new addition is proposed to create an additional four units resulting in a twelve -unit multiple dwelling building. The new rear units each span two storeys (two units are split between the basement and first floor, two units are split between the second and third/attic storey). The proposed development also includes the creation of patio areas and walkways around the building as well as the construction of two-storey porches on the east and west elevation. The site plan, elevations drawings and floor plans for the site development are found in Figure 1 — Figure 9. Based on the materials provided by the property owner, the proposed modifications to the existing structure include: • Replacement of asphalt shingle roof with lighter grey asphalt shingle (Certainteed, Landmark Pro "Weathered Wood" — see Figure 11); • Removal of the remaining existing wooden board soffit and fascia to be replaced with a vented aluminum soffit and fascia. The existing wooden frieze is proposed to be retained and painted; • Removal of wooden board/cedar shake cladding on all gable ends to be replaced with new cedar shakes of the same style and size. The cedar shakes are proposed to be stained (stained to the colouring of Frasier Wood Siding "Ginger' or similar — see Figure 11); • Removal and replacement of existing eavestroughs; August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gRq Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 34 • Removal of the existing wood porches and the construction of new two-storey porches on the east and west elevation; • Enlarging an existing window, modifying window/door openings and adding new window/door openings; • Construction of a dormer on the east elevation with a shed roof clad in steel paneling with three windows; • Removal and replacement of the existing door fixtures to be replaced with painted doors (Benjamin Moore colour no. 2158-20 "Venetian Gold" — see Figure 11) • Removal of the existing wooden sash windows on all elevations to be replaced with contemporary windows of the same shape, style and size, with the exception of two multi - paned wooden windows with coloured glass on the facade, which are proposed to be retained; • Painting the structure's brick masonry (Benjamin Moore colour no. OC -55 "Paper White" — see Figure 11); and • Creation of landscape features, two parking spaces, garbage and recycling areas, and bike locker storage, as part of the overall site design and as required to meet City of Kitchener Urban Design guidelines and development standards. With respect to the facade (south elevation), specific changes to the existing building include: • Reinstate the original first storey window opening, currently infilled, to match the upper- level window; • Closing in/infilling a door opening on the second storey with brick; • Removing the wooded section of the one storey addition (brick section to remain); • Replacement of the existing single panel fixed window within one -storey brick addition with a new contemporary window of the same size but with multiple double hung sections to mimic the proportions and style of the building's historic windows; • Adding an Arriscraft cut stone wall (Urban Ledgestone "Collingwood" — see Figure 11) to frame a private patio area and stairway to basement units; • Removal and replacement of the wooden cladding on the gable end with new cedar wood shakes (stained to the colouring of Frasier Wood Siding "Ginger' or similar — see Figure 11). With respect to the east elevation, specific changes to the existing building include: • The closing in/infilling of a window on the second level with brick to match the existing masonry; • The closing in/infilling and resizing of an existing door opening on the second level to accommodate a new window and the new hipped roof of the porch below; • The removal of the two wooden one -storey porches at the north and south end of the elevation which are not a part of the structure's original design; • Addition of an Arriscraft cut stone wall to frame a private opening to the proposed basement units; and • Addition of an attic dormer with a shed roof and three windows which create a horizontally placed rectangular opening. The dormer roof and siding will be prefinished steel (Agway Metals "Charcoal" or similar). The proposed addition is to be located on the north elevation and is to be clad in James Hardie siding (light mist colour). The addition will not result in the removal of the brick elevation as it is proposed to be built against the existing brick exterior. This will completely obscure the elevation August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3� Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 35 and all the openings on the north elevation will be closed in/infilled to create separation between residential units. The new addition is proposed to be clad in 6" shiplap siding in a light colour. The attic storey will include two dormers, each with a shed roof, with one clad in asphalt shingles and the other clad in steel. Specifically, the proposed addition includes: • A single paned rectangular window with a rectangular cedar shake panel below (east elevation); • Two single paned rectangular windows connected vertically by a cedar shake panel (east elevation); • Two sets of three single paned windows, connected vertically by cedar shakes (north elevation); • Three single paned windows with a cedar shake panel below (colour not finalized); • Two basement access doors, one with a side light and the other with a large window panel (north elevation); • Four doors which provide access to porches and/or units (two on west elevation which have a glass transom and two on east elevation which have a window beside it); • A side gable roof clad with asphalt shingles; • Main level and upper-level wooden open porches (east and west elevation) with board and batten porch skirt, decorative wood base, wood columns, and decorative wood capitals; and • Two below grade basement patios each with a basement access door (north elevation). With respect to the west elevation, specific changes to existing building include: The existing attic storey dormer will be enlarged. The dormer will have a flat roof and the emergency exit will remain (providing emergency access from gable roof doorway as well). The dormer will have a wood frieze and vertical steel siding (charcoal colour proposed); The existing two-storey and one -storey porch on this elevation will be removed and replaced with wooden two-storey porches. The porches will mirror those found on the new addition and include board and batten porch skirt, decorative wood base, wood columns, and decorative wood capitals; and Two previously enclosed doorways will be exposed. With respect to the overall project, the following changes include: Insulation to the attic, including a gap with airflow between the underside of the roof sheeting from the soffit to the peak to avoid a "hot roof' situation; and New eavestroughs around the roof, using vented aluminum soffits and fascia. The wooden fascia is proposed to be retained. The proposed paint colours have not been finalized. 9.1 Planning Rationale As communicated by the Property Owner, a planning justification report is not required by the City of Kitchener as the use and scale of use of the proposed development is permitted within the existing OP and area zoning. Furthermore, the owner has noted that the proposed development is in line with the City of Kitchener's Secondary Plan for Land Use within the Civic Centre August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gg3 Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 36 Neighbourhood for medium density multiple dwelling units and are permitted uses within the City's Zoning By-law (2019-051) for residential (R5) multiple dwellings. The property owner addressed a letter to the City of Kitchener regarding the subject property which provides additional understanding of the motivation and rationale for the proposed development. It states: Benjamins Real Estate Holdings purchased 60 Ellen Street in October 2017 with enthusiastic anticipation to realize this historic building's potential. We understand the importance of the opportunity to revitalize a prominent building on the Five Points Intersection. One of the three owners, Mark Benjamins, has lived on Lancaster Street East since 2011, and personally is excited to see a revitalization of the property. The crossroads of Ellen Street East, Lancaster Street East, and Frederick Street is a well -travelled intersection. Important civic properties, such as Centre in the Square, the future Central Division for Waterloo Region Police at 200 Frederick St, Kitchener Public Library, and the Region of Waterloo, warrant a showcase property anchoring an entry point to the Central Frederick Neighbourhood. We envision a property which reflects the public importance of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood as well as respects its historic value. Benjamins Real Estate Holdings and John MacDonald Architect have worked to put forth a vision for the property to rectify years of neglect the building has faced. Our proposal hinges on consent to build an addition to the original building to ensure a reasonable return on investment. The goal is to balance the evident heritage value while ensuring that the effort to provide functional and quality rental housing is worthwhile. The pre -submission plan intended to pursue uses that complement the surrounding community while endeavouring to restore the home's original features. We want to highlight that two new units in the basement will be designated to support low-income individuals, refugees or new immigrants to support Kitchener's affordable housing initiatives. Benjamins Real Estate Holdings is committed to these same principles. Jake Benjamins, one of the three owners of Benjamins Real Estate Holdings, received the Newcomer Landlord Award offered by the Region of Waterloo and Welcome Home Organization. Our ambition is to continue to contribute to the inclusive development of our community and supporting change to benefit everyone (Benjamin Real Estate Holdings Inc. 2022). August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2�1gROf 230 rl M W Q) co N N U E z J Cl) Q � W co N aw QO O Co Lo Lancamer 3 cn LL O C7 N 4- a °00 J � rQ) U O Q) N Q U Q NQ Q N N N O O N c') 00 Z Cl) Q = 00 Cl) LZ_ Qi co Q) E z J Q Q � cw Q)Q) co N aw Qo CoLo NN N LU G N t O fn v v LL O C7 N 4- a °00 J � rQ) U O Q) Q) Q U Q Q) i Q N N N p OC\j N c')00 ZCl) ¢2 rn Cl) W N co N Ez J Q aCl) cw co Q� aw Qo CoLo E o N en E: o n: el f I E ; �I z z 5 z I �w I I J� o I W I I �"z I I I I I I I II I - SII I - SII I I I I I I I I I I II I II I I I -- I I - a a I I � I I I I ��� Fad` ---- _ 'ill I I ge I a a I S E EI �I �I AI 01 X o � � I I s RI I Na it! 12h S $� E N _ p All Y LU ++ N O WN I v E W :!4:): CL L ^O, i W 7i 0 N 02 - r- 0 o a� cYi 3 LL Q N Np N O N 04 00 � ZCl) ¢2 m LZ N co N Ez co cB J Q (TJ co Q � W M (o N Z aw QO O Co Lo W O C7 N 4- a °00 J d 0 U O co N Q co U Q Q) II N i Q N N N p O N 04 co 00 Z Cl) Q = 6m d 5 0 G t M !S ffi Eo $ O ry' z i i 0 RU E Ap in a 2 ml WR IN £q IN on W O C7 N 4- a °00 J d 0 U O co N Q co U Q Q) II N i Q N N N p O N 04 co 00 Z Cl) Q = LZ Q) co ami Ez co(TJ J Q �J (TJ co Q � c�W I �Q) �co N aw Q00 O Co Lo 0 > W N o N V N y E Q V 0a a� >� a� ca 0 = 0 -0o 0 O C� Os o a� M, LL O C7 N 4- a °00 J ( 1I U \1{6 O Q)Q) Q co U Q Q N L Q N N N p OC\j N 00 Z Q LZ_ Q) co E z J Q Q � W co N aw QO O Co Lo (O LL O C7 N 4— a °00 J n3 U O Q) Q) Q U Q N i Q N N N O O N 04 c') 00 Z Cl) Q = r 0 a o a c m e v S R v II II II II II II II 11 II II II � o o 0 0 ? o o a E E v a t a _ e W N ry7 7 � a ca EC U n n n n n n n n n - -` n C LL LL m ® I cn I I I I a VJ- IUI o` p I - ----------- ar � R Ip � O F � s 2i aag eu�i 7 v I N _ - r C no C�w 7 � y =mom / \ U o„ g a, (O LL O C7 N 4— a °00 J n3 U O Q) Q) Q U Q N i Q N N N O O N 04 c') 00 Z Cl) Q = Cl) \ I \ m ) \ z �j \\ ¢� fuj /k »m \/ \� �2 \\ K R \ )f \ § 2! k ( ) m A ] � ƒ { _ ) §!\ ' ! R \> �� � ƒ ■■,! : Ir Fl fID 030 ©!■ O"Ti III[ El 7E _ aii � d k ,4 § 2\) \ \k� � �() � \{! �ZEt K H \ I \ m ) \ z �j \ � k fuj /k »m \/ \� �2 \\ Co � � 0 LL O q N 4- 000 000 9� \ \ƒ \® \ � $ 2 R a� \ ƒ \� / ^ §! f ) «z [ / } 7\L\%! ; (L � ? §R} � ]�/ _ /){ CL §=y F" k �! � f{§ g )K: \ }f\ % }f! 2 ;)| ƒ �\} Co � � 0 LL O q N 4- 000 000 9� \ \ƒ \® \ � $ 2 R LO \ I \ m \ \ k �j \ � k fuj /k »m \/ \� �2 \\ 2 R am / \ ^ ƒ \� §! 2 r k \ § ® \ } $y» _ � ---� E � \ Z8 .!j • k �! ------ = � f{§ g )K: \ }f\ % }f! 2 ;)| ƒ �\} 2 R ca W `Me Q) co L a) `Me Q) U E z � QS J Q Q QS uj N co Q) aw 00 Qo Co LO O C7 N 4- 000 J N N O Q) Q co U Q Q) Q co cr- i Q N N N p OC\j N �00 ZCl) ¢2 0 O a` g F J � � m 0 � b i y w m Q pp m rrt E 7Ml r Y OJ u �z O C7 N 4- 000 J N N O Q) Q co U Q Q) Q co cr- i Q N N N p OC\j N �00 ZCl) ¢2 LZ Q) co Qi Ez co J Q � co co Q co W `Me Qi coN aw Q00 O CoCJ Lo N LL L O L N N N CD X N W 1 W y E/•�s C L ^0^, Q ^W W 00 0 O� C 0 o a= LL O C7 N 4- a °00 J 0 U O co N Q U Q L Q N N N p OC\j N 00 Z Q 0 d r-1 m � • ALJ }i Q�r�fl ti� M O ❑ 0 u3yi -SOB i] �=9 m6 P�y9� Oj E A v`S 'a a E�, spa � l H�i I &�O / I I I e I i I I I IS I I 47 I I _ i I I a` - - a 1 ��R _ .. IIII �. 4 IM 7�c 12 q`s _ III 0 I - g YY 9 lig L� `rn EZ ym I I T SXR titgg_ S II C ---- _ 4•y8 flit N 2d Sj 2 2 2LLJ� 62 2 22 �� 2-3 N LL L O L N N N CD X N W 1 W y E/•�s C L ^0^, Q ^W W 00 0 O� C 0 o a= LL O C7 N 4- a °00 J 0 U O co N Q U Q L Q N N N p OC\j N 00 Z Q a LZ N co N U �z J Cl) (TJ Cl) �W co N O aw QO O co LO a a� cmS= sz rn � � N I � S= N v � SZ O N Q o� 0 -0o 0 sz 00 a7� liilEllilfEEEllIcococr- y e e yep� ggg � e eq @ e@ e e e eyy gge e � N N N p O N Q = Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 49 10.0 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS Any potential project impacts on identified cultural heritage resources must be evaluated, including positive and negative impacts. The following analysis of project impacts is based upon the drawings and development description provided in Section 9.0. The MTCS InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (2006b:3) provides a list of potential negative impacts to consider when evaluating any proposed development. Additionally, The City of Kitchener Scoped Heritage Impact Assessments — Terms of Reference (2021) references impacts. Impacts can be classified as either direct or indirect. Direct impacts (those that physically affect the heritage resources themselves, include, but are not limited to, initial project staging, excavation/levelling operations, construction of access roads and alterations or repairs over the life of the project. Indirect impacts include but are not limited to: alterations that are not compatible with the historic fabric and appearance of the area; alterations that detract from the cultural heritage values, attributes, character or visual context of a heritage resource. This could include the construction of new buildings and their building materials, scale, massing and orientation; the creation of shadows that alter the appearance of an identified heritage attribute; the isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment; the obstruction of significant views and vistas; and other less -tangible impacts. An assessment of impacts of the proposed development on the subject property can be evaluated using the negative impacts presented in InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MTCS 2006b). These impacts are examined below in Table 5. Additionally, impacts against policies associated with additions and alterations to existing buildings outlined in Section 3.3.2. of the CCNHCD have also been included and are outlined in Table 6. Table 5: Impact Assessment for Proposed Development Ada ted from MTCS 2006b:3 Type of Negative Impact Applicable Comments The proposed development includes the removal of the existing wooden sash windows with segmental arches which have been noted as being heritage attributes. Additionally, some of the window openings will be converted into door openings and some will be closed in/infilled with brick. There is the potential for accidental damage during the construction process to the heritage attributes and/or building Destruction of any, or part of any, Y as a result of the proposed removal and/or alteration of significant heritage attributes. elements or features. For instance, accidental impacts to the exterior as a result of repainting with materials which can cause damage to the existing masonry. The proposed development includes the construction of a 3 - storey rear addition (the same height as the existing two -and - a -half storey structure); however, it is proposed to be built adjacent to the north elevation and will not result in the destruction of the north elevation masonry. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rh_8W of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 50 Type of Negative Impact Applicable Comments The proposed development includes minor alterations to elements (a) Minor exterior alterations and additions to The proposed development includes multiple alterations on the single detached dwellings shall be permitted and side yard. Specifically, repainting the painted brick exterior, fagade and side elevations including the replacement of replacement of the attic gable cedar shingles, construction of new front or side yard (Section 13.1.2.1 of the materials with like materials, the addition of new materials, Alterations to a property that detract windows, removal of porches. porches and dormers, and the infilling of window and door from the cultural heritage values, (b) Structural alterations to the exterior of openings. While these alterations do not detract from the attributes, character or visual The fire escape is not located on the fagade of the structure. The legibility of the building, they do represent the loss of historic context of a heritage resource, such away from the fagade of the structure materials. as the construction of new buildings Y The proposed development includes the construction of a 3 - that are incompatible in scale, storey addition (the same height as the existing two -and -a -half massing, materials, height, building storey structure) which is located to the rear of the existing orientation or location relative to the structure. Despite the irregularly shaped corner lot, the heritage resource. addition is of similar height and massing to the existing structure and surrounding properties and will not significantly detract from the character or visual context of the heritage resource. Shadows created that alter the The proposed development includes the construction of a appearance of a heritage attribute three-storey addition (the same height as the existing two -and - or change the viability of a natural N a -half storey structure) to the north elevation of the existing feature or plantings, such as a three-storey building. No impacts from shadows are garden. anticipated. Isolation of a heritage attribute from The proposed development will not isolate heritage attributes its surrounding environment, N from the surrounding environment, context or any significant context or significant relationship. relationship. Direct or indirect obstruction of The location facing south at the Five Point Intersection was significant views or vistas within, identified as a significant view. A small stone wall is proposed from, or of built and natural N to be located along the fagade; however, this will not features. significantly obstruct or detract from this visibility and legibility of the property. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open The proposed development involves the creation of additional space to residential use, allowing N residential units, which is in keeping with the existing use as a new development or site alteration multi -unit residential dwelling. to fill in the formerly open spaces. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, An Archaeological Assessment was not identified as a and drainage patterns that N requirement by the City of Kitchener or the Region of adversely affect an archaeological Waterloo. resource. Table 6: Policies Considered from Section 3.3.2. Additions and Alterations to Existing Buildings in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan Policies Discussion The proposed development includes minor alterations to elements (a) Minor exterior alterations and additions to or features on the existing building which are located on the front single detached dwellings shall be permitted and side yard. Specifically, repainting the painted brick exterior, provided such alterations are not within any replacement of the attic gable cedar shingles, construction of new front or side yard (Section 13.1.2.1 of the porches, eavestrough with like material and style, infilling existing Municipal Plan). windows, removal of porches. The proposed addition is located at the rear of the property. (b) Structural alterations to the exterior of buildings are not permitted in the event of residential conversions. Any exterior stairs or The fire escape is not located on the fagade of the structure. The fire escapes are to be enclosed and kept proposed development will be maintaining the location of the fire away from the fagade of the structure escape on the west elevation. Section 13.1.2.1 of the Municipal Plan). August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2fQ h0R6 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 51 Policies Discussion (c) Major structural alterations to the exterior The subject property is considered a Berlin/Kitchener vernacular of buildings are not permitted for conversions The proposed alteration does not include an Office -Residential in the Office -Residential Conversion Conversion. designation (Section 13.1.2.7 of the from a modest interpretation to a highly decorative interpretation. Municipal Plan). As part of the redesign, architectural features and stylistic of the building to determine "authentic limits" The proposed addition is located at the rear of the building and (d) Additions shall be subordinate to the overall is subordinate to the original structure. The addition original structure to allow the original employs shiplap siding which is proposed to be in a different heritage features and built form to take visual colour to the original building in order to be sympathetic but not precedence on the street. detract from the prominence of the original building. No significant heritage attributes will be removed and/or covered up as a direct result of the addition. (e) Design guidelines provided in Sections complement, but not detract, from the original building. 6.4 and 6.5 of this Plan will be used to review The building shows existing evidence of modifications which likely and evaluate applications for additions and The design guidelines have been considered and helped inform alterations to ensure that the proposed the recommendations outlined in this HIA. changes are compatible with the existing made smaller and is proposed to be opened up to its original size dwelling and do not result in the irreversible as part of the modifications. Some areas will be modified and loss of heritage attributes. closed in to allow for adequate internal light and access for each Table 7: Recommended Practices and Guidelines Considered from Section 6.4 Alterations of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan Recommended Practices and Guidelines Discussion The subject property is considered a Berlin/Kitchener vernacular architectural style with Queen Anne influences. This style is prominent throughout the CCNHCD neighbourhood and can range from a modest interpretation to a highly decorative interpretation. Research the original style and appearance As part of the redesign, architectural features and stylistic of the building to determine "authentic limits" elements within the neighbourhood were considered. As a result, of restoration or alteration so that the many features will be a direct replacement with like materials (i.e., appropriate style is maintained. Roof) to ensure that the style is maintained. New features proposed to be added such as the new porches, include detailing which are sympathetic and complementary to the original architectural style. These architectural features and elements (i.e., porch details) were incorporated into the rear addition to complement, but not detract, from the original building. The building shows existing evidence of modifications which likely occurred during the original building conversion from one In the absence of historical data, use residence into multiple units. For example, the fagade window was forensic evidence available from the building made smaller and is proposed to be opened up to its original size itself to suggest appropriate restoration or as part of the modifications. Some areas will be modified and alteration. closed in to allow for adequate internal light and access for each unit. Nonetheless, this will be considered further as part of the Conservation Plan being carried out as part of the proposed development. Seek similar properties (same age, same Any materials proposed for removal, like materials should be design, and same builder) for evidence of considered for replacement - in keeping with the original feature. details that may still exist as samples for Further, this will be considered as part of the Conservation Plan reconstruction being carried out as part of the proposed development. The proposed addition includes new materials as part of the addition and within the original building. The new materials help distinguish the original house from the proposed new addition as Avoid "new" materials and methods of they are proposed to be complementary in colour. The new construction if the original is still available. materials will be James Hardie Siding in an "Aged Pewter" colour made to mimic the appearance of Board and Batten cladding, a material found within the HCD. Overall, the new materials ensure that the addition is distinguishable from the original structure. New doors and windows should be of similar The proposed development includes the removal of the existing style, orientation and proportion as on the wooden sash windows with segmental arches which have been August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2fQ h0R6 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 52 Recommended Practices and Guidelines Discussion existing building. Where possible, consider noted as being heritage attributes. Additionally, some of the the use of appropriate reclaimed materials. window openings will be converted into door openings and some integrated into any redevelopment proposals will be closed in/infilled with brick. Where replacement of features (e.g. — doors, character of the existing building will be maintained. windows, trim) is unavoidable, the The proposed replacement of features (doors, windows, porches, replacement components should be of the etc.) is proposed to be the in keeping with the same style, size, same general style, size, proportions, and and proportions. material whenever possible. architectural style and does not detract from the surrounding area. Incorporate similar building forms, materials, Any proposed windows, door, new porch has considered the scale and design elements in the alteration existing form, material, scale and design and directly informed the that exist on the original building. proposed design. Avoid concealing or irreversibly altering The existing rear elevation will be obscured by the addition. The original heritage attributes of buildings, such proposed addition will not create any new openings within the as entrances, windows, doors and decorative existing masonry walls. The proposed development seeks the details when undertaking alterations. removal of the existing windows which is an irreversible alteration. 3 storeys is encouraged to maintain a rear yard The creation of window openings and the infill of windows does If in doubt, use discretion and avoid constitute an irreversible change; however, the building has irreversible changes to the basic structure. already undergone changes of this nature. The prominent window pairings on the side elevations will not be altered. Keep accurate photos and other records, This will be considered as part of the Conservation Plan being and samples of original elements that have carried out as part of the proposed development. been replaced. position and the prominent five points fagade/intersection. Table 8: Guidelines Considered from Section 6.9.3. Area Specific - Ellen Street East of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan Guideline Discussion The original appearance and character of the The proposed development includes significant maintenance and existing buildings should be maintained or replacement efforts (i.e., replacement of element with similar integrated into any redevelopment proposals material, style, size etc.) however the original appearance and character of the existing building will be maintained. Building facades at the street level should The height and roofline of the proposed building is in keeping with incorporate consistent roof lines and step backs the original building and the surrounding streetscape. It includes a if required to establish a cohesive streetscape gable roof which is in keeping with the original buildings architectural style and does not detract from the surrounding area. New development shall have entrances oriented The proposed addition has two entrances which are oriented to the street towards the street and are in keeping with all the entrance being located along the side elevations. To better reflect the historic development pattern and address potential issues relating to privacy The proposed addition is in keeping with the historic patterns and and access to sunlight in the event of any is not proposed to be more than the 3 -storey height of the existing redevelopment, any redevelopment greater than building 3 storeys is encouraged to maintain a rear yard setback greater than 7.5 metres where feasible The proposed location for garage is along Ellen Street East. The location was selected due to several factors including the constraints of the irregular shaped lot. The location seeks to avoid Locate loading, garbage and other service the Lancaster fagade which has an increased residential facing elements (HVAC, meters, etc.) away from the position and the prominent five points fagade/intersection. front fagade so they do not have a negative Furthermore, the rear yard was not selected in consideration for visual impact on the street or new building / the neigbhouring property, as the location would be immediately addition. adjacent to their outdoor living space. To minimize impacts on Ellen Street, the proposed development will use in -ground receptacles and a landscape plan which includes vegetation screening. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #206-83�� Of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Table 9: Guidelines Considered from Section 6.5.1 Additions of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan 53 Guideline Discussion Additions that are necessary should be The addition will be clearly distinguishable from the original house sympathetic and complementary in design through materials and form. The proposed use of similar colours and, if possible, clearly distinguishable from palette on the rear addition provide a cohesive visual appearance the original construction by form or detail. and works to soften the transition between original house and new The use of traditional materials, finishes and addition. The proposed addition seeks to use new materials which colours rather than exact duplication of form, are intended to visually present as a traditional material (board can provide appropriate transition between and batten). The texture and material composition of the two additions and original structures. different materials will ensure that they are visually distinctive. Additions should be located away from The proposed addition is located at the rear of the building. The principal fagade(s) of heritage properties, irregular nature of the lot will result in the building being visible preferably at the rear of the building, to from the streetscape, however, it does not overpower the original reduce the visual impact on the street(s). building due to its massing and scale. Form and details of the addition should be The proposed addition includes a gable roof with shed roof complementary to the original construction, dormers which is in keeping with the original construction and with respect to style, scale, and materials but Berlin/Kitchener vernacular architectural style. The proposed still distinguishable to reflect the historical addition will be clad in vertical Hardie Board siding. This siding is construction periods of the building. made to look like historic wood materials. The height of any addition should be similar The height of the rear addition is proposed to be the same as the to the existing building and/or adjacent existing building. The addition is proposed on the rear elevation buildings to ensure that the addition does not and will not dominate any views of the fagade. The proposed dominate the original building, neighbouring addition will be visible from side elevation due to the nature of the buildings or the streetscape. irregular lot; however, the historic building will be prominent and hiqhlV visible. Additions should not obscure or remove The proposed addition seeks to remove the wooden sash important architectural features of the windows which have been noted as heritage attributes. existing building. Additions should not negatively impact the The proposed addition includes a bump out from the original side symmetry and proportions of the building or elevations, however the building already followed an irregular create a visually unbalanced facade. footprint and it is felt that this will not significantly detract from or negatively impact the proportions of the fa ade. New doors and windows should be of similar The proposed addition includes doors and windows common to style, orientation and proportion as on the the Berlin/Kitchener vernacular style. The emphasis on vertical existing building. Where possible, consider height and pairing of the glass panes, as well as the inclusion of a the use of appropriate reclaimed materials. glass transom in doorways is in keeping with some of the stylistic features found in this style. New construction should avoid irreversible The original structure will remain in situ and the proposed addition changes to original will not create any new openings in the masonry wall. The proposed addition is in theory reversible. As Table 5 summarizes, the proposed development will have adverse impacts on the heritage attributes of the subject property as defined by MTCS InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (2006b). Additional factors identified in the policies and guidelines of the CCNHCD have also be considered. The potential impacts include: • Impact 1 —The proposed development involves the removal of the original wooden sash windows. • Impact 2 — The proposed development involves the conversion of some of the wooden sash windows into doorways and some windows to be closed-in/infilled. • Impact 3 — The potential for accidental damage to heritage attributes during the construction process and/or as part of the removal or alteration of openings • Impact 4 — The proposed development includes multiple alterations to all elevations which do not directly impact heritage attributes but result in the loss of historic materials. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-Of of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 54 Impact 5 — Due to constraints of the irregularly shaped lot, the location of the in -ground garbage bin and recycling bins along Ellen Street East streetscape parallel to the streetscape has potential to detract from the character of the streetscape. There are positive impacts associated with the proposed development. They include: • The property will undergo maintenance to ensure its ongoing viability. • The property respects the low height profile of the neighbourhood while increasing density and providing affordable housing options to the neighbourhood. • The unique facade windows will undergo restoration. 11.0 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS AND CONSIDERATIONS Throughout the development of the proposed design outlined in Section 9.0, alternatives options and designs were considered. These alternative options to the development proposal have both been identified and explored and have helped inform the final decision. 11.1 Alternative: Do Nothing The "Do Nothing" approach is an alternative development approach whereby the proposed project to build an addition and renovate the existing structure to create a twelve -unit residential building at subject property does not proceed. Do Nothing would result in no indirect impacts; however, it is likely that additional deterioration due to the current water infiltration would continue to deteriorate elements of the building. 11.2 Alternative: Remove and Replace all Windows The proposed development originally sought to remove and replace all windows on each elevation of the building. After the field survey, the uniqueness of the decorative colour glass windows located within on the upper level and gable peaks of the facade was discussed with the proponent and retaining the coloured windows was encouraged. These two windows are now intended to be retained as part of the proposed development. ARA encouraged the retention of all original wooden windows as part of the proposed development; however, the proponent has indicated that the removal and replacement of the existing wooden sash windows on all elevations is required due to a deterioration of materials, rot, to reduce heat loss and energy efficiency, and as an effort to reduce ongoing and costly maintenance needs which may be required. 11.3 Alternative: Refined Design Elements Through the design refinement process of the new addition, considerations were applied to further complement the original building. The inclusion of transoms above all doorways on the west elevation, the alteration of window size to be more in keeping with the existing vertical emphasis of existing windows on the east and west elevations, as well as the inclusion of cedar shake panels on the west and north elevation. All of these design refinements were directly influenced by the heritage features of the existing building and work to soften any impacts of the rear addition. 11.4 Summary of Alternative Design Considerations The original proposed development included a rear addition which respects the overall height of the neighbourhood and was sympathetic in scale and massing and proposed alterations which included required maintenance and investment into the existing building to ensure its long-term August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93PI of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 55 viability. The proposed development is generally in keeping the CCNHCD guidelines for additions and alterations. Instances where the proposed development deviates from the guidelines have been identified in Section 10.0. The proposed design underwent additional design refinements which are noted above and reflected in the final draft design (see Section 9.0). The final draft design will result in the loss of some of the historic materials associated with the building; however, the overall legibility as a Berlin/Kitchener vernacular design will not be impacted. 12.0 MITIGATIVE MEASURES The MTCS Info Sheet #5. Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (2006b:4) lists several specific methods of minimizing or avoiding a negative impact on a cultural heritage resource including, but not limited to: • Alternative development approaches; • Limit height and density; • Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials; • Allowing only compatible infill and additions; • Reversable additions; and • Buffer zones, site plan control, and other planning mechanisms. The following mitigation measures are suggested to reduce, but not eliminate impacts. 12.1 Reuse and Salvage of Materials (Impact 1, 2 and 4) The subject property contains historic fabric noted as heritage attributes as well as some that have not been identified as heritage attributes, but may be worthy of salvage and reuse. Although not identified as a heritage attribute the reuse of the existing wooden doors is strongly encouraged. The purpose of salvaging building materials is considered good practice and the salvage of interior and exterior materials should be considered as part of the proposed development. The materials listed below provide an example of materials which may be worthy of salvage or reuse: • Brick; • Windows and doors; • Wood porch materials; • Any interior features proposed for removal with historical, architectural or cultural value, including metal hardware (i.e., return air vents), light fixtures and/or outlet plates, wood floorboards, wood baseboards, decorative wood trim, • Any appliances. The following recommendations for the salvage and reuse of materials are suggested: A reputable contractor(s) with proven expertise in cultural heritage resource and/or salvage removal should be obtained; o The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) North Waterloo Region maintains a Directory of Heritage Practitioners located in Ontario that claim to have experience with heritage properties. The section dedicated to "House Moving, Dismantling and Salvage" could be referred to for salvage contacts, however, it is recommended that references and/or previous work be assessed before engaging with any of the listed businesses. The ACO directory is available online at: August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 56 www.aconwr.ca/directory-of-heritage-practitioners/house-moving-dismantling- and-salvage/ • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re -use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Consider the incorporation of salvaged materials, such as bricks, stone, timber beams, wood planks, floorboards, etc. into the proposed development, potentially in the form of landscaped features, planters, pavilions/shade structures or lobby features; and • Any materials not deemed salvageable, but which are still recyclable should be recycled in an effort to reduce the amount of material sent to a landfill. 12.2 Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (Impact 1, 2, 3, and 4) A Cultural Heritage Documentation Report is typically conducted when a building is proposed for demolition. Since demolition is not being sought, it is still good practice to document the building prior to any modifications. Documentation is completed in order to provide in-depth documentation of the building. The process involves photographic documentation of the structure as a whole from all (accessible) angles as well as detailed photographs of all elements. Contextual photographs are also taken of the landscape surrounding the resource. These photographs are recorded on a photo map. A physical description of the resource and detailed description of the landscape and context are also included in the report. Additional measured drawings, land use history, archival photographs or maps obtained could be included. ARA believes that this HIA provides adequate documentation to satisfy this recommendation; nonetheless, this should be confirmed with City Staff. Should additional photographs or documentation be required, they should be included as part of a Conservation Plan. 12.3 Construction Fencing (Impact 3) To protect adjacent properties during the construction period of the proposed new addition, site specific protection measures should be considered. At minimum, temporary construction fencing should be erected as a buffer between the subject property and adjacent properties along the rear (north) property line. The fencing should be erected at a sufficient distance to ensure that there will be no direct or indirect impacts because of the construction activities or equipment. 12.4 Masonry Repointing and Painting (Impact 3) The proposed development will likely result in the need for repointing selected areas of the brick masonry prior to painting. It is recommended that this be undertaken by a tradesperson who is familiar with the historic materials and has experience working with heritage buildings. The Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and/or the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) Directory of Heritage Practitioners provides information for tradespeople with this type of experience. Seeking a tradesperson who has demonstrated skills and experience is recommended in order to ensure that no unintended damage occurs (i.e., the use of paint or mortar which is incompatible). It is recommended that a person with heritage experience carry out any masonry work. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 12.5 Conservation Plan (Impact 3) 57 A Conservation Plan is being completed for the proposed development. The conservation plan should include an analysis of the proposed changes against relevant guidelines (i.e. Standard Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, the CCNHCD plan guidelines etc). The Conservation plan should be tailored to provide additional guidance on how the proposed development can be carried out in a manner which ensures that no additional heritage attributes (beyond those necessary) are impacted. A Conservation Plan could supply advice on how to replace like materials in a way that ensure their compatibility. Additionally, it could provide additional guidance on the short-, medium- and long-term recommendations to ensure the long- term viability of the building as a whole. The Conservation Plan should also provide clear guidance on the selection of paint and the appropriate method of preparing the surface for repainting. 12.6 Vegetative Screening (Impact 5) Due to the constraints of the lot, the garbage and recycling area is proposed to be located along the streetscape of Ellen Street East. Mitigation measure to reduce the impacts have already been integrated into the proposed design. In addition to use of in -ground receptacles, a landscape plan has been prepared as part of the subject property's site plan (see Figure 13) which includes the use of vegetative buffers around the garbage and recycling area. It is recommended that this landscape plan be followed as it will assist with reducing any visual impact of the proposed garbage and recycling area on the streetscape. 12.7 Design Considerations (General) The proposed colour for the addition, trim, and brick have not been finalized. It is recommended that the final design select a colour from a heritage palette and/or one which is in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood and streetscape. 12.8 Vibration Monitoring (General) The proposed development includes new construction with a basement unit. Construction activities have the potential to create vibrations that could impact the cultural heritage resource associated with the subject property and or the adjacent properties (111 Lancaster Street East and 54 Ellen Street East). With respect to identifying and monitoring vibrations, the Zone of Influence (ZOI) is considered the area of land which is within or adjacent to a construction site. A ZOI study identifies building/s which may require vibration monitoring during the construction phase to which monitoring strategies can be determined. For example, the `City of Toronto By- law 515-2008 To amend City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 363, Building Construction and Demolition', with respect to regulations of vibrations from construction activity on heritage properties' provides an example of a detailed vibration assessment method and criteria. It is recommended that City of Kitchener Staff determine if a ZOI study is required and at what stage in the planning process. 13.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS The O. Reg 9/06 evaluation confirms that 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East have CHVI and have met criteria for physical and design value, historical/associative value and contextual value. The proposed development includes the construction of a new two -and -a -half storey addition which will be the same height as the existing building. The proposed development also includes August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2fQ, b-09 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 58 alterations to the existing building including removing and replacing windows, doors, roof materials, cedar shingles, porches, and the addition of dormers, new porches, windows, and fencing as well as the infill of windows and doorways. Potential negative impacts to 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East may result from the proposed development including: • Impact 1 — The proposed development involves the removal of the original wooden sash windows. • Impact 2 — The proposed development involves the conversion of some of the wooden sash windows into doorways and some windows to be closed-in/infilled. • Impact 3 — The potential for accidental damage to heritage attributes during the construction process and/or as part of the removal or alteration of openings • Impact 4 — The proposed development includes multiple alterations to all elevations which do not directly impact heritage attributes but result in the loss of historic materials. • Impact 5 — Due to constraints of the irregularly shaped lot, the location of the in -ground garbage bin and recycling bins along Ellen Street East streetscape parallel to the streetscape has potential to detract from the character of the streetscape. Throughout the process a variety of design options and refinements were applied. The proposed development was refined to include the retention and restoration of the prominent facade upper storey and attic windows. Mitigation measures to address the identified impacts have been outlined. The following mitigation measures are recommended: • Material salvage and reuse is strongly encouraged. Materials from the building should be salvaged by a salvage company or salvaged and reused within the property (i.e., landscaping elements, reuse of doors within proposed design, outbuilding). • Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation has been completed as part of this report. It should be confirmed that the existing documentation within this report has been completed to the satisfaction of City staff and should additional photographic documentation be requested, it should be completed as part of the Conservation Plan. • To protect the adjacent properties from accidental damage during the construction period, construction fencing is recommended. • Any masonry repointing should be carried out by a tradesperson who has experience working with heritage buildings. • It is recommended that the Conservation Plan provide guidance on items proposed for removal in a manner which does not cause additional unintended damage to the building. Furthermore, the Conservation Plan should provide short-, medium- and long-term recommendations to ensure the ongoing viability of the heritage resource. • It is recommended that the landscape plan which incorporates vegetative screening to reduce the visual impact of the garbage and recycling units on Ellen Street East is followed. • It is recommended that final colours to be used in the design be selected from a heritage palette and/or be in keeping with the neighbourhood. • It is recommended that City of Kitchener Staff determine if the proposed development warrants vibration monitoring and provide specific direction on how to carry this out. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 59 14.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Archives of Ontario (AO) 1880 Marriage Register #011228 — Peter Sage/ and Catherine Heller. Accessed online at: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y39L- PVS?i=266&cc=1784216&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1 %3A1 %3AFMNR- PS9 2022 Archives of Ontario: Accessing our Collections. Accessed online at: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/access/our collection.aspx. Bloomfield, E. 2006 Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries. Waterloo: Waterloo Historical Society. Cairnes, W. 1918 Cairne's Official Directory of the City of Kitchener. Accessed online at: https:Harchive.org/details/kitchenerdirec00cairuoft/page/n5/mode/2up?g=cairnes Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd Edition. Toronto: Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. City of Kitchener 2007 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. Accessed online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/building-and-development/heritagedistricts.aspx#Kitcheners- heritage-conservation-districts. 2014 City of Kitchener. Official Plan. Accessed online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN City of Kitchen er Official Plan 2014.pdf 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Data Sheets. Accessed online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CHL Study App endix 6 CHL Data Sheets.pdf 2014 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Accessed online at: , https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_CHL_Study_Re port. pdf Coyne, J. H. 1895 The Country of the Neutrals (As Far as Comprised in the County of Elgin): From Champlain to Talbot. St. Thomas: Times Print. Cumming, R. (ed.) 1972 Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo (H. Parsell & Co. Toronto, 1881); County of Waterloo Directory (Armstrong & Co. Toronto, 1878); Illustrated Atlas of the County of Wellington (Walker & Miles Toronto, 1877). Reprint Edition. Port Elgin: Ross Cumming. Ellis, C.J. & Ferris, N. (eds.) 1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5. London: Ontario Archaeological Society Inc. English, J. and K. McLaughlin 1983 Kitchener. An Illustrated History. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2fQ, b -Of of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East .e] Government of Ontario 2006 Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Accessed online at: www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. 2018a Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18. Accessed online at: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ html/statutes/english/elaws statutes 90o18 e.htm 2018a Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Accessed online at: www.ontario.ca/laws/ statute/90P13. Hayes, G. 1997 Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical Society. Henry Walser Funeral Home Ltd. 2007 Life Storey for Leighton "Lee" Steinhoff. Accessed online at: https://www. henrywalser.com/memorials/leighton-steinhoff/164717/obituary. php Irwin & Burnham 1867 Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Waterloo, 1867. Toronto: Irwin & Burnham. Janusas, S. 1988 Archaeological Perspective of a Historic Overview of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Waterloo: Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Planning and Development Department, Archaeology Division. Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum 2022 Anna Cairnes Object Collection. Accessed online at: https://waterloo.pastperfectonline.com/byperson?keyword=Cairnes%2C+Anna Kitchener -Waterloo Art Gallery 2022 Lord Kitchener of Khartoum. Accessed online at: http://gallery.kwag.ca/obiects- 1/info?query=keyword Path%20%3D%20%2200%22%20and%20Disp Maker 1%20%3 D%20%22Anna%20Cairnes%22&sort=0 Lajeunesse, E.J. 1960 The Windsor Border Region: Canada's Southernmost Frontier. Toronto: The Champlain Society. Land Registry Office (LRO) #58 Lot 3, German Company Tract, Township of Waterloo, Waterloo County, Ontario. Accessed online at: www.onland.ca Lots 31 and 32, Gaukel's Survey. Accessed at: www.onland.ca Louis Breithaupt Survey. Accessed online at: www.onland.ca Library and Archives Canada (LAC) 1901 Louis Steubing in the Census of Canada. Berlin Town, Township of Waterloo, Waterloo County. Item Number 3437434, Page 9, Line 37. McGill University 2001 The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. Accessed online at: http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/default.htm. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2fQ, b-06 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 61 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) 2020 Provincial Policy Statement, 2020. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MSTC) 2006a Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2006b Info Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2021 List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Accessed online at: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/ heritage/heritage conserving list.shtml. OnLand 2022 Ontario Land RegistryAccess. Accessed online at: https://www.onland.ca/ui/. Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) 2022 Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project. Access online at: https:Hocul. on. ca/topomaps/. Ontario Historical County Maps Project (OHCMP) 2022 Ontario Historical County Maps Project. Accessed online at: http:Hmaps.library.utoronto.ca/hqis/countymaps/maps.html. Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) 2021 Ontario Heritage Plaque Guide. Accessed online at: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/ index.php /online-plaque-quide. Parks Canada 2021 Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. Accessed online at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/search-recherche eng.aspx. Smith, W.H. 1846 Smith's Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting all Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell. Accessed online at: https:Harchive.org/details/smithscanadianga00smit. Surtees, R.J. 1994 Land Cessions, 1763-1830. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations, edited by E.S. Rogers and D.B. Smith, pp. 92-121. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Sutherland, J. 1864 County of Waterloo Gazetteer and General Business Directory for 1864. Toronto: Mitchell & Co. University of Waterloo (UW) 2016 Digital Historical Air Photos of KW and Surrounding Area. Accessed online at: hftp://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/promect/. 2022 Maps and Atlases: Waterloo Region Historical Maps Accessed online at: https:Huwaterloo. ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo-region- historical-maps. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2fQ, b-09 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 62 Vernon, H. 1911 Vernon's Berlin, Waterloo and Bridgeport Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Years 1911-12. Hamilton: Henry Vernon. Accessed online at: https:Hmakinghistory.kpl.org/en/viewer?file=%2finedia%2fDirectories%2fyernons- Berl inWaterloo-1911-1912.pdf#phrase=false Waterloo Historical Society 1930 Eighteenth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society — Reminiscences of Berlin, Now Kitchener. Accessed online at: https://www.whs.ca/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/1930.pd . 1934 Twenty -Second Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society — Waterloo Township History to 1825. Accessed online at: https://www.whs.ca/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/1934 V22.pdf Waterloo Region Generations (WRG) 2022a Town of Berlin Map about 1892. Accessed online at August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93M of 230 https:Hgenerations.regionofwaterloo.calshowmedia. php?medial D=6951 &tngpage=7775. 2022b Rev. Samuel Eby. Accessed online at: https:Hgenerations. regionofwaterloo. ca/getperson. php?personl D=121462&tree=qenerati ons. 2022c Friedrich Gaukel. Accessed online at: https:Hgenerations. regionofwaterloo. ca/getperson. php?person 1 D=134480&tree=qenerati ons. 2022d Mayor Louis Jacob Breithaupt. Accessed online at: https:Hgenerations. regionofwaterloo. ca/getperson. php?personl D=112689&tree=qenerati ons 2022e Peter Saugel. Accessed online at: https:Hgenerations. regionofwaterloo. ca/getperson. php?personl D=136224&tree=generati ons 2022f Louis Steubing. Accessed online at: https:Hgenerations. regionofwaterloo. ca/getperson. php?personl D=136294&tree=generati ons 2022g Anna Rothaermel. Accessed online at: https:Hgenerations. regionofwaterloo. ca/getperson. php?personl D=1126331 &tree=generat ions August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East MPPCi iuix M. iviaNa al iu riyul Va Subject Property A%'NuA" N 1:2D,OD0 D 385 770 m -, Map Sa — Geo. R & C.M. T,,,,,, -frem aloes Map ,f n, C... fy if WaMMpp, Canada Weal' (f 8&tj Map 3: Subject Property on Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West (1861) (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri; OHCMP 2022) 63 4 0, August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93F of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East I ^i rr j Base Map Source: Schofield's'Map cf Part of the Town of Berlin' (1853-1854) Ile W,� ♦4± At h Basee M: Hopkins Maof the Town of Berlin' 1879 = Subject Property al�, r r IF t \. , if ., 6y ,d • L ! 1 9� 0, 6 "ill 14 { Et� I # Base Map Source: Brosius 'Berlin''.(1875) „ L T+:( , ; r1, wvAi1� tt'� ii .4t �t BaMap Source: Town of Berlin C nada ■t'.>:i4Sw.tt,3ilyti.��'i{F :5'1,��►Yha��t�t^dsJ�i4 'i � '�'"1+.. Wn k.4t� �L•. ARA 1 s,aoa N 0 95 190 m Map 4: Subject Property on Historic Maps from 1853-54,1875,1879,1892 (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri; OCUL 2021; UW 2022, WRG 2020a) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-930 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 65 Map 5: Subject Property on H. Parsell & Co.'s Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo (1881) (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri; McGill 2001) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93di of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Map 6: Subject Property on a Topographic Map from 1916 (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri; OCUL 2021) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2R6_93di of 230 'r f 4 lowOF • OF } ON JEW � .,F f f � .. ff} 2, mac(, f# jjfff/))p -,.P{. f e41 . Ae ti. • V. Subject Property • � 1 115,000 0 300 .00 Map 6: Subject Property on a Topographic Map from 1916 (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri; OCUL 2021) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2R6_93di of 230 �, • �" ; „ � N Rigg T' Ir t �Q� 4 i AGF �rSTR e �"Oly Awl ' J Lu LiGfi! sT AL 00 • r , i o �" $ � Pp�45 wed 'So rce: Aerial Image �119451 I—IL GO T I CS h { 9Ffi ■ 9� %L4tq. er RGq jr '1 FFT �cF 9 G IA ��4- w '�'A LLI jo s } 1� '■ ra Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East riyurG 1J. OUL)JIMA rrURGrLy iri 1oZ71 UUWU rxr.b►ur►►c:r v1 rrLrr Oaugr► (Berlin News Record 1897) 4P./ Figure 14: Portrait of Anna Rothaermel Cairnes (WRG 2022g) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Figure 15: 1911 Advertisement for Mrs. W. Cairnes (Anna Cairnes) Art Studio (Vernon's Directory 1911:66) OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER 27 A. CAIRNES Kitchener, Ontario ART STUDIO OIL and WATER COLOR PAINTINGS Paintings on Silk, Satin and Tapestry HAND PAINTED CHINA Hand Painted Art Glass and Tile for Mantels and Bath Room Friezes Specialties, Wedding Presents, Photo Tinting 60 E. Ellen St. China Firing Done Daily Phone 337 Figure 16: 1918 Advertisement for A. Cairnes Art Studio (Cairnes 1918:27) e August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93df of 230 .. he STUDIOTRZPUB* l? R e/ GERM" TART in Oil and * PTB,u h LAW r.r..:tintinQi Water Colon Iowa= you b" s w perm cd, - 3 :MOTOR ate, >x HAND PAINTED ivirr� CHINA j At V outlieW wd ��-. ��� rrritir furc .ad R&Arved :yrs. w. 4airnes.9ngW- L4d,► t•. i.. Goal suwt& ROOM 2ioWERER CHAMBERS •• ' "� CHINA FIRING DUL '�°` Y •'r "�" Figure 15: 1911 Advertisement for Mrs. W. Cairnes (Anna Cairnes) Art Studio (Vernon's Directory 1911:66) OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER 27 A. CAIRNES Kitchener, Ontario ART STUDIO OIL and WATER COLOR PAINTINGS Paintings on Silk, Satin and Tapestry HAND PAINTED CHINA Hand Painted Art Glass and Tile for Mantels and Bath Room Friezes Specialties, Wedding Presents, Photo Tinting 60 E. Ellen St. China Firing Done Daily Phone 337 Figure 16: 1918 Advertisement for A. Cairnes Art Studio (Cairnes 1918:27) e August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93df of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Figure 17: Lord Kitchener of Khartoum — Painted by Anna Cairnes (Cairnes 1916, Kitchener -Waterloo Art Gallery, 2022) 70 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 71 naix ts: auaject vroperty Im r L; 4 9 Al e Ile M M 1 1 Q Image Location and Direction Subject Property A%NwARA N 1'616 0 10 20m contains InkrmaWn —sed under the open Government Ut enoe - Onrarm Map 8: Photo Location Map Overview — Subject Property and Surrounding Context (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93H of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 72 QImage Location and Direction ® Subject Property Map 9: Photo Location Map Detail — Subject Property (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #286-9348 of 230 N 1:131 0 2.5 5m Gan4lns Inbr—d-, Iicensed antler t , Open Government licence -Gnta Ao Base Map Source. Regan of W. W&. (2020) Map 9: Photo Location Map Detail — Subject Property (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #286-9348 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 73 Image 1: Context — View Showing Subject Property from Five Points Intersection (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) Image 2: Context — Five Point Intersection, View of Streetscape (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-93P of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 3: Context — View of Lancaster Streetscape, Subject Property at Centre (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 4: Context — Lancaster Street East Streetscape (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) 74 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #286-9341 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 5: Context — Ellen Street East Streetscape (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) Image 6: Context — View of Subject Property from Five Points Intersection (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) August 2022 HR -384-2021 75 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. ARA File #286-9341 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 7: Subject Property — Fagade (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) rl A ' k r '��►go � r : isth Image 8: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable End/Multipaned Queen - Anne Style Attic Window (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) 76 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rh-93M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 9: Subject Property — Multi -Paned Queen Anne Style Window on Second Storey with Decorative Woodwork (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) + Construction v (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) 77 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #286-9349 of 230 rrMax, Fit Image 9: Subject Property — Multi -Paned Queen Anne Style Window on Second Storey with Decorative Woodwork (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) + Construction v (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) 77 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #286-9349 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 6- Image 11: Subject Property — Infilled Window Opening (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) Image 12: Subject Property —Addition on East Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) 0-. 11 1 78 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2R6_9346 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 13: Subject Property — Stone Foundation and Cinder Block Foundation Under One -Storey Addition on East Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) Image 14: Subject Property — East Elevation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) 79 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2Rb-934f of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 15: Subject Property — Northeast Elevation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 16: Subject Property — Modified Openings on Second Store,. (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) :e] August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #286-9346 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 17: Subject Property — Molded Wooden Cornice (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) Image 18: Subject Property — Molded Wooden Cornice Showing Area Clad with Aluminium Flashing (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) 81 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #286-9349 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 19: Subject Property — Decorative Shingle Work on Gable End (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 20: Subject Property — Stone Foundation with Coursed Mortar Parging (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) 82 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 21: Subject Property — Brick Detail Showing Red Glazing and Beaded Mortar Profile (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 22: Subject Property — Paired Window Openings with Segmental Arches (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) 83 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %6 0fflf of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 23: Subject Property — Running Cracks Visible in Masonry (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) Image 24: Subject Property — Painted Wooden Sills (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 25: Subject Property — Interior and Storm Windows of Varying Conditions (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) Image 26: Subject Property — Basement Door Showing Modified Opening (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) 85 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 27: Subject Property —Addition on North Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) Image 28: Subject Property — Window Opening Inside North Addition (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 29: Subject Building — Running Cracks in Masonry and Fallen Arch (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 30: Subject Property — Northwest Elevation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) 87 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864W of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 31: Subject Property — Six -Paned Fixed Window on Northwest Elevation of One -Storey Addition (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 32: Subject Property — Brick Discolouration Showing Water Shedding Issues (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 .T• -. P %_dind �) � I P 0 I Image 31: Subject Property — Six -Paned Fixed Window on Northwest Elevation of One -Storey Addition (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 32: Subject Property — Brick Discolouration Showing Water Shedding Issues (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 33: Subject Property — Outside Brick Chimney (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southeast) mage 34: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable End: (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southeast) :• August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %6 0fflf of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 35: Subject Property — Two -Storey Addition on West Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 36: Subject Property — Brick and Mortar Deterioration/Replacement (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) .s] August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864W of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 37: Subject Property — Connection between Initial Residence Design with Two -Storey Addition on West Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 38: Subject Property — Single Masonry Course Laid in Header Pattern on Foundation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) 91 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 .o { iv Image 37: Subject Property — Connection between Initial Residence Design with Two -Storey Addition on West Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 38: Subject Property — Single Masonry Course Laid in Header Pattern on Foundation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) 91 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 39: Subject Property — Segmental Arch on Basement Opening (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 40: Subject Property — Flat Arched Basement Opening on Two -Storey Addition on West Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) 92 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 41: Subject Property — Southwest Elevation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) Image 42: Subject Property —Attic Storey Dormer and Fire Escape (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) 93 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 43: Subject Property — Balcony on Second Storey of Two -Storey Addition on West Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) ZJ —-`. kL Image 44: Subject Property — First Storey Porch (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864 ORI of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 45: Subject Property — Large Window Opening with Flat Arch (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 46: Subject Property — 58 Ellen Street East Entrance (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) 95 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East r Image 47: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable End (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) I Image 48: Subject Property — Paired Window Openings with Segmental Arches (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) 92 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640HR of 230 Image 47: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable End (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) I Image 48: Subject Property — Paired Window Openings with Segmental Arches (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) 92 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640HR of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 49: Subject Property — Stone Foundation with Deteriorated Mortar (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) Image 50: Subject Property — Closet Addition on Second Floor (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northeast) 97 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640M of 230 a, Iv - Image 50: Subject Property — Closet Addition on Second Floor (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northeast) 97 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 51: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Enclosed Entrance (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northeast) Image 52: Subject Property — One -over -one Wooden Sash Window with Segmental Arch (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 53: Subject Property — One -over -one Wooden Sash Window with a Segmental Arch and New or Restored Wooden Fixed Storm Window (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) Image 54: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Entrance Door with Decorative Woodwork (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 55: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Porch with Beadboard Wooden Ceiling (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) Interior Photos Image 56: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 100 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864 OR6 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 57: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Window with Transom (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 58: 58 Ellen Street East Interior— Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 101 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864 OR6 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 59: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 60: 58 Ellen Street East Interior— Modified Interior (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 102 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640i28 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 61: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 62: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 103 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640i2f of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 63: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wood Panel Door and Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 64: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wood Panel Door (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 104 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864OR21 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 65: 58 Ellen Street East Interior—Addition Interior (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 66: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 105 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640i'21 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 67: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring and Wooden Sash Windows with Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 68: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Wooden Sash Windows with Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 106 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864ORM of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 69: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Trim Profile (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 70: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Fireplace Mantle with Tile Hearth (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 107 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640i'29 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 71: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Wooden Sash Window with Trim and Hardwood Flooring (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 72: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Operable Sash Windows (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 108 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640i26 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 73: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Modified Interiors (Photo taken December 20, 2021) "-M Image 74: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Door Leading to Addition on East Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 109 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864Qi32f of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 75: 60 Ellen Street East Interior—Addition Interior Area (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 76: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Modified Kitchen Area (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 110 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864OR26 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 77: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring, Wooden Sash Windows, Interior Trim, Four Panel Wooden Door (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 78: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Room with Historic Wooden Sash Windows (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 111 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864OR29 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 79: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Coloured Glass Panes (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 80: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 112 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864 8 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 81: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 82: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 113 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 83: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom (Photo taken December 20, 2021) I P 1, II II_ Image 84: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 114 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864 1 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 85: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 86: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 115 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 87: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom, Four -Panel Wooden Door (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 88: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Coloured Glass Panes (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 116 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864 R of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 89: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring (Photo taken December 20, 2021) August 2022 HR -384-2021 Image 90: Basement — Former Barbershop Space (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 117 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. ARA File V864 9 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 91: Basement —Wooden Paneled Door (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 92: Basement — Unfinished Areas (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 118 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File .164 & of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East Image 93: Basement — Some Basement Windows Remaining (Photo taken December 20, 2021) August 2022 HR -384-2021 Image 94: Basement —Former Washroom (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 119 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. ARA File R.1640& of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East !T1 Image 95: Basement — Storm Windows for First and Second Storey Openings in Storage (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 120 August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864 6 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 121 Appendix C: Key Team Member Two -Page Curriculum Vitae Kayla Jonas Galvin, MA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP Heritage Operations Manager ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD. 1 King Street West, Stoney Creek, ON L8G 1G7 Phone: (519) 804-2291 x120 Fax: (519) 286-0493 Email: kayla.ionasgalvin(c�araheritage.ca Web: www.araheritage.ca Biography Kayla Jonas Galvin, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.'s Heritage Operations Manager, has extensive experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and landscapes for private and public -sector clients to fulfil the requirements of provincial and municipal legislation such as the Environmental Assessment Act, the Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties and municipal Official Plans. She served as Team Lead on the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Historic Places Initiative, which drafted over 850 Statements of Significance and for Heritage Districts Work!, a study of 64 heritage conservation districts in Ontario. Kayla was an editor of Arch, Truss and Beam: The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory and has worked on Municipal Heritage Registers in several municipalities. Kayla has drafted over 150 designation reports and by-laws for the City of Kingston, the City of Burlington, the Town of Newmarket, Municipality of Chatham -Kent, City of Brampton and the Township of Whitch urch-StouffviIle. Kayla is the Heritage Team Lead forARA's roster assignments for Infrastructure Ontario and oversees evaluation of properties according to Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Kayla is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP), Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP), a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and is President of the Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals. Education 2016 MA in Planning, University of Waterloo. Thesis Topic: Goderich — A Case Study of Conserving Cultural Heritage Resources in a Disaster 2003-2008 Honours BES University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario Joint Major: Environment and Resource Studies and Anthropology Professional Memberships and Accreditations Current Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP) Registered Professional Planner (RPP) President, Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals. Work Experience Current Heritage Operations Manager, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Oversees business development for the Heritage Department, coordinates completion of designation by-laws, Heritage Impact Assessments, Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessments, and Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluations. 2009-2013 Heritage Planner, Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo Coordinated the completion of various contracts associated with built heritage including responding to grants, RFPs and initiating service proposals. 2008-2009, Project Coordinator—Heritage Conservation District Study, ACO August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V864 6 of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 122 2012 Coordinated the field research and authored reports for the study of 32 Heritage Conservation Districts in Ontario. Managed the efforts of over 84 volunteers, four staff and municipal planners from 23 communities. 2007-2008 Team Lead, Historic Place Initiative, Ministry of Culture Liaised with Ministry of Culture Staff, Centre's Director and municipal heritage staff to draft over 850 Statements of Significance for properties to be nominated to the Canadian Register of Historic Places. Managed a team of four people. Selected Professional Development 2020 "Shaping The Public Realm: The Intersection Of Design & Planning" by Ontario Professional Planners Institute 2020 "Bill 189: The Coronavirus Support and Protection Act, 2020 and LPAT Update: All In An Hour' by Ontario Professional Planners Institute 2020 "COVID-19 and Planning" by Canadian Institute of Planners 2020 "Cities in the Age of COVID: What are the impacts on urban design and architecture?" by Canadian Urban Institute 2019 OPPI and WeirFoulds Client Seminar: Bill 108 — More Homes, More Choice, 2019 2019 Annual attendance at Ontario Heritage Conference, Goderich, ON (Two -days) 2019 Information Session: Proposed Amendments to the OHA, by MTCS 2018 Indigenous Canada Course, University of Alberta 2018 Volunteer Dig, Mohawk Institute 2018 Indigenizing Planning, three webinar series, Canadian Institute of Planners 2018 Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium 2018 How to Plan for Communities: Listen to the Them, Webinar, Canadian Institute of Planners 2017 Empowering Indigenous Voices in Impact Assessments, Webinar, International Association for Impact Assessments 2017 Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium 2017 Capitalizing on Heritage, National Trust Conference, Ottawa, ON. 2016 Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium 2016 Heritage Rising, National Trust Conference, Hamilton 2016 Ontario Heritage Conference St. Marys and Stratford, ON. 2016 Heritage Inventories Workshop, City of Hamilton & ERAArchitects 2015 Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium 2015 City of Hamilton: Review of Existing Heritage Permit and Heritage Designation Process Workshop. 2015 Ontario Heritage Conference, Niagara on the Lake, ON. 2015 Leadership Training for Managers Course, Dale Carnegie Training Selected Publications 2018 "Conserving Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Waterloo: An Innovative Approach." Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals Newsletter, Winter 2018. 2018 "Restoring Pioneer Cemeteries" Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals Newsletter. Spring 2018. 2015 "Written in Stone: Cemeteries as Heritage Resources." Municipal World, Sept. 2015. 2015 "Bringing History to Life." Municipal World, February 2015, pages 11-12. 2014 "Inventorying our History." Ontario Planning Journal, January/February 2015. 2014 "Assessing the success of Heritage Conservation Districts: Insights from Ontario Canada." with R. Shipley and J. Kovacs. Cities. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 123 Amy Barnes, M.A., CAHP Heritage Project Manager ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD. 1 King Street West, Stoney Creek, ON L8G 1G7 Phone: (226) 338-2339 x122 Fax: (519) 286-0493 Email: amy.barnes(a)araheritage.ca Web: www.araheritage.ca Biography Amy Barnes, a Project Manager with the Heritage Team, has over ten years of experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and leading community engagement. Amy has extensive experience working with provincial and municipal legislation and guidelines, including the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Ms. Barnes has completed over fifty heritage related projects including 150+ cultural assessments and has been qualified as an expert witness at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Amy has worked in the public and private sector where her duties included project management, public consultation, facilitator, research, database and records management, and report author. Amy has worked with the Town of Oakville, City of Cambridge, City of Kitchener, Niagara -on -the -Lake, City of London, and the City of Kingston on projects which range in size, scale and complexity. Amy Barnes holds an M.A. in Heritage Conservation from the School of Canadian Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. Amy has successfully completed the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Foundations in Public Participation, the IAP2 Planning and Techniques for Effective Public Participation, and Indigenous Awareness Training through Indigenous Awareness Canada. Amy is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Education 2009 MA in Heritage Conservation, School of Canadian Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario. 2006 Honours BA, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario Canadian Studies (Major) and Psychology (Minor). Professional Memberships and Accreditations Current Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Member, International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism, Guelph Chapter. Work Experience Current Heritage Project Manager, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Coordinates the completion of designation by-laws, Heritage I m pact Assessments, Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessments, and Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluations. 2020 Principal Heritage Consultant, Amy Barnes Consulting. 2012-2015 Coordinated the completion of various contracts associated with built heritage, cultural heritage landscapes, including Heritage Impact Assessments, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Designation Reports and professional consultation. 2019-2020 Manager of Operations- Outreach and Engagement, Yorklands Green Hub. Coordinated the development of a feasibility study and strategic planning initiatives for the anticipated purchase of a Provincial Property of Provincial Heritage Significance. Coordination of workshops and community events, external outreach and communications and implementing strategic planning initiatives. Liaison with August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 124 Infrastructure Ontario, Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Cultural Industries, non -profits, charities, school boards and community members. 2015-2019 Project Manager and Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist — Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. Coordinated and authored various heritage related contracts. Duties included historic research, heritage impact assessments, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, and public engagement activities. Served as the firm's Public Engagement Specialist. 2011-2012 Creative Content Developer, Virtual Museums Canada. Worked as part of an interdisciplinary team to help create an online virtual exhibit for Virtual Museums Canada. Responsible for historical research, record management, creative design, narrative and content development and internal coordination for the Archives and Research Team. 2010 Junior Heritage Planner, Municipality of North Grenville. Responsible for historic research, public consultation and engagement and community development for heritage related projects. Worked with local heritage committees, Council and planning staff in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans and other guiding policies. 2009 Heritage Planner Intern, City of Kingston. Aided in heritage related projects and worked closely with heritage committees, Council, and planning staff. Selected Professional Development 2020 Indigenous Awareness Training and Certification, Indigenous Awareness Canada. — Indigenous Awareness Certification — Indigenous Peoples and Cultures — Indigenous Communication & Consultation — Indigenous Employment Outreach, Recruit, and Retain 2019 Enviroseries "Creating a Heritage Landmark Park for Guelph at The Former Ontario Reformatory". Yorklands Green Hub. 2017 International Association of Public Participation Certification - Foundations in Public Participation - Planning and Techniques for Effective Public Participation. Publications 2013 "Landmark Series." Cambridge Times. Selected Issues. "Alice King Sculthorpe." Acorn Magazine, 2013. Selected Presentations 2020 "Heritage Planning", University of Guelph Speaker Series. 2019 "Understanding Municipal Heritage Planning", City of Cambridge Heritage Day. 2018 "Heritage Planning in Ontario", Willowbank School of Restorative Arts, Queenston. 2016 "Jane's Walk- Preston Heritage", Cambridge Ontario. 2016 "Jane's Walk Promotion", Rogers TV, Kitchener, Ontario. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640PRI of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 125 Sarah Clarke, BA Research Manager ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD. 1 King Street West, Stoney Creek, ON L8G 1G7 Phone: (519) 755-9983 Email: sarah.clarke(a)araheritage.ca Web: www.araheritage.ca Biography Sarah Clarke is Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.'s Heritage Research Manager. Sarah has over 12 years of experience in Ontario archaeology and 10 years of experience with background research. Her experience includes conducting archival research (both local and remote), artifact cataloguing and processing, and fieldwork at various stages in both the consulting and research -based realms. As the Heritage Research Manager, Sarah is responsible for conducting archival research in advance of ARA's archaeological and heritage assessments. In this capacity, she performs Stage 1 archaeological assessment site visits, conducts preliminary built heritage and cultural heritage landscape investigations and liaises with heritage resource offices and local community resources in order to obtain and process data. Sarah has in-depth experience in conducting historic research following the Ontario Heritage Toolkit series, and the Standards and Guidelines for Provincial Heritage Properties. Sarah holds an Honours B.A. in North American Archaeology, with a Historical/Industrial Option from Wilfrid Laurier University and is currently enrolled in Western University's Intensive Applied Archaeology MA program. She is a member of the Ontario Archaeological Society (OAS), the Society for Industrial Archaeology, the Ontario Genealogical Society (OGS), the Canadian Archaeological Association, and is a Council - appointed citizen volunteer on the Brantford Municipal Heritage Committee. Sarah holds an R - level archaeological license with the MTCS (#R446). Education Current MA Intensive Applied Archaeology, Western University, London, ON. Proposed thesis topic: Archaeological Management at the Mohawk Village. 1999-2010 Honours BA, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario Major: North American Archaeology, Historical/Industrial Option Professional Memberships and Accreditations Current Member of the Ontario Archaeological Society Current Member of the Society for Industrial Archaeology Current Member of the Brant Historical Society Current Member of the Ontario Genealogical Society Current Member of the Canadian Archaeological Association Current Member of the Archives Association of Ontario Work Experience Current Heritage Research Manager, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Manage and plan the research needs for archaeological and heritage projects. Research at offsite locations including land registry offices, local libraries and local and provincial archives. Historic analysis for archaeological and heritage projects. Field Director conducting Stage 1 assessments. 2013-2015 Heritage Research Manager; Archaeological Monitoring Coordinator, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Stage 1 archaeological field assessments, research at local and distant archives at both the municipal and provincial levels, coordination of construction monitors for archaeological project locations. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640PRI of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 126 2010-2013 Historic Researcher, Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants Inc. Report preparation, local and offsite research (libraries, archives); correspondence with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport; report submission to the MTCS and clients; and administrative duties (PIF and Borden form completion and submission, data requests). 2008-2009 Field Technician, Archaeological Assessments Ltd. Participated in field excavation and artifact processing. 2008-2009 Teaching Assistant, Wilfrid Laurier University. Responsible for teaching and evaluating first year student lab work. 2007-2008 Field and Lab Technician, Historic Horizons. Participated in excavations at Dundurn Castle and Auchmar in Hamilton, Ontario. Catalogued artifacts from excavations at Auchmar. 2006-2010 Archaeological Field Technician/Supervisor, Wilfrid Laurier University. Field school student in 2006, returned as a field school teaching assistant in 2008 and 2010. Professional Development 2019 Annual attendance at Ontario Heritage Conference, Goderich, ON 2018 Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium 2018 Grand River Watershed 21stAnnual Heritage Day Workshop & Celebration 2018 Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Historical Gathering and Conference 2017 Ontario Genealogical Society Conference 2016 Ontario Archaeological Society Symposium 2015 Introduction to Blacksmithing Workshop, Milton Historical Society 2015 Applied Research License Workshop, MTCS 2014 Applied Research License Workshop, MTCS 2014 Heritage Preservation and Structural Recording in Historical and Industrial Archaeology. Four-month course taken at Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON. Professor: Meagan Brooks. Presentations 2018 The Early Black History of Brantford. Brant Historical Society, City of Brantford. 2017 Mush Hole Archaeology. Ontario Archaeological Society Symposium, Brantford. 2017 Urban Historical Archaeology. Exploring the Black Community in St. Catharines, Ontario. Canadian Archaeological Association Conference, Gatineau, QC. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File V8640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 127 Aly Bousfield Bastedo, B.A., Dip. Heritage Conservation Heritage Technical Writer and Researcher ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD. 1 King Street West, Stoney Creek, ON L8G 1G7 Phone: (519) 804-2291 x120 Email: aly.bousfield-bastedo@araheritage.ca Web: www.araheritage.ca Aly Bousfield-Bastedo, ARA's Heritage Technical Writer and researcher has four years of experience in evaluating cultural heritage resources, conducting historical research and providing conservation recommendations on a variety of projects. She holds an Honours BA in Sociology from the University of Guelph as well as a post -graduate certificate in Urban Design from Simon Fraser University. Building on these experiences, Aly received a graduate Diploma in Heritage Conservation from the Willowbank School of Restoration Arts. Aly has gained substantial experience in provincial and municipal legislation and guidelines, including the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Aly has gained considerable experience in evaluating potential impacts and recommending mitigation strategies for a variety of resources such as farmsteads, bridges, houses, churches, cultural heritage landscapes and heritage districts in urban and rural areas. Aly's breadth of work has demonstrated her ability in conducting consultations with heritage stakeholders including interviews and surveys. Education 2017-2020 Post -Graduate Diploma in Heritage Conservation, Willowbank School of Restoration Arts. Queenston, ON 2016-2017 Post -Graduate Certificate in Urban Design, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC 2009-2013 Honours BA, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON Sociology Select Work Experience Current Technical Writer and Researcher, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Produce deliverables forARA's heritage team, including historic research, heritage assessment and evaluation for designation by-laws, Heritage Impact Assessments, Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessments, and Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluations. 2021 Cultural Consultant, Ministry Tourism Culture and Sport Provided liaison and advisory services to municipalities and stakeholders in the heritage sector on cultural heritage legislation in Ontario. 2020 Heritage Planning Consultant, Megan Hobson & Associates Provided heritage consulting services, including site investigation and documentation. Provided cultural heritage value assessment and evaluations. 2019-2020 Cultural Heritage Planning Intern, ERA Architects Coordinated and authored various heritage related contracts. Duties included historic research, heritage impact assessments, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations. 2016-2017 Heritage Vancouver, Programs and Communications Conducted research and analysis of heritage properties and neighbourhoods in Vancouver. Assisted in the creation of a cultural heritage landscape assessment of Vancouver's Chinatown neighbourhood through historical research and community engagement. August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640M of 230 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East 128 Select Professional Development 2021 International Network for Traditional Building and Urbanism (INTBAU) membership 2021 "Drafting Statements of Significance." Webinar presented by ARA's K. Jonas Galvin for ACO's job shadow students. 2021 "Architectural Styles." Webinar presented by ARA's K. Jonas Galvin for ACO's job shadow students. 2021 "Perspectives on Cultural Heritage Landscapes". Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium. ARA Ltd. 2019 University of Toronto, Mark Laird "Selected topics on Landscape Architecture", Course audit Messors, "Fornello Sustainable Preservation Workshop", Cultural Landscape Field School 2018 Points of Departure. Association for Preservation Technology (APT) Conference. Buffalo, NY. Presentations 2018 Essential issues or themes for education in heritage conservation: Montreal Roundtable on Heritage (Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage) August 2022 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File %640M of 230 OBC DATA MATRIX: PART 9 - HOUSING AND SMALL BUILDINGS 0 �� C? ��% U C I - N h. .1A. %. UC NCE 70 Seal & Signature CONSULTAND. CONTACT: PROJECT NAME: ADDRESS/LOCATION: DATE: JOHN MACDONALDWes ARCHITECT INC. Kit King Street West, Suite 202 Kitchener, ON, N2G 1 137 p: 519-579-1700 e: info@johnmacdonaldarchitectca John MacDonald, Architectr Matthew Muller, Project Leader Multi-Residential Renovation 28 & 60 Ellen Street East, and 115 Lancaster Street East Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 1M August 11, 2022 9.00 BUILDING CODE VERSION O. Reg. 332112 LASTAMENDMENT O.Reg. 191/14 OBC REF. [1] 9.01 PROJECT TYPE Renovations and addition to an existing multiple dwelling building [A] 1.1.2. 9.02 OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION OCCUPANCY USE 9.10.2. Group C Residential 9.03 SUPERIMPOSED MAJOR OCCUPANCIES No WA 9.10.2.3. 9.04 BUILDING AREA (m2) DESCRIPTION EXISTING NEW TOTAL [A] 1.4.1.2. Multiple Dwelling Building 139.40 sq.m. 69.68 sq.m. 209.08 sq.m. TOTAL 139.40 sq.m. 69.68 sq.m. 209.08 sq.m. 9.05 GROSSAREA(m2) DESCRIPTION EXISTING NEW TOTAL [A] 1.4.1.2. Ground Floor 139.40 sq.m. 69.68 sq.m. 209.08 sq.m. 2nd Floor 124.36 sq.m. 69.68 sq.m. 194.04 sq.m. 3rd Floor 110.57 sq.m. 56.74 sq.m. 167.31 sq.m. TOTAL 374.33 sq.m. 196.1 sq.m. 570.43 sq.m. 9.06 MEZZANINE AREA (m2) DESCRIPTION EXISTING NEW TOTAL 9.10.4.1. WA none existing none proposed 0 sq.m. TOTAL 0 sq.m. 0 sq.m. 0 sq.m. 9.07 BUILDING HEIGHT STOREYS ABOVE GRADE 3 (three) (m) ABOVE GRADE approx. 10 in [A] 1.4.1.2. & 9.10.4. STOREYS BELOW GRADE 1 (one) 9.08 NO. OF STREETS/FIRE FIGHTER ACCESS 2 (two), as existing, no change 9.10.20. 9.09 SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED? No PROVIDED? No DESCRIBE WA 9.10.8.2.-4. 9.10 FIRE ALARM SYSTEM REQUIRED? Yes PROVIDED? Yes TYPE 9.10.18. 9.11 WATER SERVICE/SUPPLYADEQUATE No. New Service Proposed. See also Civil Documents 9.12 CONSTRUCTION TYPE RESTRICTIONS Combustible Permitted HEAVYTIMBER CONSTRUCTION 9.10.6. ACTUAL Combustible WA 9.13 POST-DISASTER BUILDING [A] 1.1.2.2.(2) 9.14 OCCUPANT LOAD FLOOR LEVEL/AREA OCCUPANCY TYPE BASED ON OCCUPANTLOAD 3.1.17. Lower Floor C 3.1.17.1(1)(b) see note 1 Ground Floor C 3.1.17.1(1)(b) see note 1 2nd Floor C 3.1.17.1(1)(b) see note 1 3rd Floor C 3.1.17.1(1)(b) see note 1 TOTAL see note 1 9.15 BARRIER-FREE DESIGN Yes 15% of Total Units to be accessible (124.15=1.8=2). Units M7 & M2 accessible 9.5.2. 9.16 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES No None that Owner or Consultant are aware of at this time. 9.10.1.3. 9.17 REQUIRED FIRE RESISTANCE RATINGS HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLY F.R. R. (H) SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY (H) 9.10.8. FLOORS EXCEPT CRAWLSPACE 45 as per 9.10.8.1 MEZZANINE WA No mezzanines existing or proposed ROOF Not required for Group C Occupancies 9.18 SPATIAL SEPARATION Area of EBF shown this matrix is overall area of north facade. Actual EBF to be calculated based on each dwelling unit fire compartment. L.D. and % openings to be calculated on the basis of nearest point of each fire compartment to the property line. WALL AREA EBF (m2) L.D. (m) % AREA OF U . REQ'D. . FR (H) CONSTRUCTION TYPE CLADDING TYPE 9.10.14. See Note 2 See Note 2 See Note 2 North 160m2 varies to suit L.D. 1.0 hr. Combustible Non-Combustible East > 10 0171 100% WA Combustible Comb. Permitted South > 16.Om 100% WA Combustible Comb. Permitted West >120m 100% WA Combustible Comb. Permitted 9.19 PLUMBING FIXTURE REQUIREMENTS RATIO OF MALE:FEMALE =50:50 EXCEPTAS NOTED OTHERWISE 9.31. & 3.7.4. FLOOR LEVEL/ AREA OCCUPANT LOAD OBC SENTENCE FIXTURES REQUIRED FIXTURES PROVIDED See Note 3 Each Unit 9.31.4. 1 per Unit 1 per Unit 9.20 ENERGY EFFICIENCY NONRESIDENTIAL COMPLIANCE OPTION: Table 3.1.1.11.(1 P), for Additionst to Existing Buildings 12.2.1. SB12, 3.1.1.1.(i)(a) See Note PROJECT DESIGN CONDITIONS For Kitchener =4200 deg. days below 18°C CLIMATIC ZONE Zone 1 FENESTRATION GROSS ABOVE GRADE WALL OR ROOF AREA (m2) FENESTRATION GROSS AREA (m2) FENESTRATION RATIO VERTICAL(W+D) - 262m2 38m2 14.5% SKYLIGHTS WA No skylights proposed WA WA SPACE HEATING FUEL Electric air sourced heat pump units HEATING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCY To be determined. OTHER CONDITIONS On-demand electric hot water heaters COMPLIANCE PACKAGE To be determined. 9.21 NOTES 1. Occupancy of each unit is based on 2 (two) persons per sleeping room as per OBC3.1.17.1.(1)(b) 2. L.D. is measured to centreline of Street. Percentage of Openings based on this distance. 3. Plumbing Facilities are provided to each Dwelling Unit in accordance with OBC 9.31.4. 4. Approx.. Based on addition exterior wall area only. Area of fenestration s40%, therefore okay. Ontario ding Code Data Matrix, Part 9 Ontario AssBuilociation of Architects 1 ALL REFERENCESARE TO DIV. B OF THE OBC UNLESS PRECEDED BY[A] FOR DIV. AOR ]C] FOR DIV. C John MacDonald Architect 195 King Street West, Suite 202 Kitchener, ON, N2G 1131 info@johnmacdonaldarchitect.ca (519) 579 1700 SPA Site Plan Approval IAug.11'221 MM No. I Issued for Purpose I Date I Initial Scale porrl,17'prmunMUlti-Residential Renovation Project N/A 115 Lancaster Street Approved Drawing Title Dwg. No. Checked _ _ MM- OBC Matrix - Part 9 A001 Drawn MAM Page 147 of 230 OBC DATA MATRIX: PART 11 - RENOVATION OF EXISTING BUILDING �� o� , ASS C r C Nh 'tyry Ltc NCE . Seal & Signature CONSULTANT: CONTACT: PROJECTNAME: ADDRESS/LOCATION: DATE: JOHN MACDONALD ARCHITECT INC. 195 King Street West, Suite 202 Kitchener, ON, N2G 1 Bt p:519-579-1700 e: info@johnmacdonaldarchitectca John MacDonald, Architect Matthew Muller, Project Leader Multi- Residential Renovation 28 & 60 Ellen Street East, and 115 Lancaster Street East Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 1 M8 August 11, 2022 11.00 BUILDING CODE VERSION D. Reg. 332J12 LASTAMENDMENT O.Reg. 191/14 OBC REF [1] 11.01 PROJECT TYPE APPLICABLE PART DESCRIPTION [A] 1.1.2. Part 9 Renovations and addition to an existing multiple dwelling building 11.02 MAJOR OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION OCCUPANCY GROUP/DIVISION DESCRIPTION OF USE 3.1.2.1.(1) EXISTING Group C Residential PROPOSED Group C Residential 11.03 SUPERIMPOSED MAJOR OCCUPANCIES YES / NO? DESCRIPTION 3.2.2.7. No WA 11.04 BUILDINGAREA(m2) DESCRIPTION EXISTING NEW TOTAL [A]1.4.1.2. Multiple Dwelling Building 139.40 sq in 69.68 sq in 209.08 sq in TOTAL 139.40 sq.m. 69.68 sq.m. 209.08 sq.m. 11.05 BUILDING HEIGHT NO. OF STOREYSABOVE GRADE 3 (three) (m) ABOVE GRADE approx. 10 in [A] 1.4.1.2. & 3.2.1.1. NO. OF STOREYS BELOW GRADE 1 (one) - 11.06 # OF STREETS/FIREFIGHTER ACCESS 2 (two), as existing, no change 3.2.2.10. & 3.2.5. 11.07 BUILDING SIZE Small (less than 600 sq.m. 13 storeys) T11.2.1.1.B.-N. 11.06 EXISTING BUILDING CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION EXISTING NEW NOTES 11.2.1.1. T11.2.1.1.A. T11.2.1.1.B.-N. CHANGE IN MAJOR OCCUPANCY C C no change CONSTRUCTION INDEX (C.I.) 2 3 reqd, 4 proposed see note 1 HAZARD INDEX (H.I.) 3 3 no change IMPORTANCE CATEGORY Normal Normal no change 11.09 RENOVATION TYPE BASIC / EXTENSIVE RENOVATION? Extensive Renovation 11.3.3.1. & 11.3.3.2. 11.10 OCCUPANT LOAD FLOOR LEVEL/AREA(LIST) DOCUPANCYTYPE BASED ON OCCUPANTLOAD 3.1.17. New Units No Change No Change No Change Lower Floor Area C, Units B1 & B4 2 per bedroom B1 = 2, B4 = 2 Ground Floor Area C, Units Mt & M2 2 per bedroom M1 = 4, M2 = 2 2nd Floor Area C, Units Ut & U2 2 per bedroom U7 = 4, U2 = 2 3rd Floor Area C, Units At & A2 2 per bedroom At = 2, A2 = 2 TOTAL Varies Each Dwelling Unit Each Dwelling Unit 11.11 PLUMBING FIXTURE REQUIREMENTS RATIO OF MALE:FEMALE = 50:50 EXCEPTAS NOTED OTHERWISE 3.7.4. FLOOR AREAS OCCUPANT LOAD OBC REFERENCE FIXTURES REQUIRED FIXTURES PROVIDED See Note 2 Each Unit 9.31.4. 1 per Unit 1 per Unit 11.12 BARRIER -FREE DESIGN Existing is not accessible. Units M1 and M2 to become accessible units forthe development. 11.3.3.2.(2) 11.13 REDUCTION IN PERFORMANCE LEVEL STRUCTURAL 11.4.2.1. No reduction in performance level. Extension to be constructed to other Parts. INCREASE IN OCCUPANT LOAD 11.4.2.2. Exist. basement is regularly unoccupied except for use of shared laundry facilities. Renovations proposed new units. Performance of Lower Level is reduced due to increase in occupant load. CHANGE OF MAJOR OCCUPANCY 11.4.2.3. No change in occupancy type, no reduction in performance level. PLUMBING 11.4.2.4. Extension and alteration to existing plumbing system. SEWAGE SYSTEM 11.4.2.5. No sewage system existing or proposed, no reduction in performance level. 11.14 COMPENSATING CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURAL 11.4.3.2. Alterations to existing structure to be designed to other Parts INCREASE IN OCCUPANT LOAD 11.4.3.3. Lower Level Floor Slab to be designed to suit occupant load and new use. CHANGE OF MAJOR OCCUPANCY 11.4.3.4. WA PLUMBING 11.4.3.5. New to Code SEWAGE SYSTEM 11.4.3.6. WA 11.15 COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES We ask that the City Building Department please review and consider the following notes as part of its review of the Site Plan Application, and provide feedback. Please review exist. fire escape with Fire, which is proposed to remain, with supports and guards to be made good. NUMBER DESCRIPTION 11.5.1.1. TBD To be determined for Permit document & application stage. Note A fire alarm system is required due to number of sleeping accommodations Note Existing fire escape is proposed to remain, for 2nd exit from attic level. Note Exist. upper level units have 1 exit, and direct access to exterior balconies for their 2nd means of egress. NO change proposed. Exist. porches are proposed to be rebuilt, but due to heritage considerations do not have stairs to grade. 11.16 NOTES 1. Floors over basement shall be construction as fire separations having a f.r.r. of 45 min. All other Floors shall be construction as fire separations having a f.r.r. of 45 min. As such, although required C.I. is 3, actual construction shall have a C.I. of 4 to exceed minimum requirements. 11.5.1.1. 2. Plumbing Facilities are provided to each Dwelling Unit in accordance with OBC 9.31.4. Ontario ding Code Data Matrix, Part 11 1. ALL REFERENCESARE TO DIV. B OF THE OBC UNLESS PRECEDED BY[A] FOR DIV. AOR ]C] FOR DIV. C Ontario AssBuilociation of Architects John MacDonald Architect 195 King Street West, Suite 202 Kitchener, ON, N2G 1131 info@johnmacdonaldarchitect.ca (519) 579 1700 SPA Site Plan Approval IAug.11'221 MM No. I Issued for Purpose I Date I Initial Scale (fornxlr'prmtinMUlti-Residential Renovation Project N/A 115 Lancaster Street Approved Drawing Title Dwg. No. Checked MM OBC Matrix - Part 11 A002 Drawn MAM Page 148 of 230 ) { { ) ) ) \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ F- L / \ \ \ \ \ LO LO } } } } \ co co co co co } } } } } _ _ _ _ _ F- L / t O Z U c) N d .O p a` a tO mm'I j'I j ml�l a'I m II QIUIO E L D `w o OI aL3 OOI m 0 OI RG c ' C -2 �' . Dl a A0 G (hl O O N: O E: rn ns cl E a cl c cl 0 c s E o 0 y N J O N OL O O O m o a oo E w E Y n O m M o SII ------- -------- II SII r.� - r fir -- r=tt a II 71 I �I Q YI 1 I II 1 _ ___ _-___ _____ ______ _______ ---- N O M `> � y r V Q - 1 � Z 2N v 6 , , 0 C. oof-' (6 a 70 9 v v c 7 C30: 0 W N $ v O Q w � O U � Cr O O u `> � y r V Q - 1 � Z E 0 ) t! §� _ 0 f \ / E\ )0/ ) \( \ \ `oo�o �\ --^2° 0z ! °rr k§ _ [ _ § k ! y {� 2 ) ) . a ! } \ / 2 { \j k )I / \ ( cu § \ §I k� dX E J � L a L C c of o o al E a col m dl -o wc J tR -o t6 rn E CO. j N NI U 0 EI c .0 y ` N N o y 0 p G W L N dI s m n dI 3 o dI N dI a -a o rn E 0 c o Y a a q °° m Z Z W n Z d LU Z Z W fD LL E J R a 0 —I 0 oI 0. EI a c y sco:� N 3 NI cc E. �� ma r E c a cl 0.6 a) cl cl Z Z c`my c .00 oss og - =°bd o�C oVr Eg _ E Smodc � E m oac $t vE i =3 oR =tb E Hion �E x`0?5 rvoEn �¢` So �o>. t goo nm8 3cc to o d� of °S'E BSE - .� mom Eve a°c EEo` aaN L E-2 gar FSS« fM- �S n.._ O M Q N om Z oIR s o c a rn (C � r terry C6 Q Q W N ° � � �5 V H 0 oss og - =°bd o�C oVr Eg _ E Smodc � E m oac $t vE i =3 oR =tb E Hion �E x`0?5 rvoEn �¢` So �o>. t goo nm8 3cc to o d� of °S'E BSE - .� mom Eve a°c EEo` aaN L E-2 gar FSS« fM- �S n.._ Q U - 1 � Z oss og - =°bd o�C oVr Eg _ E Smodc � E m oac $t vE i =3 oR =tb E Hion �E x`0?5 rvoEn �¢` So �o>. t goo nm8 3cc to o d� of °S'E BSE - .� mom Eve a°c EEo` aaN L E-2 gar FSS« fM- �S n.._ / w � \ \ 1. /} ( \� \ /) \ Q£ { j o § § | } \ ! \) ) ) # \\ t r \ } } ] a :! ! \ ® \ \ \ }: { @ ° ° :! ! 2 @I K ® _ @I !I / \ } 0 & e ( \ 0� ] � o < \ / c / \ F- J. #/ / m ! \{ / q « \ / ƒ � \\ � }/ ` - ;; a f /3/ m „ 0� � o < cn LU � / } a,g 25 -! \){ !\f 0. eta f ;/E ))) )/[ !°9 - k)g ZE2 — I. \\\\\ } \ / ! ! ! !:!:!! ! Z z2 Z.5 Q , \ {o 2 ` tz 'at\ z :E m- 7!®gE + ! e ®\ 'n :! ' /\ }/|©® °. !° 2; :J \00 2 °f . 4, k)g ZE2 — I. \\\\\ } \ / ! ! ! !:!:!! ! Z z2 Z.5 # 0 7 / B \ \ 0 Q , \ \\ ` \\ . � # 0 7 / B \ \ 0 Wts 2) q?5. CO REo o / 2-01 \ {\E. ) / c! 2 E dib \\ ` \) ;Q o m „ Wts 2) q?5. CO REo o / 2-01 \ {\E. ) / c! 2 E dib m _¥ ( w\ UD | ) § | \ : 0 )( m \ ` ; 2 )\, \ i . a:5 co \ | ) § : )( \ ` 2 2 \ / n |0 E \ \ | 5 \) \ \ 6. Ja\ / ~/ E.- .0 � /2 00 - - \ g ( -: | �k \)� � / U)\k §\o. � \ {ma«§ eea` 'S \ | �/ : )( ` � \ |0 E \ \ | 5 6. Ja\ E.- .0 co g ( - | �k � / U)\k §\o. ± §§) {ma«§ eea` 'S \ ffG ffG m \!! /$/ \// \ � o k ( { { {/<E. { \ 1. \ o �K 2 E2_ / 0 / 06 f(` f�2 7k( \d))) \k# .-\\d\ /)[ \[ \{ })\)0 2.2-#\\%; <<< ®/37Q :Ea EEEam 22**. (kk( k,,! k( !3! ,(L \ � E\ % \ 0 )k \ � ƒ( � � \ ; \ � \ � (D > 00 \/7 < 0 L EE - .0 yy E O O� 'o o m N O C C O O N L 00 o ZLE N Z M NEyyE o NNnCD �N L n yYEE O ou�u o II E.-. JJhm (n a II II U m°�==ooa�FD2FD @y plm y N f/1 cod t°EEb-o2 aDo 0 oai°a +J E u uJUUmm (� 00000 c2p 2 ooua@i a@i�a@i� �n�a 22'Ec ¢aa ¢ ¢ ci_2_ N daa }, @ EaaiE� E cjy�y EEaEQ �nma c_ c,c o . =)L< :R2 c o c o _ co c_ o ��a�a m m a m LU X W I� @ X = m mNn a 07 OX H'O - y O I m O Ff Z, N OI UI rU O M - .0 N O Z p 6 U 2 J N Z M 2 0 3 d� n co —NFA a a' z O M - .0 N O Z p 6 U N Z M d 0 3 d� n a o a r�+ iy d N O N m yv c R ti v .0 co —NFA a a' z m Z w � m y � � � Z o m m YO YO °p N N E o vPi mO N Oim O �N YO �p II O YO 15 ^mNII _�omNE NO_yL�EO' L Ey ❑°cC� CN L II ¢II No iEn mcccO sto oo E.E ¢oo �N NEoc�yx�yx�LON HH y� a d d o MLNQ�N m V« o o co 0 o 2 NNN'L Do o W m w ma N E�tT II �I m0 YYm�N 'JJ�iOh�N mao 0 0 ° m II II II E E� muuu muuuu mmmma m II m II II 5E Q II N N m m 11 II II N NEE E NN EEE EEEE E c a m m D E n o y N y y y y N y y y y y y E E E E y N y y a". 11 N N��� ._m 4?4?mm 2. E E E U hm i omm oO ..F3 mW (SU 77_M _M �ry C7 N_N_N_N }� o m o,a N O D D--- D--- D E� oL4�c WZ$ �c }, yu Y:>J��aDim a`cEEE mEEEE oEEEE IEEE +-� p�?mrn o���o a Po<oo Mwwwwwwmwm omnm D0❑ocmOmOmmCM n�❑oc mrn0mrn0mrn0mm(V a❑oc mrn00rn0Nrn 11 co3:"+N + ++ WELT oEEE. I EE ''''EEE6 EW �II » >y om om a❑mm EE QE nE n9a Ea a E`�ocococo o a co 0 11Q a�o. _o. _o. 22o. 21L o. a E � u a x Q - O �O ❑ O QN II m a m 7iNx� .-. W Eo o I a O m b *Mx rn w'y ODx - - _ - - _ - (V Wp- - - - - - - ❑ Ulw LL °o.0 L ` L E E a \ m o m S Q E? m ma x 'SN .. S oa' IImE d`r x m mxm (7N a_ o U vi u 0 LU x Q ---- m ..0-. L o 0 lesolo N II zw N m .4- C L o2xmE;xan ++ Com_ >p 6m0 7 Ca c n m N E U m E U x s c o o � o �m d N II NE x x I x N. Nc� ❑ �J U1 m m x O x O a N II N II � N 3 Z o m Z � m � E O YtC� �1 mY a' z O M . .0 N O Z p d U z N o a a` ❑ �a� a r�+ N O N m M c R l Q U E � u a x Q - O �O ❑ O QN II m a m 7iNx� .-. W Eo o I a O m b *Mx rn w'y ODx - - _ - - _ - (V Wp- - - - - - - ❑ Ulw LL °o.0 L ` L E E a \ m o m S Q E? m ma x 'SN .. S oa' IImE d`r x m mxm (7N a_ o U vi u 0 LU x Q ---- m ..0-. L o 0 lesolo N II zw N m .4- C L o2xmE;xan ++ Com_ >p 6m0 7 Ca c n m N E U m E U x s c o o � o �m d N II NE x x I x N. Nc� ❑ �J U1 m m x O x O a N II N II � N 3 Z o m Z � m � E O YtC� �1 mY a' z Cl) 5£k :§: « 0- 5z \ 777 . )} E .------§ -- \m�------\ \ ._ ! ! Lu / \ - j(------\ 2_ ! : ----- ------ - SIL / ---------- - a�En \ / k\ \ .2 .0 f � {� U) /((t �Co rE To T. E } --2E {:-J<Rk K .S ; }; ( ,\k//�dddkk§§§ ms (/ E\{#4 ;_���_,��� o `ERE Hu )((( as )kkk���,,��� m }o�:� §m c.°4%777¥4; ®®\$ §!55°%V; ± ®!! )\\e2 meet® "mf` ' f«§ ff'o [ 717E r[ Cl) 5£k :§: « 0- 5z \ 777 . )} E .------§ -- \m�------\ \ ._ ! ! Lu / \ - j(------\ 2_ ! : ----- ------ - SIL / ---------- - a�En \ < ° - / \ \\ (\ 0 25 LET C� \E4<4\ 00 fff \ff\ � e/ % $!(((( !((( ( _ \ , } \\(\ ## «7777, y kjjjjj .... kk§§§§ ... k§§ _ (§ ) ..\\ ;. . . .� _;�T T� ;TT' E ## \\ __ \)) '6 E= 2. 2. k[[[ 7 m §` \ %\%$ ff )me4m/ �)e%%§ )e #\ kt$k$k /§lft,a,, = aoo / o &�- !; E :,e:m: mm:l:***+. {\+**. �. ' f«! £{(A{ ( ///§E EE m A.C. §; 2 f3:3z ;;;<Z $Z ƒ E z. < ° - d m 3 3 { 0 \ � \«) { D § )(§ 22! g - k(00 (� \/\ (- kuu kk/ m !_: g \\d[[f\\\\ }\ \ ([ _ @l,=222:==a --:- ) $ee)(( ))) , t««2o «° ■,;,ƒ! ){{\s$Saa\;!!m !J \)\ )\ma meek**,�E. «! ;{{/£ [E[ / £[ EE )2±± £ £%;;;;§ \ � Z)$ \/7 «--« ----@- ( � ) � ` )\ (f \ � Z)$ \/7 ) \ \ k (f f( \ (D {/& { 3 Ji � §EL / / .( } (0 \ \ _y E ) ]( » { IT oo o 66 .2o g ®mom :- \ ( ` ::w, !!E -- 1-oo .)))2222 dd§ ,,. (§ ®\\,t ' f {o «75(((( }£==ERRE ^!~ 22( / m i` §\/\ Dc? #\\\§)[[ e &/\ {{\ea EEEw *. {w ' f:! ffO E fff E EE m \ £ D- Z k .92 § \ � Z)$ \/7 ) § k \ (D 2 3 � / / .( } \) \ \ » - 7 g \ \ � Z)$ \/7 u 0 rn c o 0 0 C c .E o 00 � 00 00 o O c ❑ ❑ O O c y N N Z a a m � c o :: .. � c c m II O o U 0 L O c L G ol} O EO O _ ❑ `O oo O s v E v c 00000 $ anooa U N > N N N L N m 6 6 N a Y Y E Y � II II II II - m II II II II c' c vPi� a�oi oToi m EEEE_m 00 000000 > � �� Q Q Q wvPiywu Q QwvPiww (n J J II II w N�No ����� y N7777 _m mmmmm _ C7 m _mnnnn C7 RC711NNNNN (.76666 E E E0 �1 a d m m mmo }, yu wo Uomm Q`t op=EEEEE 0 2 2.��.�a-000Q : ywyy OG U opo 0y otn❑ to tnw to to �- ' 's 0loL 00 as ��p�h06�� .2 o�6cOh -1 , VJ �OII N�� _Np co op oNc (—to O 0 U1 [[tF6 00og EE QQ IIa EQa �_�❑ilaYo00Na ��aa00ri ¢U!a" }, o o1yEo EE2E.-.mY E�o1 1 - . p5 o m •� ¢ E E E E�E Eo a ' E E`lcc E> oo on ❑ Q o. nQ comN2IL 02¢aJ � `oa` I a xE a o� E ( \ D k} ` 2 wo \\ \m20 if \ } 0 \ 0� \ �z _- \ ®\ E( (. \/I )) �#7 #\ 72(/ / {{ k2@- « r \¥ )� \k §\\ �\ e �k\ /F F'. mmm $ E !«! ££wo.2 £E m ;; /;/;£;`\G EE Z! ƒ £k£) {; k a E I I X Q I 3E �m o Q ro ro � s 2 o o Z O N Op Z °J E X X h rom -. o ro ° r m EN N0 Y O N O N O IIY O OCN ¢ Y O C N O \ °I[jh p II 7 NO O C O o C M O N II II N II C 41 II Q N ❑ N O _ E rnmm UYm m oMo N co EQa rorou ro rouuull oro^ 11 N N yN N y y y y N N U ..roo E Mo. _mmmmm mm y t0 ro-oEo 5.�mm mmmo R? BYO JJmm Nm ¢'EE E 2 2 omm o 22E (n obb o,6 W¢� mroro rorororo m o 3:���� -oo.00m .o oo�mrn O .00m ocm 7- mon 222 .Goo comm t°aa EEm Eoai EE'� E+++u Edo 2m w- EEQ EQEa EEQ o m Eo2 E2 O C C O Y C O C O Oa¢ a`o�a` a` C C O a C S O rya` .-. C O a xE CV i7 vN V O a E I I X Q I 3E �m � Q O om M � .0 Q O N Op Z °J E X X h 6 i0 i0 � r m iv 0 z I� N o 3 C� o a ❑ a a r�+ N ic t0 Nei I.1 7- E � Q � om NWU O II Q O I I a °J E X X h i0 i0 � r m AAT a' z � � 2 3 \ / \ƒ§ &ask§ I N c ? W C 3 0 0 E 0 rn E v m rn S y x LUN O O t CL N U U) G I� 'Igl 41. A a rain u� a a' z Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: January 3, 2023 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: December 9, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-016 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-030 93 Lancaster Street East Roof Replacement with Material Change RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-030 to permit the replacement of the existing asphalt shingle roof with a metal roof at the property municipally addressed as 93 Lancaster Street East, BE APPROVED in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present the proposal of replacing the existing asphalt shingle roof with a new metal roof at the property municipally addressed as 93 Lancaster Street East, as detailed in Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-030 and in Attachment A and Attachment B. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed work is necessary for the long term maintenance and function of the home and 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. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 174 of 230 BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2022-V-030, which seeks permission to replace the existing asphalt shingle roof with a new metal roof at the property municipally addressed as 93 Lancaster Street East, located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. s G FhsT . 5 _ 1501 J 148 t 144) 76�' 142; �57 30` J 157 175 NA`parte—t. �� i' 'l 14 9 / * 64 e��`N53.t' s11 \ 56 24 15i p[h� 182G / 4 52 n 14 48 li[67'R 23 {7F Gordon Green .. \ � ...� 044 11 �� 8 87 yf 11 r` 0= 10¢ X23 / 20 nu.NaterlooArt GaBeery Gentre In The&ware REPORT: 65 Y 1745 37 G'0 31 C/ �a \ .79 ..v4 )21� 0 35.E 3 6342 42 G, \y ' 74 31 50 Acadian Apart" W 12 ��G� 155 v � �L/ .:. , I I 251, ,r r 1 /'- CENTRAL FREDERICK 105- °<\ 50 171 4, /// 58115 200 Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property The subject property is located on the west side of Lancaster Street East, between the Ellen Street East / Frederick Street intersection to the south and the Mansion Street / Gordon Avenue intersection to the north. 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 2 -storey ornate brick home constructed oblique to the street in the Queen Anne architectural style c. 1905. The brick is yellow buff in colour and the current asphalt roof shingles are a dark grey. Page 175 of 230 Proposed Work The current roof on the home of the subject property consists of asphalt shingles in a dark grey colour. These shingles are worn and often come loose or are blown off during weather events, which has resulted in patchwork replacements and rehanging as well as water seepage into the home and the bricks below. Approximately 60 bricks were replaced in 2020 due to moisture retention and degradation from freeze and thaw cycles. Figure 2-3: Existing Condition of Roof (Rear and Front Views) The applicant is proposing to replace the asphalt roofing with new steel roofing in a Slate Gray colour and with a design pattern called "Royal'. The selected material simulates the appearance of cedar shake. The Canadian Metal Roof Manufacturing Company is the manufacturer and installer. Horizonal and vertical 1 x3 strapping will be laid over the existing asphalt shingles and the new roof panels will be attached. The existing shape and massing of the roof will be maintained. Figure 4-6: Proposed Material Style and Rear and North -Side View of Roof Page 176 of 230 Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, heritage planning staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addresses as 93 Lancaster Street East 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 to reroof the existing asphalt shingle roof with a new steel roof system; • The existing roof is in poor condition and further is leading to water damage and deterioration to the bricks below; • The new roof gives the impression of cedar shake through its colour and shape, and is a colour, style, and material appropriate for the character of the area; • A number of other homes with the CCNHCD have metal roofs, including District Significance A Buildings such as 37 Ahrens Street West and 16 Maynard Street; o Further, there are precedents of a material change from asphalt to metal within the CCNHCD, including at 52 Ellen Street • The new roof system is more energy efficient, requires less maintenance, and can better withstand extreme weather conditions; • The proposed change is reversible; • The CCNHCD acknowledges that shingle roofs have a lifespan of 20-30 years and once they have deteriorated and the roof begun to leak, replacement is the only reasonable option; and • The proposed work will not adversely impact the heritage attributes or character of either the subject property, adjacent properties, or surrounding area. 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: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director, Planning Page 177 of 230 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-030 Form Attachment B — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-030 Supporting Documents Page 178 of 230 2022 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor .jR P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planningCu)-kitchener.ca PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 10 The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order that their Heritage Permit Application may be deemed complete and processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. If further assistance or explanation is required please contact heritage planning staff at heritage(ukitchener.ca. 1. WHAT IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Heritage Act, has enacted legislation to assist its citizens with the protection and conservation of cultural heritage resources. Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical change to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications and determine if proposed changes will beneficially or detrimentally affect the reasons for designation and heritage attributes. As a general rule, the preferred alterations to heritage properties are those that repair rather than replace original heritage attributes, and those that do not permanently damage cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. Where replacement of materials or new construction is necessary, these should be compatible with the original. Reversibility is also preferable as this allows for the future reinstatement of heritage attributes. According to the Ontario Heritage Act, no owner of designated property shall alter the property or permit the alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property's heritage attributes, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent. This consent is obtained through the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Heritage Permit Applications are applicable for all individually designated properties (under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and all properties located within the boundaries of Heritage Conservation Districts (designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act). 2. WHEN IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED? Under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, any new construction or "alteration" to a property designated under Part IV of the Act (individually designated property) or a property designated under Part V of the Act (within a Heritage Conservation District) requires a Heritage Permit Application. "Alteration" is defined as: "to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb." In addition, the approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required for any demolition of a property designated under Part IV or V of the Act. Please contact Heritage Planning staff directly to confirm if your specific project requires the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Below are some examples of typical Part IV alterations that may require a Heritage Permit Application: • Addition and/or alteration to an existing building or accessory building • Replacement of windows or doors, or a change in window or door openings • Change in siding, soffit, fascia or roofing material • Removal and/or installation of porches, verandahs and canopies • Removal and/or installation of cladding and chimneys • Changes in trim, cladding, or the painting of masonry • Repointing of brick Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 2 of 10 Note: Heritage Permit Application requirements differ between Part V designations depending on the policies and guidelines of the respective Heritage Conservation District Plans. Please refer to the City of Kitchener's website at www.kitchener.ca/heritage to download a copy of the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan (Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary's, Upper Doon, and Victoria Park Area). 3. WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED WITH A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The information required varies with each application. The intent of the application is to ensure that Heritage Planning staff and, where required, the Heritage Kitchener committee understand the specific details of any proposed changes in order to be sufficiently informed so they may offer advice to the applicant and, where required, to City Council. An incomplete application cannot be processed and the official notice of receipt (as required under the Ontario Heritage Act) will not be issued until all of the documents have been submitted. Failure to provide a complete application may result in deferral by Heritage Planning staff or the Heritage Kitchener committee in order to secure additional information, which will delay final approval. At minimum, the following information is required: Heritage Permit Application Form The applicant must provide a complete original copy, including signature of the owner, of the Heritage Permit Application Form. Written Description The applicant must provide a complete written description of all proposed work. The description should complement drawings, detailed construction plans, photos and any other sketches or supporting information submitted with the application. The written description must include a list and the details of all proposed work including, but not limited to, proposed colours, materials, sizes, etc. Construction and Elevation Drawings Along with construction elevation drawings (drawn to scale) the applicant may also, but not in lieu of, submit a sketch of the proposed work made over a photograph. Drawings must be drawn to scale and include: a) Overall dimensions b) Site plan depicting the location of existing buildings and the location of any proposed new building or addition to a building c) Elevation plan for each elevation of the building d) Specific sizes of building elements of interest (signs, windows, awnings, etc.) e) Detailed information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc., including sizes and profiles f) Building materials to be used (must also be included in the written description) g) Construction methods and means of attachment (must also be included in the written description) Some of the above components may be scoped or waived at the discretion of Heritage Planning staff following discussion with the applicant. Photographs Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, facing streetscape and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that may be affected by the proposed alteration, new construction, or demolition must be included. Electronic copies of construction and elevation drawings, sketches, and photographs, along with hard copies submitted with the application, are encouraged. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Samples Page 3 of 10 It is recommended that applicants bring samples of the materials to be used to the Heritage Kitchener meeting when their application is to be considered. This may include a sample of the windows, brick, siding, roofing material, as well as paint chips to identify proposed paint colours. Other Required Information In some circumstances Heritage Planning staff may require additional information, such as a Heritage Impact Assessment or Conservation Plan, to support the Heritage Permit Application. The requirement for additional information will be identified as early on in the Heritage Permit Application process as possible. Pre - consultation with Heritage Planning staff before formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application is strongly encouraged. 4. WHAT CAN I DO IF MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION IS DENIED? City of Kitchener Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee endeavour to come to solutions for every Heritage Permit Application submitted. Discussions with the applicant and revisions usually result in successful applications. However, if the municipality refuses your application and you choose not to resolve the issue with a revised application, you have the option of appealing the decision to the Conservation Review Board (for alterations to designated properties under Part IV) or the Ontario Municipal Board (for demolition of property designated under Part IV or for any work to designated property under Part V). 5. IMPORTANT NOTES Professional Assistance Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, draftsperson or others familiar with the assessment of buildings and the gathering together of building documents. Building Codes and Other By-laws It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure compliance with all other applicable legislation, regulations and by-laws. These items include the Ontario Building and Fire Codes, and the City's zoning and property standards by-laws. 2022 Heritage Permit Application Submission Deadlines 2022 Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates November 26, 2021 January 4, 2022 December 17, 2021 February 1, 2022 January 21, 2022 March 1, 2022 February 25, 2022 April 5, 2022 March 25, 2022 May 3, 2022 April 29, 2022 June 7, 2022 - No July Meeting June 24, 2022 August 2, 2022 July 29, 2022 September 6, 2022 - No October Meeting September 23, 2022 November 1, 2022 - No December Meeting Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 4 of 10 6. HOW DO I PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? a) Heritage Planning Staff are available to meet with applicants and review all documentation prior to formal submission. Often Heritage Planning staff can assist you with historical and architectural information that might help with your proposed changes. b) Formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application with all supporting documentation (written description, construction drawings, sketch plans, scale drawing, photographs) to Heritage Planning staff are due approximately five (5) weeks prior to a Heritage Kitchener meeting (see schedule for submission deadlines and committee meeting dates). c) Upon confirmation of the submission of a complete application, including the owner's signature and all supporting documentation, Heritage Planning staff will issue a Notice of Receipt, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act, to the Applicant. d) Heritage Planning staff determine whether the Heritage Permit Application may be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. Where Heritage Permit Applications can be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and Council, Heritage Planning staff will endeavour to process the application within 10 business days. e) Where Heritage Permit Applications are required to go to Heritage Kitchener, Heritage Planning staff prepare a staff Report based on good conservation practice and the designating by-law, or the guidelines and policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Preparation of the staff Report may require a site inspection. f) Heritage Kitchener Meeting Agenda, including staff Report, circulated to Committee members prior to Heritage Kitchener meeting. Staff Report circulated to applicant prior to meeting. g) Heritage Permit Application is considered at Heritage Kitchener meeting. Heritage Planning staff present staff Report and Recommendations to Heritage Kitchener. Applicants are encouraged to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting in order to provide clarification and answer questions as required. Failure to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting may result in a deferral in order to secure additional information, which would delay consideration of the Heritage Permit Application. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff, and Heritage Kitchener support the Heritage Permit Application, the application may be processed under delegated authority and approved by the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff and/or Heritage Kitchener do not support the Heritage Permit Application, the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation will be forwarded to Council for final decision. h) Where the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation are forward to Council for final decision, Council may: 1. Approve the Heritage Permit Application; 2. Approve the Heritage Permit Application on Terms and Conditions; or, 3. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application. i) Within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council's Decision, the applicant may appeal the decision and/or terms and conditions to the Conservation Review Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). 7. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DESIGNATED PROPERTY Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should indicate an understanding of the reasons for designation and heritage attributes of the designated property and, if applicable, the surrounding area, including the following: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 5 of 10 Setting 1. Positioning of the heritage building or structure on the property 2. Lot size related to building size 3. Streetscape (relationship to other properties and structures on the street) Building Details 1. Proportion and massing 2. Roof type and shape 3. Materials and detailing 4. Windows and doors: • Style • Proportions • Frequency or placement 5. Relationship of the heritage building to other buildings on the lot and to the streetscape Heritage Attributes The following applies where a Heritage Permit Application includes work on heritage attributes: Windows and Doors The applicant should consider in order of priority: 1. Repairing or retrofitting the existing units (information on how to make older windows more energy efficient is available from Heritage Planning staff) 2. Replacing the units with new units matching the originals in material, design, proportion and colour 3. Replacing the units with new units that are generally in keeping with the original units If historic window units are proposed to be replaced the application should include the following: • Description of the condition of the existing units • Reasons for replacing the units • Description of the proposed new units If approval to replace historic window units is given, the following action should be considered: • A sample of a window removed should be stored on site in case a future owner wishes to construct a replica of the original • The masonry opening and/or door framing should not be disturbed • Exterior trim should match the original Roofing The application should include: • Description of proposed roofing material to be applied • If there is a request to install a different roofing material, the applicant may wish to investigate what the original material might have been Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 6 of 10 Masonry Work The application should include: A description of the proposed work, materials (type/style of brick, type of mortar mix, etc.) and methods of repair and application • Outline the reasons for the work Signage The application should include: • A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials, methods of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between historic masonry units or into wood building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable Awnings The application should include: • A sketch view of the proposed awning — perhaps over a photo A scale drawing of the awning on the building with dimensions, materials, operating mechanism, method of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between masonry units or into wooden building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable. 8. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should describe the existing conditions, including the existing setting and existing heritage attributes, of the designated property and the surrounding area, specifically as they relate to the building proposed for demolition. The Heritage Permit Application should provide a detailed rationale for the demolition, including an assessment of the current condition of the building, and a cost comparison identifying the difference in cost to repair and restore the building versus cost to demolish and construct a new building. 9. HERITAGE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES The Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work (e.g., alteration, new construction or demolition) is consistent with the designating by-law for individual properties (Part IV) or the Heritage Conservation District Plan for properties within a Heritage Conservation District (Part V designation). In addition, the Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work is consistent with the Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx). For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritage(o-)-kitchener.ca. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor .jR P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planningCu)-kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Page 7 of 10 Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION 12 Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction 0 Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 93 Lancaster St. E. Kitchener N2H 1 M5 Legal Description (if know): Building/Structure Type: ® Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) 0 Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ❑ No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Address: City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener, ON N21-1 1 M5 Phone: Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company: Address: City/Province/Postal Code: Phone: Email: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 8 of 10 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. See attached document 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: See attached document Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: See attached document Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx): See attached document 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: Spring 2023 Expected completion date: Summer 2023 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? - If yes, who did you speak to? Jessica Vieira c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? e) Other related Building or Planning applications 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No Application number, Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: - Date: November 2, 2022 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: November 2, 2022 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, , owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: to act on my / our behalf in this regard. The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage Page 10 of 10 Heritage Permit Application 93 Lancaster St. E. Kitchener, ON N2H IMS November 2, 2022 Page 189 of 230 Contents ApplicationForm...........................................................................................................................................3 Part5 — Written Description.....................................................................................................................3 Part 6 — Review of City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines ...................... 3 Imagesin support of Part 5...........................................................................................................................6 Withthe proposed style Royal..............................................................................................................6 With the proposed colour Slate Grey...................................................................................................7 Weather -worn cedar shake..................................................................................................................8 Other work done by Canadian Metal Roof Manufacturing......................................................................9 Within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood...............................................................................................9 Other metal roofs done by unknown installers within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood ......................12 More Steel Roofs in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood................................................................................17 ArchitecturalRanking..............................................................................................................................17 Thecondition of our roof............................................................................................................................18 2 Page 190 of 230 Application Form Part 5 —Written Description Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. The roof on the house needs to be replaced. Shingles are worn and often come loose or blow off during major wind events. Instead of re-covering with asphalt shingles, we would like to install a metal roof overtop of the existing shingles. We have chosen Canadian Metal Roof Manufacturing (CMRM) as the manufacturer and installer. The material to be used is steel with a colour of Slate Gray RAL 7024. The design pattern of the panels is the company's newest offering called Royal. The design simulates the appearance of cedar shake. We chose Slate Gray because of its similarity to weather -worn cedar shake. CMRM claims their roof system provides an energy savings of up to 40%. They offer a 50 year warranty on steel roofs, and claim they are maintenance free. According to the salesperson (but not mentioned in their brochure), their steel roofs can withstand winds up to 120 mph (193 km/h). The accompanying pictures show the chosen design and colour. There are also pictures of CMRM's work within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood, presumably the result of approved Heritage Permit Applications. Part 6 — Review of City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: The asphalt shingles are aging. The south side of the roof was last re -shingled in 2008. The rest was done prior to August 2006. During many wind events over the past decade, shingles have come loose or completely blown off. The result is patchwork replacements or less than perfect re -hanging of the original shingles. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Cedar shake was a common roofing material during the time period when this property was built. Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada: One of the historically significant features of the house at 93 Lancaster St. E. is the intricate brickwork that is not present in neighbouring houses. Examples of the brickwork are shown in the following two images. Page 191 of 230 I 4 Page 192 of 230 Given the age of the wood soffit and fascia, it is important to protect it from the elements as best as possible. Aging asphalt shingles can allow water to seep onto and into the wood. Strong winds have the potential of lifting the edges of the shingles, and if accompanied by rain, allow that moisture to get under the shingles. Any retained moisture will work its way down, and eventually into the bricks. Approximately 60 bricks were replaced in 2020 due to moisture getting inside the bricks and having frozen and blown out the exterior of the bricks. Adding a waterproof steel roof will help protect the fascia, soffit and bricks better than shingles. Page 193 of 230 Images in support of Part 5 With the proposed style Royal 90 Ellis Ave. Style: Royal Material: Steel Colour: RAL9005 Black 7:1 Page 194 of 230 With the proposed colour Slate Grey 111 South Dr. Style: Indigo Material: Steel Colour: RAL7024 Slate Grey tw �`'i`� "''�✓"rte``✓ t. ''� v r -y- Zl_ _ I r t TT III! I i t II I ti k,'R f -r i if I II Ili �I I[, Ili I I 7 Page 195 of 230 Weather -worn cedar shake 209 Frederick St. Style: Cedar Shake Material: Cedar Colour: Weather -worn grey -brown in shadow In sunlight Page 196 of 230 15 St. Leger St. Style: Indigo Material: Steel Colour: RAL9005 Black 10 Page 198 of 230 * t. Pill S✓" s 10 •�: z int N '��. - S w� 1 f Other metal roofs done by unknown installers within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood 178 Queen St. N. 12 Page 200 of 230 of e. ii`F�1. .� 106 �✓♦i�J)rlpr �. pr I��fiii .w r1�1d lml I �- L .a ar r� �\RPI � r{ /�`,�• er '� sA 86 Lancaster St. E. 15 Page 203 of 230 70 Lancaster St. E. 16 Page 204 of 230 More Steel Roofs in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood A drive around the Civic Centre Neighbourhood will provide a better understanding of how many homeowners are having steel roofs installed instead of asphalt shingles. Houses with steel roofs include, but are not limited to: 41 & 86 Lancaster St. E. 144 & 178 Queen St. N. 8 St. Leger St. 10, 11, 17, 25, 35, 37, 43, 52, 57 & 59 Ellen St. W. 32, 37, 76 & 80 Ahrens St. W. 95, 104 & 124 College St. 109 Young St. 16 & 28 Maynard St. Architectural Ranking Our house at 93 Lancaster St. E. has an A ranking according to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. The following addresses are also ranked as A properties, and have also been outfitted with metal roofs: 37 Ahrens St. W. 95 College St. 16 Maynard St. 17 Page 205 of 230 Waves Loose shingle Replaced shingles View from the front: 19 Page 207 of 230 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: January 3, 2023 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 4 DATE OF REPORT: December 13, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-017 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-033 1246 Doon Village Road Demolition and Replacement of Front Sunroom RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-032 to permit the demolition and reconstruction of a front sunroom at the property municipally addressed as 1246 Doon Village Road, 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 demolishing and reconstructing the existing sunroom on the front fagade of the property municipally addressed as 1246 Doon Village Road, as detailed in Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-032 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 or surrounding area, as it maintains the original appearance of the sunroom and uses appropriate material as well as complies with the policies and guidelines of the Upper Doon 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. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 208 of 230 BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application 2022-V- 033, which seeks permission to demolish an existing front sunroom and construct a new front sunroom on the property municipally addressed as 1246 Doon Village Road, located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (UDHCD). REPORT: �? -HoM�R �ggrSoN:eCVD, � � ------------- Hc -- ----He p � rtu--J E --- - BOON VILLAGE Rp Z boon Creek Natural Area '7 O School Creek Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property The subject property is located on the north side of Doon Village Road, between the Doon South Drive intersection and Wilfong Drive intersection. It is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is classified as an A Building within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan (UDHCD Plan) Figure 2: Front Elevation of Subject Property Page 209 of 230 The UDHCD Plan describes the building on the subject property as being modest scale and constructed of brick and wood, with the front -gable facing the street. Built c. 1890 the structure was originally used as a general store with living quarters situated above the ground floor, until 1983-1984 when it was converted into a single detached dwelling. Notable features of the building include the attic hoist, the small paned interior sash, and the original or early chimney. Figure 3: Drawing of Original Home From Upper Doon HCD Plan Proposed Work Removal of Existing Front Sunroom The existing front sunroom of the home is presently in poor condition due to age and weather cycles. There is visible deterioration in the sides as well as water leakage and concerns about structural instability. The deterioration has already led to the removal of the railings and posts on balcony above the sunroom. As such, demolition of the existing front sunroom is proposed. The policy of the UDHCD which pertains to the demolition of historic A buildings references the demolition of entire structures. The proposed work involves the demolition of only a portion of the building to allow for its reconstruction, which is required to address the issues identified previously. Page 210 of 230 Figure 4-5: Deterioration of the Existing Sunroom Construction of New Front Sunroom Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-033 seeks permission to construct a new front sunroom in place of the old. The new sunroom is to have the same footprint as the existing, being 5.8 metes (18 feet 11 inches) in length and 2.3 metres (7 feet 5 inches) in depth. The exterior cladding will be wood board and batten and the railing and posts of the amenity space above will be wood. The window openings are to be the same size and the new wood windows will also be single -hung and similar to the original in appearance. There are no proposed deviations from the design of the original sunroom. FRONT ELEVATION EXISTING DETERIORA WALLS TO BE REPLACED MAIN FLOOR Figure 6-7: Construction Drawings of the Proposed New Sunroom a11 Page 211 of 230 Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, heritage planning staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addresses as 1246 Doon Village Road is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, is located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District, and is classified as a district significance A Building; • The proposal is for the removal of a sunroom and construction of a new sunroom on the front of the subject dwelling; • The proposed work is in compliance with the following UDHCD Plan policies; o Roof.- Original roof shapes, materials, and details should be conserved. Where missing, roofs should be rebuilt to the original or to compliment those of the period. ■ As with the original roof of the sunroom, the new sunroom roof will be flat and will accommodate exterior amenity space. The posts and railings of this second -storey amenity space will be comprised of wood and will be vertical to maintain the original appearance and to accommodate building code requirements. o Windows: Original windows should be conserved. Where missing, windows should be rebuilt to the original or to complement those of the period ■ Due to deterioration, it is not feasible for the existing original windows to be conserved. The new windows will be as similar to the original as possible in terms of size, design, style, and materials used. o Materials: Original building fabric should be conserved. Where renewed, materials appropriate and typical of the Heritage District shall be used with an emphasis on natural fabrics such as brick, stone, and wood as opposed to metals and plastic. ■ Due to deterioration, it is not feasible to conserve the fabric of the existing sunroom. The new sunroom is proposed to be constructed using wood, which is an appropriate material for the area. • The proposed work will not adversely impact the heritage attributes or character of either the subject property, adjacent properties, or surrounding area. 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. Page 212 of 230 PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act • Upper Doon Heritage Conservation Plan APPROVED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director, Planning ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-033 Form Attachment B — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-033 Drawings Attachment C — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-033 Supporting Document Page 213 of 230 2022 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor .jR P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planningCu)-kitchener.ca PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 10 The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order that their Heritage Permit Application may be deemed complete and processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. If further assistance or explanation is required please contact heritage planning staff at heritage(ukitchener.ca. 1. WHAT IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Heritage Act, has enacted legislation to assist its citizens with the protection and conservation of cultural heritage resources. Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical change to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications and determine if proposed changes will beneficially or detrimentally affect the reasons for designation and heritage attributes. As a general rule, the preferred alterations to heritage properties are those that repair rather than replace original heritage attributes, and those that do not permanently damage cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. Where replacement of materials or new construction is necessary, these should be compatible with the original. Reversibility is also preferable as this allows for the future reinstatement of heritage attributes. According to the Ontario Heritage Act, no owner of designated property shall alter the property or permit the alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property's heritage attributes, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent. This consent is obtained through the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Heritage Permit Applications are applicable for all individually designated properties (under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and all properties located within the boundaries of Heritage Conservation Districts (designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act). 2. WHEN IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED? Under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, any new construction or "alteration" to a property designated under Part IV of the Act (individually designated property) or a property designated under Part V of the Act (within a Heritage Conservation District) requires a Heritage Permit Application. "Alteration" is defined as: "to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb." In addition, the approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required for any demolition of a property designated under Part IV or V of the Act. Please contact Heritage Planning staff directly to confirm if your specific project requires the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Below are some examples of typical Part IV alterations that may require a Heritage Permit Application: • Addition and/or alteration to an existing building or accessory building • Replacement of windows or doors, or a change in window or door openings • Change in siding, soffit, fascia or roofing material • Removal and/or installation of porches, verandahs and canopies • Removal and/or installation of cladding and chimneys • Changes in trim, cladding, or the painting of masonry • Repointing of brick Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 2 of 10 Note: Heritage Permit Application requirements differ between Part V designations depending on the policies and guidelines of the respective Heritage Conservation District Plans. Please refer to the City of Kitchener's website at www.kitchener.ca/heritage to download a copy of the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan (Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary's, Upper Doon, and Victoria Park Area). 3. WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED WITH A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The information required varies with each application. The intent of the application is to ensure that Heritage Planning staff and, where required, the Heritage Kitchener committee understand the specific details of any proposed changes in order to be sufficiently informed so they may offer advice to the applicant and, where required, to City Council. An incomplete application cannot be processed and the official notice of receipt (as required under the Ontario Heritage Act) will not be issued until all of the documents have been submitted. Failure to provide a complete application may result in deferral by Heritage Planning staff or the Heritage Kitchener committee in order to secure additional information, which will delay final approval. At minimum, the following information is required: Heritage Permit Application Form The applicant must provide a complete original copy, including signature of the owner, of the Heritage Permit Application Form. Written Description The applicant must provide a complete written description of all proposed work. The description should complement drawings, detailed construction plans, photos and any other sketches or supporting information submitted with the application. The written description must include a list and the details of all proposed work including, but not limited to, proposed colours, materials, sizes, etc. Construction and Elevation Drawings Along with construction elevation drawings (drawn to scale) the applicant may also, but not in lieu of, submit a sketch of the proposed work made over a photograph. Drawings must be drawn to scale and include: a) Overall dimensions b) Site plan depicting the location of existing buildings and the location of any proposed new building or addition to a building c) Elevation plan for each elevation of the building d) Specific sizes of building elements of interest (signs, windows, awnings, etc.) e) Detailed information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc., including sizes and profiles f) Building materials to be used (must also be included in the written description) g) Construction methods and means of attachment (must also be included in the written description) Some of the above components may be scoped or waived at the discretion of Heritage Planning staff following discussion with the applicant. Photographs Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, facing streetscape and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that may be affected by the proposed alteration, new construction, or demolition must be included. Electronic copies of construction and elevation drawings, sketches, and photographs, along with hard copies submitted with the application, are encouraged. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Samples Page 3 of 10 It is recommended that applicants bring samples of the materials to be used to the Heritage Kitchener meeting when their application is to be considered. This may include a sample of the windows, brick, siding, roofing material, as well as paint chips to identify proposed paint colours. Other Required Information In some circumstances Heritage Planning staff may require additional information, such as a Heritage Impact Assessment or Conservation Plan, to support the Heritage Permit Application. The requirement for additional information will be identified as early on in the Heritage Permit Application process as possible. Pre - consultation with Heritage Planning staff before formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application is strongly encouraged. 4. WHAT CAN I DO IF MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION IS DENIED? City of Kitchener Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee endeavour to come to solutions for every Heritage Permit Application submitted. Discussions with the applicant and revisions usually result in successful applications. However, if the municipality refuses your application and you choose not to resolve the issue with a revised application, you have the option of appealing the decision to the Conservation Review Board (for alterations to designated properties under Part IV) or the Ontario Municipal Board (for demolition of property designated under Part IV or for any work to designated property under Part V). 5. IMPORTANT NOTES Professional Assistance Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, draftsperson or others familiar with the assessment of buildings and the gathering together of building documents. Building Codes and Other By-laws It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure compliance with all other applicable legislation, regulations and by-laws. These items include the Ontario Building and Fire Codes, and the City's zoning and property standards by-laws. 2022 Heritage Permit Application Submission Deadlines 2022 Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates November 26, 2021 January 4, 2022 December 17, 2021 February 1, 2022 January 21, 2022 March 1, 2022 February 25, 2022 April 5, 2022 March 25, 2022 May 3, 2022 April 29, 2022 June 7, 2022 - No July Meeting June 24, 2022 August 2, 2022 July 29, 2022 September 6, 2022 - No October Meeting September 23, 2022 November 1, 2022 - No December Meeting Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 4 of 10 6. HOW DO I PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? a) Heritage Planning Staff are available to meet with applicants and review all documentation prior to formal submission. Often Heritage Planning staff can assist you with historical and architectural information that might help with your proposed changes. b) Formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application with all supporting documentation (written description, construction drawings, sketch plans, scale drawing, photographs) to Heritage Planning staff are due approximately five (5) weeks prior to a Heritage Kitchener meeting (see schedule for submission deadlines and committee meeting dates). c) Upon confirmation of the submission of a complete application, including the owner's signature and all supporting documentation, Heritage Planning staff will issue a Notice of Receipt, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act, to the Applicant. d) Heritage Planning staff determine whether the Heritage Permit Application may be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. Where Heritage Permit Applications can be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and Council, Heritage Planning staff will endeavour to process the application within 10 business days. e) Where Heritage Permit Applications are required to go to Heritage Kitchener, Heritage Planning staff prepare a staff Report based on good conservation practice and the designating by-law, or the guidelines and policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Preparation of the staff Report may require a site inspection. f) Heritage Kitchener Meeting Agenda, including staff Report, circulated to Committee members prior to Heritage Kitchener meeting. Staff Report circulated to applicant prior to meeting. g) Heritage Permit Application is considered at Heritage Kitchener meeting. Heritage Planning staff present staff Report and Recommendations to Heritage Kitchener. Applicants are encouraged to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting in order to provide clarification and answer questions as required. Failure to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting may result in a deferral in order to secure additional information, which would delay consideration of the Heritage Permit Application. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff, and Heritage Kitchener support the Heritage Permit Application, the application may be processed under delegated authority and approved by the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff and/or Heritage Kitchener do not support the Heritage Permit Application, the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation will be forwarded to Council for final decision. h) Where the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation are forward to Council for final decision, Council may: 1. Approve the Heritage Permit Application; 2. Approve the Heritage Permit Application on Terms and Conditions; or, 3. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application. i) Within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council's Decision, the applicant may appeal the decision and/or terms and conditions to the Conservation Review Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). 7. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DESIGNATED PROPERTY Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should indicate an understanding of the reasons for designation and heritage attributes of the designated property and, if applicable, the surrounding area, including the following: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 5 of 10 Setting 1. Positioning of the heritage building or structure on the property 2. Lot size related to building size 3. Streetscape (relationship to other properties and structures on the street) Building Details 1. Proportion and massing 2. Roof type and shape 3. Materials and detailing 4. Windows and doors: • Style • Proportions • Frequency or placement 5. Relationship of the heritage building to other buildings on the lot and to the streetscape Heritage Attributes The following applies where a Heritage Permit Application includes work on heritage attributes: Windows and Doors The applicant should consider in order of priority: 1. Repairing or retrofitting the existing units (information on how to make older windows more energy efficient is available from Heritage Planning staff) 2. Replacing the units with new units matching the originals in material, design, proportion and colour 3. Replacing the units with new units that are generally in keeping with the original units If historic window units are proposed to be replaced the application should include the following: • Description of the condition of the existing units • Reasons for replacing the units • Description of the proposed new units If approval to replace historic window units is given, the following action should be considered: • A sample of a window removed should be stored on site in case a future owner wishes to construct a replica of the original • The masonry opening and/or door framing should not be disturbed • Exterior trim should match the original Roofing The application should include: • Description of proposed roofing material to be applied • If there is a request to install a different roofing material, the applicant may wish to investigate what the original material might have been Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 6 of 10 Masonry Work The application should include: A description of the proposed work, materials (type/style of brick, type of mortar mix, etc.) and methods of repair and application • Outline the reasons for the work Signage The application should include: • A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials, methods of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between historic masonry units or into wood building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable Awnings The application should include: • A sketch view of the proposed awning — perhaps over a photo A scale drawing of the awning on the building with dimensions, materials, operating mechanism, method of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between masonry units or into wooden building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable. 8. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should describe the existing conditions, including the existing setting and existing heritage attributes, of the designated property and the surrounding area, specifically as they relate to the building proposed for demolition. The Heritage Permit Application should provide a detailed rationale for the demolition, including an assessment of the current condition of the building, and a cost comparison identifying the difference in cost to repair and restore the building versus cost to demolish and construct a new building. 9. HERITAGE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES The Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work (e.g., alteration, new construction or demolition) is consistent with the designating by-law for individual properties (Part IV) or the Heritage Conservation District Plan for properties within a Heritage Conservation District (Part V designation). In addition, the Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work is consistent with the Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx). For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritage(o-)-kitchener.ca. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Page 7 of 10 1 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor i�ITCHENEi� P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planningCu)_kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: Phone: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION C�'Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: Legal Description (if know): Building/Structure Type: "Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional 177". Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) LJPart V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Address: epi H21" i*5 City/Province/Postal Code: Phone: Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: GS ENGINEERING GROUP 189 QUEEN ST. E Company: CAMBRIDGE,ON Address: 519 497 3950 eorgese ra gmai .com City/Province/Postal Code: C of A # 100143501 Phone: Email: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 10 Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. Replace Front porch 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: It is deteriorating and it needs to be rebuild. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: We using same materials or similar Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx): 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: Expected completion date: Feb 1 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ❑Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? C 'Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ,I Yes ❑ No e) Other related Building or Planning applications Application number. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Oct 10,2022 A Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Oct 11/22 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, owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Oct 11/22 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2022 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage Page 10 of 10 ff Please see attached application form -A written description of the proposed work, including material to be used, methodology, explanation for why the work is to occur etc. The more detail that can be provided the better. • Photographs of the subject property itself and the area of work -A cost estimate Replacing existing Covered front porch with similar materials, exact dimensions. The railing and deck/ceiling will be removed, followed by walls. The work to be done because the existing structure is deteriorating and will soon become unsafe to occupy due to, water leakage and age. Replacement like for like. Wall: Siding Windows same size Wood railing r(1Ct PCtim;,tP• On nnn Page 224 of 230 9 bar? CD O c Z � C O O IN Z in (6 _________________________________ d ---------------------------- > c� C Z N O F c7 Q X Cl) N m m LU Q M Z LL m Y U Z G��aEEH o O 0� '66r2 V, i r i ❑ V1 N d W W � W X Z c�lU md, W J? ------------------------- LL o ------------------------ ` — / b.0 W m a 0u 0 m N U .@ M Z Z p IJJZ LUSO o� W m W @ o Z 0 70 91®SXZ z D Ir m.# J W Q m tn�¢°'a�io z , N J Uin U' U 0 p a N x r OL O LL Z o ca G J � W X � n z m O 2 R e k Q 2u _ / E J » & 2, / CL L § / N\ m 32 ° \ x\ ? / t / ® :\\ [If ® I \ 2 < , / ƒ j \ t 2 q ° < LU L § O 3, u) o#r « bjQ m d) 2 Q% _j LLJ 2 ¥ 1 ej Lu ¥ / , b {i )� / \q X %/) \\ w < /�§ bjO 4: 2 >g% ®§ LU - \}� /9 ƒ jtF \§ \ :} }F X4 ~ \3u me , % El ) / & LU / / 43 e } ) § _ Q ® Ei o&M/}» )%\ \) O !}!e,—gut (L d) ]Lu\§\\ rG%%J8I3\ znQ,®- !G;)(f G9G2CID 3 f ------------------------------------------ ® \ § f_ 4 A 0 §§ L 52 \ ® U) $ O � , ) G ( § % z j/ \\\\\\\\\\ 00 N N N 0) (6 IL 229 of 230 c7 0 a A •p A0 r. o ww o G/1 zb o0u V o a�xx �x w o N � U A � u, a y a 0 P� o � Hu I rIH-